The Ground Of The Church

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Gubei

Igzy,

Please rethink your reply. I'm not saying whose model is right.
I'm trying to show you how we should be balanced in evaluating others' model.

You cannot provide me with some prescriptive verses supporting your model. And, as you agreed, your model is based on logic.

If that's the case, you should not evaluate others' model by the yardstick which you yourself cannot abide by. Then, why did you repeatedly ask providing prescriptive verses on the ground of locality?

Your are getting around this issue. Please directly answer.

I understand your question, but you are actually comparing my apples to your oranges. The difference should be clear to you because I've already made reference to it, but I'll try to be plainer. The difference is that you are creating restrictions based on non-prescriptive patterns. I am allowing freedom by not creating restrictions where the Bible is silent. That's the difference. My model is based on the Bible, it just doesn't make restrictive assumptions where the Bible is silent. Your model is based on the Bible, too. But yours makes restrictive assumptions (e.g. saints cannot move from church to church) where the Bible is silent. That's a big difference.

Igzy,

For your model's practicality, a lot of questons can be made. For now, I just want to adhere to above mentioned issue except one thing.

You asked me.
"So, again, please tell me how saints moving around is supposed to be policed."

Igzy, this was my question to you. You should answer to me. Are you saying really "free moving" in your model even without reject divisive ones which was commanded by the Bible? Please clarify your model further.

Gubei

Freely moving is not the same thing as being divisive. Being divisive is a matter of heart and attitude. For example, I may leave a church to move to another one in a divisive way, or in a pure way, it all depends on my heart.

The Lord may be leading me to move, and it's really no one else's call but mine, because I alone really know what the Lord is leading me to do. This is what living by conscience and following the Spirit boils down to.

On the other hand, I may actually have a divisive heart and want to avoid fellowship with certain people. When I move it may outwardly look more or less the same to a casual observer as when I move with a pure motive, but there is a world of difference. So you really can't judge someone just because they changed churches.

Being divisive means having a divisive heart which expresses itself in sowing discord. These types of people, ultimately, are pretty easy to spot. They don't fellowship, they grumble. Someone who moves from church to church is not necessarily divisive.

There is a term in Christian circles--"church hopping." It describes moving from church to church seeking comfort. It's a negative term. Christians in general know that they should not just move on a whim, to satisfy themselves. However, they also know that you cannot restrict a genuine leading of the Lord. This is balance.

The LC model presumes that restricting movement preserves "oneness," but I don't see the justification for enforcing that in the Bible. It is imbalanced.

[Cal]

Allowing free movement actually prevents division rather than encourages it. For example, suppose some saints feel their leadership is no longer following the Lord. If they feel compelled to stay by a locality principle or some such they are expected to squelch their impulse. In some cases this may be good, but there are bound to be cases where the Lord is indeed moving them to make a change. If they are not free, they must eventually make a confrontation and ugly things are bound to happen.

On the other hand, if they are free to leave, then they can go in peace. Neither side has to loudly condemn the other because of the "each being fully persuaded in their own mind" principle. They simple need to be free to follow there consciences.

Ultimately, requiring oneness based on some arbitrary interpretation of a locality pattern in the NT is bound to require someone to ignore their conscience. Again this is good reason to believe the apparent pattern does not require us to formulate a formal restrictive doctrine.

[OBW]

Gubei,

You said this to Igzy:

“You cannot provide me with some prescriptive verses supporting your model. And, as you agreed, your model is based on logic.

If that's the case, you should not evaluate others' model by the yardstick which you yourself cannot abide by. Then, why did you repeatedly ask providing prescriptive verses on the ground of locality?

Your are getting around this issue. Please directly answer.”

This statement establishes that you do not understand what Igzy is saying. He is not prescribing anything. He is denying the establishment of doctrines that prescribe when there is no scripture in support of such prescription. The first sentence I quoted above is much better turned back on yourself. You are supporting a doctrine that make prescriptive requirements but you are unable to support those requirements with scripture. You are only able to point to places where it might be accurate to suggest that your position is described.

We provide a model that is consistent with scripture where it prescribes, but allows freedom where it does not. We do not see the extremes of prescription that Lee, and apparently you see. We need no scripture to support freedom in Christ where you cannot find restriction prescribed. The question is legitimately directed at you. You are prescribing. That requires support. Without that support, then there is the freedom in Christ that we support. We do not need to support freedom in Christ. But you need to support hard rules. And we do not see them. Rather than running from our question, you can only win the argument by actually providing the support Igzy requests.

When I read the verses you have provided so far, I do not see an prescription of a particular rule. They actually make no statement in support of such a position. It can only be said that if your prescription were true, the verse could stand as it is. But if there is no such prescription, the verse could also stand as is. Therefore, these verses do not define a prescription. They merely describe a set of facts that are insufficient to establish a prescription in scripture.

