The Ground Of The Church

Gubei · 12-29-2008, 09:44 PM

Dear Igzy,

Welcome back.

You wrote.
“I'm back. I hope everyone had a very Merry Christmas! If you don't celebrate Christmas that's fine.”

My simple question, to begin with. Do you celebrate Christmas? That is very unbiblical “practice.” It is very weird that you are so quick to abandon the ground of locality which is supported by the Bible, and also so quick to accept that unbiblical practice. Hopefully you do not say that Christmas should be celebrated because the Bible does not prescriptively reject it.

You wrote.
“It's clear to me now that Gubei rather than defending any current practice of the local ground is proposing an ideal model of how the local ground might actually work. I say "might" because his model is theoretical. It has never been worked out in practice and so has not been completely tested. This is not a criticism, it is just a fact. He seems to think the model should be tried. Others reply, Don't bother.”

Igzy, please read the NT. My model was simply conducted by Paul 2,000 years ago. When I say “ideal state,” that does not mean “theoretical.” Actually, the ground of locality should have not been “ideal” in church history, but “common and widely practiced.” The only reason the ground of locality was considered “ideal” by me is due to being divisiveness of human nature.

You wrote.
“What is interesting is that this impasse actually points to the inherent problem with ever trying to put a theoretical local ground ideal into practice: That is, The city church model is supposed to be about practical oneness, but none of us really know what practical oneness really looks like. So the idea is hamstrung from the start. How can we agree to practice a certain model if we honestly don't agree the model is correct?”

Igzy, please read the N.T. And you will know what practical oneness really looks like. To me, the idea stands from the start. And if you do not agree to admit that the ground of locality is in the Bible, the only thing you can do is to say that there is no model in the Bible. But, you have gone too far to suggest your own model.
So, please make this clear. Are you saying that there is no model as to how to meet in the Bible? Or are you saying that we should meet according to your model? Your posts are mixed in this matter.

You wrote.
“So, ironically, trying to work out practical oneness is bound to lead to fundamental disagreements on whether we actually have it or not. These disagreements themselves may become points of division. So the attempt to achieve practical oneness by pushing a particular outward model seems to be doomed to self-defeat. This is what I call the ironic paradox of trying to apply practical oneness in a one-size-fits-all model. It contains the seeds of its own failure.”

Igzy, you are not consistent in defining “being divisive”

You said "Being divisive is a matter of heart and attitude," meaning being divisive is not just any model but the heart and attitude of those who hold that model. I totally agree with this definition of your own. And I hope you are consistent in your wonderful definition. Let’s think about the practice of head covering of sisters. Even though I do believe sisters had better to cover their head during church meetings according to the Paul’ instruction, I do not condemn any sister who does not cover their head. Also, I expect other Christians not to condemn me by my holding that truth. So, I do not want to be divisive in my heart and attitude. Now can you say that the practice of head covering contains the seeds of its own failure? Is that ironic paradox? The principle is the same with the ground of locality.

You wrote.
“Now, some might call this defeatism, even unbelief. Others, like Gubei, might say that the problem is not with the idea of locality, but with fallen human nature. But saying that fallen human nature is the problem forgets that the problem with achieving "practical citywide oneness" is not just a lack of geniality, it is also a lack of clear insight to know precisely which "model" of practical oneness is the correct one. Since it is not clear that we can, in this life, ever hope to achieve a level of holiness where we could expect to agree on precisely what "locality" means, a precise viable locality model which is not heavy on liberality is a pipe dream.”

Igzy, it is very clear. “One city – one church – one set of elders in that city.” How can it be clearer?

You wrote.
“Is this defeatism and unbelief? I do not think so. I believe it it realism with faith.”

I think it is a compromise to ease our obligation to keep practical oneness.

You wrote.
“Gubei sincerely thinks his model is according to God. He is "fully persuaded in his own mind." That's good. That's as it should be. However, the real question is: What does he do when others in the city he lives in disagree with him on his interpretation? Does he "condemn" them, or does he drop the matter to preserve the fellowship? If he does the latter, this suggests that his model was not as fundamental to oneness as being willing to drop it was, which suggests that his model (and all others) was just another potential point of doctrinal contention which must, in the end, like head covering and musical taste, be expendable.”

