[Hope]

Re: The Ground Of The Church
________________________________________
Quote:

Originally Posted by Gubei
The ground of church is not mentioned literally in the Bible, just as Trinity is not.
The "doctrine of the Trinity" was formed very early in church history because it is all over the pages of the New Testament. The major teachings/doctrines/beliefs regarding the Trinity are central and core to the Christian faith. The "ground of the church" is, at best, a very minor, peripheral matter, which is why it is not addressed by the Lord Jesus, the scripture writing apostles or even the early church fathers. None of the early councils dealt with "the church ground" either.
Quote:
What matters is what the ground of church is talking about. The ground is simply locality. This means there is no dividing factor among Christians except locality....

Posted by Unto,

Gubei, you really need to go back and read the New Testament my brother (and Less of Nee/Lee)...there are only two reasons for division amongst Christians - Sin and false teachings. Sadly, there was/is more then enough of these negatives in the Local Church for a stern warning to be sounded to current LC members, as well as to those considering joining the movement.

--------------------------------------------------------------
From Hope, this post
Dear Brother Unto,
It would be excellent if we did not have such a convoluted history regarding this term “ground of the church.” It is not a scriptural expression and is not anywhere on the same level as the non-scriptural term Trinity. Yet, what some, including myself were thinking when they heard the term “ground of the church” was the teachings and declarations of the New Testament regarding the Headship of Christ and the Oneness of the Spirit and the One Body and the One New Man and the functioning members who are one Body and the non-preferential care for all the members of the One Body. Over the years, I have put as much of the errors of the LSM out of my mind as the Lord has allowed me to purge. I have not been wild and just tossed the baby with the bath water. I cannot remember using the term “ground of the church” in decades, maybe for over 30 years. I never liked the term even when with the church in Dallas. I have always preferred to use the Bible and Bible terminology. In fact, a wonderful deacon in Dallas turned me in to Benson in the early 80’s for saying we should not be quoting WN and WL but rather the Bible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hope
When it comes to the practicality of a spiritual reality, the Bible does not give prescriptive formulas

Posted by Unto:

While there are some exceptions to this, for example the establishment of baptism and the Lord's Table, I would strongly disagree that "the ground of the church" could be considered anything aproaching "a spiritual reality". Again, this is taking into account that our oneness is not based upon where we meet, the style of our meeting, etc, etc.

Dear Brother Unto,
The fact of the church and the practical functioning Body of Christ as described in Romans 12 has a spiritual reality. Placing this spiritual fact and practice in a time and place involves both practice and reality. Just shouting "ground of the church" will not get the job done. I know for a fact that the early brothers, such as John Ingalls, Bill Mallon, and John So, to name a few, desired deeply to see the spiritual reality of the church realized in a practical local expression. They were not in love with a term "ground of the church."

Post from Brother Unto,

So, if the Bible does not give us any prescriptive formula for the practice of the ground of the church, then why would we allow/participate/ in the establishment of an entire sect/movement which is largely based upon this prescriptive formula? Admitedly, I am overstating a bit here to make my point.

Dear Brother Unto,
In the early days, I do not believe that the fellowship among the brothers and sisters centered around the issue of the ground of the church. It is a true fact that this term came to have a central role in the formation of a movement that differed from the original move of the Spirit.

Be careful both ways. Do not throw out the baby with the bath water. But do throw out the bath water for the baby's sake. For example. You cannot find the Southern Baptist Denomination in the New Testament. How could millions of believers establish a movement over a certain form of Baptism?

BUT believers Baptism is a big thing to me. It is worth fighting for. The story of the battle for this truth is quite a testimony of the work of the Spirit and the courage of many. But taking this truth regarding Baptism as a measure by which to divide the Body of Christ and set believer against believer is a shame. I ask how could this happen? None of this is very simple.

Quote: from Hope
The church, the assembly, the Body of Christ, Christ as the Head of the Body etc. must be first and foremost practiced locally and even individually. Hence, the stress in the New Testament on the “local church.”

From Unto,

This part really perplexes me (not that this is too hard to do ) How does one practice the church "individually"?

Dear Brother Unto,

For example, Heb 10:24-25, and let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, 25 not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another; and all the more, as you see the day drawing near. NASB

How often should we assemble? How much and how do we encourage one another? How do we stimulate one another to love and good deeds? Which good deeds? All of these matters of a practical church life must be practiced in each particular situation by each particular brother or sister. THE ISSUE IS THAT EACH OF US INDIVIDUALLY MUST SEEK THE LORD DIRECTLY. Then we must seek the Lord collectively but not much at all on an extra local scope. If we are extra local, then we will not need to seek the Lord as our head but can just defer to a program.

To take individual and local responsibility to live before the Lord is not common among the believers today. Most have deferred to a clergyman or system of some sort and or to the program from headquarters. And everyone suffers loss.

Hope, Don Rutledge