One Church - One City - Biblical?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

How about YOU should fellowship with all believers in the city.

If the city has only a Roman Catholic church and a Jehovah Witness church, for example, please tell me how we should do that? We should join their services are you saying? The Catholic think I've come to join them to become a Catholic and want to baptize me and the JW do as well. What should I do?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If the city has only a Roman Catholic church and a Jehovah Witness church, for example, please tell me how we should do that? We should join their services are you saying?

How many people do you have to have to have a church? You said that 3 is not enough. What is the minimum number?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

How many people do you have to have to have a church? You said that 3 is not enough. What is the minimum number?

The context of 3 not being enough was 2 or 3 calling themselves a church or the church, to the exclusion of a larger number of believers in the same city. If there truly is only 2 or 3 believers in a city that is enough for a church.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The context of 3 not being enough was 2 or 3 calling themselves a church or the church, to the exclusion of a larger number of believers in the same city. If there truly is only 2 or 3 believers in a city that is enough for a church.

So you are now saying that 2 or 3 are a church, the requirement is to "call yourself a church"?

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If the city has only a Roman Catholic church and a Jehovah Witness church, for example, please tell me how we should do that? We should join their services are you saying? The Catholic think I've come to join them to become a Catholic and want to baptize me and the JW do as well. What should I do?

I said fellowship with believers. Yet, you changed this to a comment about
JW and Catholic meetings.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

I said fellowship with believers. Yet, you changed this to a comment about
JW and Catholic meetings.

I know, and believers are in JW and Catholic meetings and a multitude of other denominations. You see we face a practical difficulty in fellow shipping with all believers.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You see we face a practical difficulty in fellow shipping with all believers.

Who does? Who is "we"? I face the same difficulty. Yet, since coming out of the LC, I endeavor to fellowship with any believer that comes across my path--because that is what the Lord wants. Don't you think that makes the Lord happy? He prayed "that they all may be one" (John 17). And LC people think that "taking the ground" and calling themselves "the church" is the answer to that prayer. Sadly, it is just another part of the division.

It is a heart-matter. Not a name-matter.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Who does? Who is "we"? I face the same difficulty. Yet, since coming out of the LC, I endeavor to fellowship with any believer that comes across my path--because that is what the Lord wants. Don't you think that makes the Lord happy? He prayed "that they all may be one" (John 17). And LC people think that "taking the ground" and calling themselves "the church" is the answer to that prayer. Sadly, it is just another part of the division.

It is a heart-matter. Not a name-matter.

When I was still in the denominations, the local church fellow shipped with me. So that disproves your claims that we do not fellowship with other believers. I wouldn't be in the local churches if not for their fellowship.

Unlike denominations we use fellowship to build the church.

We fellowship with any believer that comes across our path as well. I fellowship with other believers at my work place. I've fellow shipped with people of various denominational backgrounds even those of different religions. We have prayed, read the bible together and sung songs. We are all about fellowship with believers. And the sort of fellowship we are about is bible reading and prayer, not just doing something social.

Don't think we are not fellow shipping with other believers just because we are not holding a "ecumenical church service".

Regarding hearts and names, both are important. You cannot say it is only about the heart. For example, how would any husband feel if their wife changed their surname to another man's surname? Suppose the other man's surname is better. She may still be his wife in her heart, but taking another name would be not right at all, even if the other man's name is a better name.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

When I was still in the denominations, the local church fellow shipped with me. So that disproves your claims that we do not fellowship with other believers. I wouldn't be in the local churches if not for their fellowship.

I did not make such a claim.

Unlike denominations we use fellowship to build the church.

We fellowship with any believer that comes across our path as well. I fellowship with other believers at my work place. I've fellow shipped with people of various denominational backgrounds even those of different religions. We have prayed, read the bible together and sung songs. We are all about fellowship with believers. And the sort of fellowship we are about is bible reading and prayer, not just doing something social.

Again, you keep talking about "we." Who is "we"?

Don't think we are not fellow shipping with other believers just because we are not holding a "ecumenical church service".

I never suggested such a thing.

Regarding hearts and names, both are important. You cannot say it is only about the heart. For example, how would any husband feel if their wife changed their surname to another man's surname? She may still be his wife in her heart, but taking another name would be not right at all.

Evangelical, I know these analogies very well. I spent most of my life there. I grew up there. This whole thing about the wife and her husband's name is just WL's idea. The church is the church because it is--period. Look--I don't agree with denominations. But I also don't agree that a group can just claim to be "the church."

It has become fashionable recently for LCs (look at LC in Irvine, for example) to say--"the church in X is not our name it's our description." This is wrong. "The church in X" is the description of all believers in that place; it is not a description of one particular group.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

I did not make such a claim.
Again, you keep talking about "we." Who is "we"?
I never suggested such a thing.

Evangelical, I know these analogies very well. I spent most of my life there. I grew up there. This whole thing about the wife and her husband's name is just WL's idea. The church is the church because it is--period. Look--I don't agree with denominations. But I also don't agree that a group can just claim to be "the church."

It has become fashionable recently for LCs (look at LC in Irvine, for example) to say--"the church in X is not our name it's our description." This is wrong. "The church in X" is the description of all believers in that place; it is not a description of one particular group.

Sorry I understand now, it seemed to me you said that in the local church you didn't fellowship with any other believers and now you do.

If that particular group is the church in X, then it would be a description of all believers in that place, and they would be correct to say that the church in X is not their name but their description. They are not being exclusive but being inclusive. But they cannot deny that they are not the church in that city, if that is what they are.

If they said that the church in X is their name, that would be describing themselves as a group, independent of all the believers in their city, and this would not be according to the truth.

It is quite biblical to have a visible presence in the world and be known as "the church". The church is not, as you seem to portray it, a mishmash of individual believers meeting here and meeting there without any real identity that can be pointed to for practical and administrative purposes.

We can find in Acts 21:18 for example, that there is an entity called "the Jerusalem church" which was overseen by elders:

Acts 21:18 The next day Paul went with us to meet with James, and all the elders of the Jerusalem church were present.

So Paul traveled and met with an entity called "the Jerusalem church", though that is not their name, but what they are.

Imagine if Jerusalem was a scattering of individual "two or three" household churches and people meeting sporadically in parks and other places, Paul would not know whom to speak with. If you and a sister were praying together in a park, would you expect Paul to come to you? He would want to know where are the overseers of this entity called "the church".

Seems that you and others are in denial that a group of people called "the church in ..." is truly what they are according to the pattern the bible gives us. Suppose that there was another church started in Jerusalem in the time of Acts 21:18 - does that make "the Jerusalem church" another denomination? Of course not.