Igzy, please do not wrongly boil down what I said. Despite repeated requests, you are not properly “quoting” what I said. The same thing is happening with OBW. I said the phase 2 (having one set of elders in a city) is not essential in our Christian life. BTW, OBW thinks Trinity is not fundamental. Once again, I want to clarify my belief. I will not drop my belief of the ground of locality, including one-set of elders in a city. But I will keep fellowshipping with other Christians in my city. To me, fellowshipping with them is more important than insisting one set of elders in my city. PLEASE QUOTE THIS!

You wrote.
“It is not that locality is wrong. The issue is: Just what does locality mean? Since the Bible is unclear on this, pushing a particular interpretation is detrimental to exactly what locality is supposed to be about. That's the ironic paradox.”

My simple question to you which you did not answer at all.

Have you ever read the book – “Rethinking our work” by WN? If you did not read, I have to be surprised how you can criticize the ground of locality without knowing what locality is as defined by its first proponent.

Gubei

Cal · 12-30-2008, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gubei

Dear Igzy,

My simple question to you which you did not answer at all.

Have you ever read the book – “Rethinking our work” by WN? If you did not read, I have to be surprised how you can criticize the ground of locality without knowing what locality is as defined by its first proponent.

Dear Gubei,

I do not feel obligated to answer every question you have. Many of them can be answered simply by reading my posts more carefully.

I have read The Normal Christian Church Life (Concerning Our Mission) and Further Talks on the Church Life, by WN. I have also read just about every book WL wrote about the matter, including The Practical Expression of the Church and The Genuine Ground of Oneness. I have heard of the book you speak of, but I believe it is titled Rethinking the Work, not Rethinking Our Work. I haven't read that title. I also was in the LC movement for years and heard and read many other message on the local ground.

Finally, I've probably read the NT as much as you have. Please stop acting as if I haven't. I realize once you've come under the sway of WN/WL it's hard to see the NT any other way that the way they told you to see it. This is in part because WL was very good at teaching that thinking differently from them is rebellious, so followers are fearful of doing so. WL was also very good at poisoning any well other than his own, while ascribing blessed status to those who drink from his alone.

Cal · 12-30-2008, 12:36 PM

Gubei,

The ground of locality teaching is an ironic paradox because though it is supposed to issue in oneness, by definition one cannot practice it without condemning other groups, thus it works against oneness. One can believe in head covering while receiving believers and even churches that do not believe it. But one cannot practice the local ground without invalidating every group in the city that doesn't believe it. Thus it is divisive.

You say you receive and fellowship with all Christians which don't hold the local ground. That's as you should. But how do you feel about their groups? Do you feel they are not real churches? If so, your model has proven to be divisive.

For example, I don't believe in Catholicism. Yet, I cannot say the Catholic group down the road is not a real church. The church in Thyatira was a church. I've been to Catholic services where I definitely felt the Lord presence. Call me crazy but it's true. Who am I to say others shouldn't be there if He's there?

99.9999% (at least) of people being saved in the world are being saved via groups that LCers would say are not real churches! Isn't it strange that the Lord is choosing to do such a majority of his saving work in groups LCers won't even recognize. Sounds like He recognizes them. Sounds like you and He are out of sync.

Cal · 12-30-2008, 01:37 PM

Gubei,

Let me also say that if you genuinely receive all believers and respect all churches in a city then I have no problem with your local ground beliefs. However, if you genuinely receive and respect then the local ground belief is rather superfluous, isn't it?

Because if we all genuinely receive and respect, then real oneness has been achieved, unless you interpret oneness as marching in lockstep under one set of elders, which I most certainly don't, since the downside of such an arragement is potentially much worse, and more likely, than the upside, as history has shown again and again.

Cal · 12-30-2008, 01:57 PM

Dear Gubei and Oregon,

Simply put, you both have failed to prove conclusively that the house churches in the NT are city churches. And there is no way you can prove it. You can argue all you want and believe what you want, but there is no way you can conclusively show this. Thus it is unreasonable for you to expect others to accept your interpretation. So for you to call others divisive for not meeting as a city church is itself divisive.

If you cannot see this or understand at all what I'm getting at then this conversation is basically over, because you just don't get it.

Gubei · 01-03-2009, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Dear Gubei and Oregon,

Simply put, you both have failed to prove conclusively that the house churches in the NT are city churches. And there is no way you can prove it. You can argue all you want and believe what you want, but there is no way you can conclusively show this. Thus it is unreasonable for you to expect others to accept your interpretation. So for you to call others divisive for not meeting as a city church is itself divisive.