So asking Igzy how people moving around is supposed to be policed can only be understood as suggesting that they should be policed. Since Igzy has no prescriptive rule on the subject, there is no objective fact that can be scrutinized to say that moving from one assembly to another is in error. He is not asking you to tell him how to police it under his understanding. He is asking you to explain how, and why, it should be policed. You need to look at your model for that answer. You need to explain how scripture prescribes an answer that is steadfast and sure.

He asked, but expected the answer to be consistent with the one city one church rule which is already being argued as not prescribed by scripture. That means that under his model there is no simple answer. In fact, the only answer is that if it is a problem before God, then God will deal with it one way or another. There is no need for man to impose more stringent rules to keep people from moving around. As he has said, there are many reasons to move. If there is not divisiveness in the heart, or a desire to run from legitimate discipline, it is not denied by scripture. There is no rule to make a person stay anywhere.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

Gubei,
We do not need to support freedom in Christ. But you need to support hard rules. And we do not see them.

This sums it up.

[Gubei]

OBW,

I have to disagree.

Igzy is prescriving something by denying other's model. If that is not prescription, what is prescription? And as contray to your observation, I did not insist my model. I already said that the ground of locality is not essential in the common belief among Christians such as salvation, Trinity etc.

I believe the issue of the ground of locality is like that of head covering of sisters. If you ask me what is right according to the Bible, I would answer that sisters shoud take head covering. But I will not insist that practice because that is not essential in our Christian life. In other words, I will accept all the Christians regardless of their position to this matter, but I will not change my model which is according the Bible.

If you ask me what is right according to the Bible, I would anwer that the ground of locality should be practiced. But I will not insist that practice because that is not essential in our Christian life. In other words, I will accept all the Christians regardless of their position to this matter, but I will not change my model which is according to the Bible.

The reason why I think the ground of locality is not essential is due to the following verses by Paul.

Phil. 1
[13] So that my bonds in Christ are manifest in all the palace, and in all other places; [14] And many of the brethren in the Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak the word without fear. [15] Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: [16] The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: [17] But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. [18] What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice. [19] For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ,

These verses mean that even in the time of Paul, there were some ministers who did not belong to the ministry of Paul. But Paul recognized their ministries. This means that even in a city, there are some saints who were not under the ministry of Paul or Paul-appointed eldership. But Paul was not bothered by the fact.

Now, I think I am fair in revealing the all the verses in the Bible regarding my model, whether it be for my model or against my model. Do not forget. I'm using verses in the Bible before I use logic.


1. You still are basing your arguement on only logic, not on any even "descriptive" verse in the Bible. Logic is the last resort when we discuss any truth or model concering the Bible. OBW, do not get around the issue. My simple question simply asks a simple answer. As contrary to the case of the ground of locality which has at least some descriptive verses in the Bible whether you agree or not, Igzy's model does not have any supporting verses in the Bible. "sola scriptura" is the first step we should take in talking about truth or model. Furthermore, you and Igzy over and over again used "prescriptive things" to evaluate the truth of the ground of locality. Why are you so reluctant to my simple request for you to apply the same thing to your model?

2. You are not fair in dealing with my answer to the question of prescritpve things. I answered the question by saying the case of Trinity. You have not mentioned about that. Please tell me. Do you accept the truth of Trinity? If so, show me any prescritpve verses which support Trinity.

3. I supppose you accept the model of Igzy. So I ask this question.

You are an elder of a church. And a divisive one comes to your church.
Are you going to accept him or not? Of course, he would definitely say his action is according to the will of the Lord.

(Titus 3:10) 『Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.』

Gubei

[Gubei]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I understand your question, but you are actually comparing my apples to your oranges. The difference should be clear to you because I've already made reference to it, but I'll try to be plainer. The difference is that you are creating restrictions based on non-prescriptive patterns. ....

Igzy,

As I told you before, we are saying the same thing from different angles, but approach is quite different. Do you remember I said "the end-image" would be almost similar?

I want to clarify more.

1. In my model, saints can move to other local churches. I do not think restricting movement preserves oneness.

2. Concerning the biblical verses, whether those be prescriptive or descriptive, I am comparing my apples with your apples. As you and OBW agreed, my model has some "descriptive" verses in the Bible. But you have not showed me any even descriptive verses which support your model. First and foremost, any model should be based on the Bible. That is what is called sola scriptura. I do not object any model which is different from mine as long as that is based on the Bible. This is the reason why I cannot willingly accept your model even though the end-image is quite similar to mine.

3. Igzy, what matters in the matter of practice is the case in which divisive ones come in. If every Christains are not divisive but according to the will of the Lord, there in no need to talk about "practice", "model" etc. Whatever pratice or model we have, there will be no problem.

I'm asking you the case in which divisive one come in, when you, if you are an elder of a church, have to make decision to accept him or not. The divisive one would definitely claim he is according to the will of the Lord. What would your decision be? Accept or Reject?

(Titus3:10) Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him.(NIV)

If you reject him, he will claim that you are divisive. If you accept him, you are not following the prescriptive verse in the Bible.

My point is that no model is perfect as long as there is divisive ones come.

Gubei