One Church - One City - Biblical?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I am pretty sure I know what exposition Ohio referred to in his post prior to this one (Ohio you are welcome to repost as it is an excellent one), and IIRC, it brings up the matter of "the church in [so and so's house]" in the Bible.

Here is a link to that referenced post.

Here is the conclusion to that article ...

One final point is just to look at our history. Anybody remotely honest among us will agree that we have tended towards exclusiveness. We have set ourselves apart from other Christians and elevated ourselves as being "unique". Your conscience knows that this is wrong. This is the fruit that has been produced. The Bible says to look at the fruit. Examine yourself. How do you feel about other Christians? Do you automatically assume that they are off? I know I am guilty of this. But as the "ground" truth gets dismantled piece by piece I am experiencing a freedom related to my other brothers and sisters in Christ. It is wonderful when you don't have to assume every other Christian you meet is somehow "off". The Bible says that the truth sets us free, and I am experiencing an unbelievable freedom. Hallelujah!

Even the most pure forms of the “local ground” teaching are inherently exclusive. Even if your view is that all the believers in the city are the church in that city and you simply say you are taking a “stand” as the church in the city. In its very nicest form, we would say that others just have not yet seen who they are and they are living according to what they see. However we try to avoid it, the implication is that the proper boundary is the city and others should come into the vision of “one church, one city”. Even the purest form has its basis in the “ground of locality” teaching. I believe the six points above have effectively dismantled this teaching to show that it has no scriptural authority. We should neither bind ourselves nor others to a teaching that is based on many assumptions, or at best a pattern without apostolic mandate. To insist on a non-authoritative practical implementation would undermine the higher principles of love and oneness taught directly by the Lord.

This piece was written to correct some of the flaws in David Canfield's article, which is the opening post for this thread. Canfield wrote this in the aftermath of the Midwest quarantines. He subscribed to Titus Chu's views, which I have simplistically labeled as "WL good -- Blendeds bad."

Canfield and other saints have started another "church in Chicago" which did not side with the Chicago region, which sided with the Blendeds against Titus Chu. The divisions were all political in nature, rooted in offenses, using the Bible to endorse their skewed viewpoints.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Here is a link to that referenced post.

Here is the conclusion to that article ...

This piece was written to correct some of the flaws in David Canfield's article, which is the opening post for this thread. Canfield wrote this in the aftermath of the Midwest quarantines. He subscribed to Titus Chu's views, which I have simplistically labeled as "WL good -- Blendeds bad."

Unregistered Guest: 2) Where 2 or 3 gather there I am in the midst" = the church. One practical way (not necessarily the only way) to achieve oneness in this paradigm is in having separate assemblies with separate administrations holding to unity of "the faith" (Eph 4:13)

Matthew 18:15-17, 20 NASB
15 “If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. 16 But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector 20 For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.”

That verse is taken out of context. Isn't the context of that passage about Church discipline than saying Jesus showing up or being "in our midst?" That church discipline is about keeping people IN the Church, but on God's terms and to the purity of the body.

[Trapped]

In Further Talks on the Church Life, Nee answers some questions about the church in a city and the church in a house:

Question: Some say that since Paul sent greetings to the church in Rome as well as to the church in a house, this signifies that there was not only a local church but also a church in a house. Are there not, therefore, two churches?

Answer: Let us consider the matter slowly. I fear that you have not listened to the word of God carefully. The book of Romans never speaks of “the church in Rome.” How then could the apostle have greeted the church in Rome? The book of Romans does not present clearly in writing one greeting to “the church in Rome” and another greeting to “the church in the house.” But in greeting the church in the house of Prisca and Aquila, it is implied that such a greeting is to the church in Rome, which was meeting in Prisca and Aquila’s house. Hence, the church in Rome was the church in Prisca and Aquila’s house.....

I think Nee's answer starts out pretty disingenuously to be honest. He begins by casting immediate doubt on the questioners reading skills, which is a sure sign some manipulation is coming. But if you read Romans, while it is true the explicit phrase "the church in Rome" isn't used, Romans 1:7 clearly says "To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, the called saints". Who in earth is that if not the church in Rome?

So Romans is clearly to the church in Rome, whether or not that exact phrase is used. But Romans 16:3-5 says "Greet Prisca and Aquila......And greet the church, which is in their house."

Hold on. Why would a letter TO the church in Rome itself instruct them to greet the church in a house if the entire church in Rome met in that house (as Nee and Lee purport)?

That would be like writing a letter to the Johnson family and telling the Johnson family to greet the Johnson family. It doesn't make any sense. If you write a letter to someone and tell them to greet someone, by default, that second someone is in some way a different entity than the first someone.

I know it's strange since there are other good arguments out there, but for me personally this is the best thing I've come across so far to negate the OCOC edict. This tells me the church in P&A's house was NOT the entire church in Rome, and thus city = church is not the "ground of the church" and the LCs are thus holding tightly onto a non-essential.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I know it's strange since there are other good arguments out there, but for me personally this is the best thing I've come across so far to negate the OCOC edict. This tells me the church in P&A's house was NOT the entire church in Rome, and thus city = church is not the "ground of the church" and the LCs are thus holding tightly onto a non-essential.