If you cannot see this or understand at all what I'm getting at then this conversation is basically over, because you just don't get it.

Igzy,

You wrote.
"So for you to call others divisive for not meeting as a city church is itself divisive."

Please quote my words in previous posts in which I said that.

And you wrote.
"Simply put, you both have failed to prove conclusively that the house churches in the NT are city churches."

My clarification is as follows.

Philippians 1:1 『Paul and Timothy, servants of Jesus Christ, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:』

Philippians 4:15 Now you Philippians know also that in the beginning of the gospel, when I departed from Macedonia, no church shared with me concerning giving and receiving but you only.

The ALL THE SAINTS in Philippi is a church – city church if you will.

(Acts 14:23) 『So when they had appointed elders in every church, and prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord in whom they had believed.』

(Titus 1:5) 『For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you--』

So, one city – one church – one eldership.

For “house churches,”

(Rom 16:3,4,5) 『[3] Greet Priscilla and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, [4] who risked their own necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. [5] Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia to Christ.』

(1Cor 16:19) 『The churches of Asia greet you. Aquila and Priscilla greet you heartily in the Lord, with the church that is in their house.』

(Col 4:15) 『Greet the brethren who are in Laodicea, and Nymphas and the church that is in his house.』

(Philemon 1:2) 『to the beloved Apphia, Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church in your house:』

Please pay attention to the fact that whenever “house churches” are mentioned, it is with juxtaposition of other churches which is obviously city churches. In case of Philemon 1:2, the key of understanding is “Archippus”

and Archippus our fellow soldier; that this Archippus was a preacher of the Gospel at Colosse is manifest from Col_4:17 wherefore the apostle styles him a fellow soldier; (Gill)

Archippus is believed to be an elder in Colosse. By juxtaposing Archippus and Philemon’s house, Paul seems to be mentioning the two churches which were under the eldership of Archippus and Philemon each.

I believe this is proper understanding of house churches. In short, at that time, due to small number of saints in a city, they were able to gather together in a house, which people intimately call a church, actually meaning the church in that city judging from the other city-church related verses.

Is it possible to use these verses related to “house churches” in order to justify such names as Methodist, Baptist, Community, etc? I do not think so. The only possibility to be taken by any one who believes city church is not the same house church is that there are two kinds of churches in the Bible – city church and house church, not that there are as many churches as we want.

I hope that any one will try conclusively to prove that the Bible give us the permission to conduct denominations.

Gubei

Oregon · 01-03-2009, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gubei

Igzy,

You wrote.
"So for you to call others divisive for not meeting as a city church is itself divisive."

I don't recall saying anybody was divisive. I'm simply stating what I believe the Word of God says. I quoted the verse in I Corinthians where Paul said that there should be no division in the body.

Gubei · 01-03-2009, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Gubei,

Let me also say that if you genuinely receive all believers and respect all churches in a city then I have no problem with your local ground beliefs. However, if you genuinely receive and respect then the local ground belief is rather superfluous, isn't it?

Because if we all genuinely receive and respect, then real oneness has been achieved, unless you interpret oneness as marching in lockstep under one set of elders, which I most certainly don't, since the downside of such an arragement is potentially much worse, and more likely, than the upside, as history has shown again and again.

Igzy,

So, are such practices as the Lord's Table, baptism, head covering just superfluous to you? If these things are really superfluous, why did Paul ordered to repeat these?

"if we all genuinely receive and respect, then real oneness has been achieved"
why not having one set of elders AS THE RESULT?

Please rethink my position. Having one set of elders cannot be attained by forcing it. That state is just a natural outcome from genuine oneness among Christians - so fragile given human nature. That's why I regard that state as an "ideal state."

Gubei

UntoHim · 01-03-2009, 08:49 AM

This is going to sound like I am picking on you Gubei (and I sort of am)

At this point Gubei, you are flooding this thread. You keep making the same points over and over again. Maybe you don't realize it, but most of us have heard these same exact arguments made in the exact same manner. Many of us heard these same arguments made before you were born. Igzy has answered most of your questions/contention in a reasonable and sound manner, yet you seem to be deaf. At this point you guys are just talking AT each other and not WITH each other...and this is mostly your fault. The dialogue between you and Igzy has ceased to be a discussion. For this most part you are just blogging now.

