The Ground Of The Church

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Oregon

I’m well aware of the “house” churches in the NT Igzy. In Jerusalem “they continuing daily with one accord in the temple and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.”
Thousands were being saved and added to the church…not churches….even though they were meeting from house to house. These thousands of believers were referred to as “ the church in Jerusalem”….not “the churches in Jerusalem.”

Acts 8:1 “the church that was at Jerusalem”

Acts 11:2 “ the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem”

Acts 15:4 “And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and the apostles and elders…”

The church in the house was referred to as the church in the house. This is the side you have neglected. You cannot demonstrate from scripture that the church in the house referred to in the NT is equivalent to the church in the city.

Another problem with your doctrine is that you can't tell us how it is worked out in practice, or how it avoids the incrimination of those who don't submit to the group which "takes the ground." I've demonstrated this several times and no one has been able to answer counter my charges.

Let me demonstrate again. Suppose you and some others "take the ground" in a city. Now suppose another group does, too. Suppose each set of elders thinks the other group's elders are not bona fide. If so, one or both of the set of elders must, if they take their own local ground doctrine seriously and to its logical conclusion, consider the other set of elders, and therefore their followers, in error for not coming over to their side.

In other words, the presumption of being the elders of the "one church" in the city must necessarily lead to the dismissal of every other group in the city, even those which claim to meet on the local ground.

Thus, elders of a group taking the ground must by definition do two things:

1. Expect every Christian in the city to accept that they are indeed the God-appointed leaders of all the Christians in that city.
2. Take a position who those that do not submit to them are wrong with God.

Conclusion: Given that they have no way of proving #1, it therefore can be nothing but an unreasonable and unwarranted expectation. Therefore #2 is also unreasonable, unwarranted and therefore sinful. Since one cannot believe #1 without also believing #2, the local ground practice is therefore shown to necessarily lead to sin, and is thus inconsistent and unworkable.


On an even simpler level, there is no way of determing which set of elders who claim to be over the "one church" in the city actually are the true elders. Therefore, the "one church" in the city doctrine is practically unworkable and must be considered superfluous.