The Ground Of The Church

Gubei · 12-11-2008, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

The main problem I see with your analysis is that it puts too much emphasis on a boundary of human politics as being important to the body of Christ. Elders are not according to cities, they are according to assemblies. To presume a singleness of elders over all assemblies within one human political boundary (a function of the kingdom of the world) is to presume a hierarchy that is not supported by scripture..

OBW,

I'm going to clarify my position as follows;

1. Elders are according to cities
According to the Bible, elders are simply according to cities, not assemblies. And the definition of city is well given by Watchman Nee in his book "Rethinking the work." I believe he effectively dealt with the matter of the boundary of a city. Please let me know if you are not familiar with WN's teaching on this matter.

2. The Bible does not prescribe "elders according to assemblies."
If the Bible had prescribed the "eldership according to assemblies", the issue would have been really easy. So, please let me know of verses which obviously prescribe "eldership according to assemblies."

3. Is Trinity mentioned prescriptively in the Bible?
Trinity is a crucial Truth in the Bible. But, the Bible does not give us any prescriptive verses on this. That's why theologians have drawn "prescriptive common elements as to Trinity" from a lot of "descriptive verses as to Trinity."
The same thing can apply to the truth of one city - one church.

4. Practicality is a subtle word.
Impracticality to human eyes is not so important to God. As you know, we, Christians, died with Christ 2000 years ago. To our human eyes, is it possible? How were we able to die with Him even before we were born? That is very impractical to our human eyes. But we know we really did by our spiritual eye. With the same spiritual eye, we can see a city as being under
"one set of elders." In that sense, it is very meaningful.

I feel I have to point out now one thing that is not fair to me in dsicussing this issue. As you may have read, Igzy gave me his model saying

""My model is to meet with believers and receive all Christian believers and groups. Oneness is shown by our willingness to receive others and to acknowledge that the Lord may be working in ways better than our own in a group meeting just a few miles away. In other words, the attitude of oneness is one of receiving, love, graciousness and humility--esteeming others as better than ourselves."

Do you think his model is "practical?" I have never objected his model, and I could not agree with him more. BUT, we do not see this kind of nice situation happen now. If his model has worked so nicely, we all do not need to discuss this issue spending a lot of time. If that "ideal" state is so prevalent among Christains, what's the use arguing this is right or that is right? As you and I see now, on the countrary, there are a lot of divisions among Christians, especially promoting some "names - denominations." That was the point where WN began to scrutinze the Bible and he gave us his findings.

So, I hope you and Igzy give me another "practical" model under the condition that Christains do not accept each other.

5. Moving position
BTW, eldership and apostleship is a moving position. As long as you are out of Christ, you are not qualified elder at that very moment despite the fact that you were an elder before. Just as the Bible is not God's word when you just catch objective information from the Bible (as some theologians do), an elder is not an elder when he does not doing his function according to God.

6. WL's error
Have you ever heard the dispute between WL and TAS about this matter? I've heard WL criticized TAS for not following the one city- one church model. It is said that at that time TAS more emphcized the spritual aspect of the church. Now I think that TAS was mentioning the spritual (or universal) aspect of a local church (i.e. mini unversal church, if I can borrow Igzy's word). I think WL was in error at that time by just adhereing to the administration aspect of a local church.

Gubei

OBW · 12-11-2008, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gubei

1. Elders are according to cities
According to the Bible, elders are simply according to cities, not assemblies. And the definition of city is well given by Watchman Nee in his book "Rethinking the work." I believe he effectively dealt with the matter of the boundary of a city. Please let me know if you are not familiar with WN's teaching on this matter.

Where in the Bible are elders according to cities? I see them as being shepherds of the flock. As overseers of the church.

Acts 14:23 reports the appointment of elders in each church, not in each city.

Acts 16:4 makes mention of elders in Jerusalem. But this does not make their position according to the city. It is only their location.

James 5:14 makes reference to calling the elders of the church.

1 Peter 5:1 says "to the elders among you." "You" is the church, not the city. For the most part, the city is heathen.

Only Titus 1:5 makes reference to appointing elders in every town. But given the wording of the other references, this is easily understood as referring to the churches that were in those towns, and not to the towns themselves. The towns probably had elders (according to the local political system(s)). To presume that this one is the key and the others must be re-read to match it would be nothing short of spiritual myopia. You do not read the majority in line with the exception — you read the exception in line with the majority.

So besides Nee's or Lee's extra-biblical edicts, where is this "according to the Bible?"

Gubei · 12-12-2008, 04:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Where in the Bible are elders according to cities? I see them as being shepherds of the flock. As overseers of the church.

Acts 14:23 reports the appointment of elders in each church, not in each city.

Acts 16:4 makes mention of elders in Jerusalem. But this does not make their position according to the city. It is only their location.

James 5:14 makes reference to calling the elders of the church.

1 Peter 5:1 says "to the elders among you." "You" is the church, not the city. For the most part, the city is heathen.

Only Titus 1:5 makes reference to appointing elders in every town. But given the wording of the other references, this is easily understood as referring to the churches that were in those towns, and not to the towns themselves. The towns probably had elders (according to the local political system(s)). To presume that this one is the key and the others must be re-read to match it would be nothing short of spiritual myopia. You do not read the majority in line with the exception — you read the exception in line with the majority.

So besides Nee's or Lee's extra-biblical edicts, where is this "according to the Bible?"

OBW,

Thanks for your question.

Let's look at some verses in Philippians.

Phi 1:1 Paul and Timothy, servants of Christ Jesus, to all the saints in Christ Jesus that are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons: (ASV)

Phi 4:15 And ye yourselves also know, ye Philippians, that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church had fellowship with me in the matter of giving and receiving but ye only; (ASV)

To all the saints in Christ Jesus - The common appellation given to the church, denoting that it was holy; (Barnes)

In phi 1:1, the epistle of Paul's recipient is ALL THE SAINT in Philippi. And in Phi 4:15, Paul's words actually equate "you Philippians, which are the saints there" with (the) "church" there. Therefore, the church in Philippi include all the saints in Philippi. It is very obvious that there is only one church in Philippi according to Paul's understanding. Barnes' interpretation is in line with my explanation.

Then, let's look at a verse in Romans.

Rom 1:7 To all that are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. (ASV)

To all that be in Rome - That is, to all who bear the Christian name. Perhaps he here included not only the church at Rome, but all who might have been there from abroad. Rome was a place of vast concourse for foreigners; and Paul probably addressed all who happened to be there. (Barnes)

Barnes' interpretation is that ALL THE SAINTS in Rome, whether they be Romans or other ethnic group, are the Church at (or in) Rome.

Now I believe the verses you mentioned can be interpreted as saying
"elders according to cities."

Gubei