May I suggest you start your own blog regarding "the ground of the church" and you will be welcome to put up a link to it on this thread.

Thanks for your understanding.

Gubei · 01-03-2009, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

This is going to sound like I am picking on you Gubei (and I sort of am)

At this point Gubei, you are flooding this thread. You keep making the same points over and over again. Maybe you don't realize it, but most of us have heard these same exact arguments made in the exact same manner. Many of us heard these same arguments made before you were born. Igzy has answered most of your questions/contention in a reasonable and sound manner, yet you seem to be deaf. At this point you guys are just talking AT each other and not WITH each other...and this is mostly your fault. The dialogue between you and Igzy has ceased to be a discussion. For this most part you are just blogging now.

May I suggest you start your own blog regarding "the ground of the church" and you will be welcome to put up a link to it on this thread.

Thanks for your understanding.

UntoHim,

I have to say this.

I'm just responding to Igzy's posts. It is Igzy who first began to use a lot of posts, rather than using one or two. Everything is recorded in this site, am I right?

You wrote.
"Many of us heard these same arguments made before you were born."

So, why do you run this web-forum? I hope this is not intended to mock me.

As virtually you requested, I'm leaving.

Igzy,

I'm happy to have had such good fellowships with you. I hope our Lord be with you always.

Gubei

Cal · 01-05-2009, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gubei

UntoHim,

I have to say this.

I'm just responding to Igzy's posts. It is Igzy who first began to use a lot of posts, rather than using one or two. Everything is recorded in this site, am I right?

You wrote.
"Many of us heard these same arguments made before you were born."

So, why do you run this web-forum? I hope this is not intended to mock me.

As virtually you requested, I'm leaving.

Igzy,

I'm happy to have had such good fellowships with you. I hope our Lord be with you always.

Gubei

Gubei,

Sorry, I just now noticed this post since you (and I) post so many.

I don't think UntoHim asked you to leave. But I do think your doing so rather than simply adjusting your writing (and more important, listening) style is indicative of some inflexibility on your part.

I split up my posts in a feeble attempt to try to narrow down what you and I were talking about. Though I can't speak for him, I think UntoHim was reacting to your tendency to repeat yourself as if you hadn't really assimilated what I'd written, and to try to talk about every point at once, and to continually claim I hadn't answered questions which I had answered or whose answers could be gathered from what I'd written.

Even so, I enjoyed our discussion as well. I hope to see you soon.

Igzy

Ohio · 01-04-2009, 04:57 AM

But ... shall we continue with the discussion on the "Ground of the Church?"

Cal · 01-05-2009, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gubei

Igzy,

So, are such practices as the Lord's Table, baptism, head covering just superfluous to you? If these things are really superfluous, why did Paul ordered to repeat these?

They are important because Paul commanded them. Paul never commanded the local ground.

Which brings up an interesting point. LCers see the head covering as optional, yet it is commanded. But they see the local ground as mandatory, yet it is not commanded. Makes sense? No.

Quote:

"if we all genuinely receive and respect, then real oneness has been achieved"
why not having one set of elders AS THE RESULT?

Please rethink my position. Having one set of elders cannot be attained by forcing it. That state is just a natural outcome from genuine oneness among Christians - so fragile given human nature. That's why I regard that state as an "ideal state."

Jack Nicklaus once said the perfect golf score would be birdies on all par 3 holes and par 4 holes, and eagles on all par 5 holes. On an standard 18-hole, par-72 course (4 par 3s, 10 par 4s, 4 par 5s), that would be a score of 54. That's an ideal.

In all of golf, the lowest golf score ever recorded is 55--once by then amatuer Homero Blancas, in 1962. 56 has been recorded once. 57 once. However, a couple of 58s are the lowest scores recognized by the Guiness Book of Records. Millions and millions or rounds of golf are being recorded by amateurs, and thousands and thousands by professional. Rarely do they begin to approach the ideal. Does this invalidate them? Is golf lessened as a sport because the ideal is out of reach. Not a bit.

My point, of course, is that ideals are all well and good, but what practical person spends a whole lot of time fretting about them? And what sane person says, A 64 is not a very good round of golf because a 54 is the ideal?

It is possible that the Lord may bring all Christian in one city somewhere together under one eldership someday. In the meantime, I'd rather focus on what he actually is doing, and stop making the good the enemy of the ideal.

