One Church - One City - Biblical?

[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.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Those qualifiers I described were enough (in my mind) to show that 2 or 3 sisters is not a church.

Of course there are more qualifiers that you have mentioned that I did not think worth mentioning. I did not mention apostles and their appointment of the elders because we would then be discussing about whether Witness Lee was an apostle or not.

Acts 14:23 "Paul and Barnabas also appointed elders in every church..."

So we can add that if the 2 or 3 gathered in His name do not have elders appointed by an apostle, then they are not a church. Self-appointed elders are not a church.

In the bible church has a definite meaning and the idea of any group of Christians calling themselves a church makes them a church is not correct.

So when I felt that Jesus being in their midst was enough (in my mind) that was proof I was outside of the fellowship of the apostles. But when you decide to ignore certain descriptions because they weren't important (in your mind) that is acceptable?

Once again I reject your interpretation of the apostles fellowship. In my experience and my understanding of the fellowship of the apostles there is a continuum.

Suppose you have two or three gathering together, fellowshipping, Jesus is in their midst. A year later there are six. Even among these six it becomes clear that there are different functions, different gifts, teachers, prophets, governments, etc. A year later they have 12 and they begin the Lord's table. Then someone meets this small group, and this group of twelve merges with another small fellowship. Now you have 25 adults, about 55-60 when you include children. It is hard to meet in a house so they rent a room at a hotel conference center once a week. They begin to save money for a meeting hall. They begin to fellowship with other Christians in the same State. Some saints migrate out to this small church, including two elders.

I have just given you the history of the church in Odessa, which is not that different from the church in Houston. At what point did they become a church? I was there, according to you it was when the two elders from Dallas and Irving moved out. From my experience that is absurd.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

No, they are a part of the church in that city.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

No, they are a part of the church in that city.

Only if they give themselves a name. That's why they say the church in X is not their name but their description.

Allow me to point something out to you.

The word denominate means "to call" or "to name". Look it up:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denominate

A denomination, is a group of people who have named themselves as something other than just Christian, and a group of Christians (a church), which does the same. On this basis, we do not fit that category, we are not a denomination.

Paul, was against what Christians said, not who they followed. 1 Corinthians 3:4 says "when one says.." 1 Corinthians 1:12 says "one of you says...". Paul is writing to all the believers in the city of Corinth and telling them not to say they follow him, and not even to say "I follow Christ". In Paul's mind, the church was in unity despite everyone following different ministers, as long as they did not call themselves by their favorite minister's names. He never said stop following me and follow Silas instead, or stop following Silas and start following me. He cared about what they said and what names they took, that is why we care about that as well.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Only if they give themselves a name. That's why they say the church in X is not their name but their description.

Evangelical, the word "denomination" is not a Bible word; it is a dictionary word. This whole thing about "names" is an invention. This does not mean that I agree with all of the sorts of names that people come up with--I do not. I am just pointing out that you have traded the biblical standard for assessing truth for WL-isms and "Websters" (WL's favorite).

Again, the group that calls itself "the church in Irvine" is not the church in Irvine (in totality). To make such a claim is ridiculous. Who composes the church in Irvine? You would say, "All the believers in Irvine." Then, how can "the church in Irvine" describe you group. It doesn't.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Evangelical, the word "denomination" is not a Bible word; it is a dictionary word. This whole thing about "names" is an invention. This does not mean that I agree with all of the sorts of names that people come up with--I do not. I am just pointing out that you have traded the biblical standard for assessing truth for WL-isms and "Websters" (WL's favorite).

Again, the group that calls itself "the church in Irvine" is not the church in Irvine (in totality). To make such a claim is ridiculous. Who composes the church in Irvine? You would say, "All the believers in Irvine." Then, how can "the church in Irvine" describe you group. It doesn't.

Koinonia, the word denomination is not in the bible because there were no denominations at that time. However the bible speaks against sects, party's, factions, schisms (Galatians 5:20, 1 Corinthians 11:19, 1 Cor 12:25).

A denomination is essentially an organized or institutionalized faction or schism in the body with a name.

Perhaps it's logic you are struggling to understand.

Suppose there is once an apple pie (all believers in a city), called the Apple Pie, and it is cut into 4 pieces (there are schisms). Each of those 4 pieces gives itself a name and separates practically (each piece then becomes a denomination). Suppose they decide to name themselves Hot Dog Apple Pie, Muffin Apple Pie, Hamburger Apple Pie, and Pizza Apple Pie.

Suppose that one of those pieces realizes they are wrong and want to go back to being just Apple Pie with the other pieces. Suppose Pizza Apple Pie decides to call itself Apple Pie again. So there is Apple Pie, Hot Dog Apple Pie, Muffin Apple Pie, Hamburger Apple Pie.

It is correct for Apple Pie to say they are Apple Pie. They have not created for themselves another division, but have gone back to being what they truly were. That's why it is not logical for you to say that those who leave denominations and don't take another name for themselves (even the name or label non-denominational can be divisive) have created another denomination.

Ecumenism on the other hand, or denominations hand shaking over the fence, tries to bring the pieces together to create a
"Hot Dog Muffin Hamburger Pizza Apple Pie".

Until they drop their respective names and labels Hot Dog, Muffin etc, they cannot be Apple Pie again.

Now after all that I'm hungry....

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

That is because a group cannot claim any identity without self-separating themselves as something different--something other than simply in Christ and in the church. LC members often like to say that "the church is not a building," and this is true. But in my experience, they often make a different error--they equate the church with meetings. This is also wrong. "The church" does not equal meetings. The church is people, whether those people are in meetings or out of meetings.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

That is because a group cannot claim any identity without self-separating themselves as something different--something other than simply in Christ and in the church. LC members often like to say that "the church is not a building," and this is true. But in my experience, they often make a different error--they equate the church with meetings. This is also wrong. "The church" does not equal meetings. The church is people, whether those people are in meetings or out of meetings.

I agree with you that the view that church is meetings is wrong. Meetings are how the local church is practically expressed. Some in your local church may be careless to make that distinction, or perhaps truly believe that church is meetings. The teachings of Lee/Nee at least, do not say that. Or perhaps this was a conclusion you drew from your observations.

[Koinonia]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Meetings are how the local church is practically expressed.

According to...?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

According to...?

This verse which describes the prophesying meeting:

1 Corinthians 14:24-25 But if an unbeliever or an inquirer comes in while everyone is prophesying, they are convicted of sin and are brought under judgment by all, as the secrets of their hearts are laid bare. So they will fall down and worship God, exclaiming, "God is really among you!"

Furthermore, 1 Corinthians 14:24-25 is also further proof against a claim that two or three having fellowship can be a church.

If you are only two or three, then how can others weigh what you said?:

1 Cor 14:29 Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said.

Therefore a church is two or three, plus others. So more than three, at least four.