[OBW]

Originally Posted by Oregon

It didn’t have to be taught. What was taught was that there was only one body and the division of that one body was judged and condemned. So if there were believers in a certain place…..they were “the one body”….or ….”the church” in that place. That’s why the New Testament is full of references concerning “THE” church at such and such a place………………………………................................. .................................................. .............................................NEVER ……………..”Churches” at such and such a place.

Oregon,

The problem with the discussion about church in city v churches in city is equivocation. You are burdened with the notion that the word we translate as church is exclusively the equivalent of “assembly” and that it is meant exclusively in practical terms, both in the first century and now whenever it is used.

The first place that “church” appears is singular and refers to the entirety of believers. Matt. 16:18 “I will build my church” Here Jesus is making reference to the whole of the church. He is not referring to one city. Someone once suggested this was about Jerusalem, but they were not in Jerusalem at the time. Whether the “rock” was Jesus, Peter, or some physical rock of note in the area they were in, it was not Jerusalem. But neither was he talking specifically about that location. He meant the church. I do not see another way to understand this verse. It is about the church — all of it, not just some location, whether city, county, region, or even just whoever meets together wherever they do.

Two chapters later, Matt.18:17 says “tell it to the church” This would seem to make “church” practical, but it does not define that practicality. Nothing is said to give that boundaries. In this context, there was an incident that made the news in Dallas a few years ago. Seems a man who was a member of a certain church (assembly, whatever) in the area was involved in an affair and had no intention of stopping. This church basically exercised its authority to exclude him from fellowship, and set out to write letters to other churches in the area of their decision. This particular church was not part of some denomination, but rightly considered itself and all others around to be the church.

Throughout Acts there are references that are clearly with respect to certain cities, yet a few are vague and at least one is often translated as singular with respect to all believers in large region. Acts 9:31 “Then the church throughout Judea, Galilee and Samaria enjoyed a time of peace. It was strengthened; and encouraged by the Holy Spirit, it grew in numbers, living in the fear of the Lord.” There is uncertainty here because some translate this a plural while others as singular. While there is a debate to be had over the correct number for the word “church,” the uncertainty points to an ambiguity as to what “church” generally refers. Is it merely practical assemblies, or is it more about believers?

Then we come to the references to home churches. Three are referenced (Rom 16:4-6, 1 Cor 16:19, Col4:15). While unclear as to actual location (whether within the bounds of the city to which the letter is written, some other city, or elsewhere), they are spoken of positively.

3 John refers to the church without local context. We might presume Jerusalem, but that is not certain.

One more of note is Hebrews 12:23 “the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven.” This might be argued as prophetic concerning a future time, but all of the verbs are present tense. But more importantly, we do not see the church referred to in terms of location, but in terms of members.

Even when we take all the opening greeting of Paul’s letters in which he refers to “church in (or “at”) city,” in the light of the totality of scripture’s use of “church” it is difficult to make these into more than a greeting to the believers in and/or around the named city. They are the church whether they meet in one location with one set of elders or in many, including someone’s house(s). If Paul wrote to a city with several small assemblies, as might have actually been the case in Ephesus, being possibly as large as 400,000 to 500,000 population, and asked for the elders to meet with him, whether there was one set of elders that roamed within those assemblies or elders in each one, they were all called. There is nothing in this that defines or requires a singularity such as “one city one church.” In God’s eyes, we are the church regardless of the way we practice.

Besides, what division is there in Christianity? We meet in separate buildings? For those who argue against large assemblies, then large cities would have thousands of small assemblies. What walls divide them? For the most part, all Christians are welcome. Some may require assent to some particular doctrinal statement or creed to be an official member, but that is more political/ governmental than exclusionary. Non-members are welcome and are free to partake of the Lord’s table.

As to divisions condemned, it was really only in one place — Corinth. And they were fighting over who to follow, even excluding from their circle those who followed another. So where does a “one publication” edict fit into this? It makes the LC more like the divisions in Corinth than most of Christianity. We meet separately, but we do not mistreat those who do not follow a particular leader or refrain from speaking on their own.

Much more to say, but will stop here.