Hope · 01-05-2009, 07:38 AM

Igzy,

Better stay away from the golf illustrations. Jack Nicklaus' perfect round of golf if you contend it has eagles on the par fives is not a 54 but is 50. A birdie on every hole is a 54. By the way I also once shot a 54. Of course it was for nine holes. Though, I am getting closer and closer to matching my age.

Hope, Don Rutledge

PS I intend to reply to your observations about the one church one city teaching being a method of control etc. but I wanted to take care of the important stuff first.

Cal · 01-05-2009, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hope

Igzy,

Better stay away from the golf illustrations. Jack Nicklaus' perfect round of golf if you contend it has eagles on the par fives is not a 54 but is 50. A birdie on every hole is a 54. By the way I also once shot a 54. Of course it was for nine holes. Though, I am getting closer and closer to matching my age.

Hope, Don Rutledge

PS I intend to reply to your observations about the one church one city teaching being a method of control etc. but I wanted to take care of the important stuff first.

Hope, you are right, I got the math wrong. 54 is birdies on all holes. Needless to say I've never gotten close, though I have scored 54 on nine holes.

Cal · 01-05-2009, 08:10 AM

Gubei,

If you don't see recognizing the local ground as mandatory, then why are you arguing with me about it? And if you do see it as mandatory, then your statement that you are not insisting on it is by definition false.

I see head covering as commanded, but I don't know whether hair is good enough or whether something more is needed. Jesus himself said that if you marry a divorced person you commit adultery. Yet I know of such marriages that seem to be blessed. Who am I to judge?

The point is I can know for my own life what God's commandments mean. But I can't know what they mean in all cases for others. I do not have complete wisdom. You act as if you have complete wisdom about practical oneness. The problem with your interpretation of local ground is that you seem to think your interpretation is precisely the right one. Yet I see reason to think, or at the very least to understand why someone else would think, you very well could be mistaken. When uncertainty is present liberality is required. For my trouble you announce that I oppose the truth.

I must allow free movement because I don't think the Bible gives me enough information to restrict it. That's the difference between what I believe and what you believe--mine is more general and liberal, not because I'm for generality and liberality, but because more specificity or restriction is not within my allotment of wisdom to insist upon. Your model restricts people more. Mine says, go to the Lord and let him tell you what oneness is. You say, I know what oneness is and everyone who doesn't agree with me is working against oneness.

Also, let me say that I don't appreciate your saying, in typically boorish LC fashion, that I am opposing the truth. Get off it. You don't have some monopoly on the truth, and you clearly don't have enough of a gift of discernment to be putting me in my place, as evidenced by your repeated in inability to properly interpret what I've written.

You said I didn't quote WN or WL because I was opposing "the truth." This statement is completely uncalled for. In the first place you can't possible know that, in the second I could provide plenty of quotes by WL which practically make the local ground as an article of faith. I've done my homework.

If you want to believe that the Lord's goal is to one day bring every city in the world under one eldership then you are certainly free to believe it. I for one would like more information before I commit to such a vision. For example, as I've asked ad nauseum, I would like to know what options the Christians who eventually come under such eldership have when they become convinced by the Lord that they should no longer follow that eldership if it becomes corrupt.

Ohio · 12-30-2008, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

99.9999% (at least) of people being saved in the world are being saved via groups that LCers would say are not real churches! Isn't it strange that the Lord is choosing to do such a majority of his saving work in groups LCers won't even recognize. Sounds like He recognizes them.

Igzy, does this bother you too?!?

These are the kinds of facts that were needed to destroy all my elitest notions.

Gubei · 01-03-2009, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Gubei,

The ground of locality teaching is an ironic paradox because though it is supposed to issue in oneness, by definition one cannot practice it without condemning other groups, thus it works against oneness. One can believe in head covering while receiving believers and even churches that do not believe it. But one cannot practice the local ground without invalidating every group in the city that doesn't believe it. Thus it is divisive.

You say you receive and fellowship with all Christians which don't hold the local ground. That's as you should. But how do you feel about their groups? Do you feel they are not real churches? If so, your model has proven to be divisive.

For example, I don't believe in Catholicism. Yet, I cannot say the Catholic group down the road is not a real church. The church in Thyatira was a church. I've been to Catholic services where I definitely felt the Lord presence. Call me crazy but it's true. Who am I to say others shouldn't be there if He's there?