The interpretation of the "one church one city" as all the people in a single meeting hall is absurd and has no Biblical support. The church in Taipei had 26 meeting halls when I was there, so a single large meeting hall is not an item of our oneness. Paul gives 7 items for our oneness in Ephesians. The seven ones. Meeting hall and Elders are not mentioned.

But lets address the whole "one eldership" derivative argument as an expression of oneness. The elders are supposed to be local, there is no overarching organizational structure according to WN's interpretation and he is the only one putting forth this "one church one city" doctrine. Making the elders in all the 26 halls come under an umbrella organization is contrary to WN's entire construct.

Second, if you have the 7 ones in Ephesians then what could possibly cause you to not be one with another congregation with those 7 ones? Tell us the issue and we'll immediately see who is not one.

Third, they argue that the apostle laid hands on them, so they are under the apostle. You are creating a division. Surely they are not envisioning a single apostle that evangelizes the entire world over the last 2,000 years. Since we have multiple apostles how is it that we don't have multiple churches? Simple, apostle is not listed as one of the seven ones.

The value in WN's doctrine is that it forces us to see that the oneness of the church, the believers, and all those in a city is important, and it also forces us to go to the word to know the truth. If you can see the error in his teaching clearly then you have a clear vision of the oneness of the Body of Christ.

[Ohio]

I would ask the OCOC supporters to define a "city."

There is no way that the description of "city" in the New Testament can match our contemporary definition. Look at NY "City." It's larger than the entire nation of Israel. NYC is really hundreds or thousands of "cities" as the word is used in the NT.

The most we can say about the OCOC doctrine of Nee is that the Apostle John "described" it in Rev 2 and 3. No NT writer ever "prescribed" it for church practice, including John. Not only did Paul not follow the "official" church naming practice sanctioned by Nee, but on several occasions Paul's letters refute it.

As one writer has said, we have far more instruction for head covering in the meetings than for OCOC. Why do the LCs not mandate that?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I would ask the OCOC supporters to define a "city."

There is no way that the description of "city" in the New Testament can match our contemporary definition. Look at NY "City." It's larger than the entire nation of Israel. NYC is really hundreds or thousands of "cities" as the word is used in the NT.

The most we can say about the OCOC doctrine of Nee is that the Apostle John "described" it in Rev 2 and 3. No NT writer ever "prescribed" it for church practice, including John. Not only did Paul not follow the "official" church naming practice sanctioned by Nee, but on several occasions Paul's letters refute it.

As one writer has said, we have far more instruction for head covering in the meetings than for OCOC. Why do the LCs not mandate that?

Yes, it is a bizarre derivative of Nee's teaching that puts a city council above the church elders. If Manhattan and Brooklyn decide to join and become one city then the churches in Manhattan and Brooklyn now need to also join under one eldership.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I would ask the OCOC supporters to define a "city."

There is no way that the description of "city" in the New Testament can match our contemporary definition. Look at NY "City." It's larger than the entire nation of Israel. NYC is really hundreds or thousands of "cities" as the word is used in the NT.

The most we can say about the OCOC doctrine of Nee is that the Apostle John "described" it in Rev 2 and 3. No NT writer ever "prescribed" it for church practice, including John. Not only did Paul not follow the "official" church naming practice sanctioned by Nee, but on several occasions Paul's letters refute it.

As one writer has said, we have far more instruction for head covering in the meetings than for OCOC. Why do the LCs not mandate that?

Hear !!! Hear !!!

I've repeated several times that, Nee went beyond scripture with his definition of OCOC. There's no such doctrine spelled out in the New Testament.

[byHismercy]

One church one city is not only non essential doctrine, it is a non issue to the Lord. This doctrine comes from another source. If the Lord Christ desires we all be one as He and the Father are one, you better believe Satan is is sitting on his wee, sad, doomed to burn in hell forever throne sending all his minions out to confuse and confound believers with lying doctrine which results in the exact opposite of the Lords' desire......DIVISION....SEPARATION.....and the INABILITY to have real ONENESS. Which of course has become the Local Church fruit. It makes me mad and sad, and frustrated. How will we ever be one in Jesus with the Local Church believers when they have this bizarre culture of total silence? The saints in my life shut the door on all communication, with the exception being the peculiar attempt at communication without actually acknowledging a single word I said. What kind of fun new game is this, anyway? It all smacks of the enemies' tricks to me. Maybe some think my opinion is extreme but who else would be clapping his evil hands and jumping up and down to see the body divided so? We are witnessing the spiritual warfare play out right before our spiritual eyes, are we not?

Lord Jesus, give us all Your love for each other, give us all Your eyes, Your wisdom, Your doctrine, Your ears, Your faith, and Your love for the Father. Amen.

byHismercy