99.9999% (at least) of people being saved in the world are being saved via groups that LCers would say are not real churches! Isn't it strange that the Lord is choosing to do such a majority of his saving work in groups LCers won't even recognize. Sounds like He recognizes them. Sounds like you and He are out of sync.

Igzy,

Your comparison is very unfair.

My comparison is as follows.

When you talk about head covering, you should focus on the matter of head covering. The fact that there are disagreements on that issue means there are conflicts.
But, head covering is not essential in our Christian life. That’s why we can accept other Christians who are holding different interpretation on this issue. So, I can fellowship with them.

When you talk about the ground of locality, you should focus on the matter of the ground of locality. The fact that there are disagreements on that issue means there are conflicts.
But, one set of elders in a city is not essential in our Christian life. That’s why we can accept other Christians who are holding different interpretation on this issue. So, I can fellowship with them.

And you wrote.
“But how do you feel about their groups? Do you feel they are not real churches? If so, your model has proven to be divisive.”

They are not the church according to the picture in the NT. But they (meaning the saints) are the part of the church in that city. In this sense, they are very real.

And you wrote.
“For example, I don't believe in Catholicism. Yet, I cannot say the Catholic group down the road is not a real church. The church in Thyatira was a church. I've been to Catholic services where I definitely felt the Lord presence. Call me crazy but it's true. Who am I to say others shouldn't be there if He's there? ”

Yes, in Catholicism (or Catholic group) is our Lord. And The church in Thyatira typifies Catholicism (or Catholic group), not that the church in Thyatira (definitely a local church at that time) justify the name - Catholic Church.

And you wrote.
“99.9999% (at least) of people being saved in the world are being saved via groups that LCers would say are not real churches! Isn't it strange that the Lord is choosing to do such a majority of his saving work in groups LCers won't even recognize. Sounds like He recognizes them. Sounds like you and He are out of sync.[/QUOTE]”

Igzy, 100% of people are being saved via the local churches, which include all the saints in the world. Still, your definition of local churches is not the same with mine.

Gubei

Cal · 01-05-2009, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gubei

Igzy, 100% of people are being saved via the local churches, which include all the saints in the world.

So nobody ever gets saved outside the city limits?

I'm joking, but it does ask the question Which church are people who live in the country in.

12-29-2008, 09:44 PM	#1
Gubei Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Seoul, South Korea Posts: 145	Re: Clarification Dear Igzy, Welcome back. You wrote. “I'm back. I hope everyone had a very Merry Christmas! If you don't celebrate Christmas that's fine.” My simple question, to begin with. Do you celebrate Christmas? That is very unbiblical “practice.” It is very weird that you are so quick to abandon the ground of locality which is supported by the Bible, and also so quick to accept that unbiblical practice. Hopefully you do not say that Christmas should be celebrated because the Bible does not prescriptively reject it. You wrote. “It's clear to me now that Gubei rather than defending any current practice of the local ground is proposing an ideal model of how the local ground might actually work. I say "might" because his model is theoretical. It has never been worked out in practice and so has not been completely tested. This is not a criticism, it is just a fact. He seems to think the model should be tried. Others reply, Don't bother.” Igzy, please read the NT. My model was simply conducted by Paul 2,000 years ago. When I say “ideal state,” that does not mean “theoretical.” Actually, the ground of locality should have not been “ideal” in church history, but “common and widely practiced.” The only reason the ground of locality was considered “ideal” by me is due to being divisiveness of human nature. You wrote. “What is interesting is that this impasse actually points to the inherent problem with ever trying to put a theoretical local ground ideal into practice: That is, The city church model is supposed to be about practical oneness, but none of us really know what practical oneness really looks like. So the idea is hamstrung from the start. How can we agree to practice a certain model if we honestly don't agree the model is correct?” Igzy, please read the N.T. And you will know what practical oneness really looks like. To me, the idea stands from the start. And if you do not agree to admit that the ground of locality is in the Bible, the only thing you can do is to say that there is no model in the Bible. But, you have gone too far to suggest your own model. So, please make this clear. Are you saying that there is no model as to how to meet in the Bible? Or are you saying that we should meet according to your model? Your posts are mixed in this matter. You wrote. “So, ironically, trying to work out practical oneness is bound to lead to fundamental disagreements on whether we actually have it or not. These disagreements themselves may become points of division. So the attempt to achieve practical oneness by pushing a particular outward model seems to be doomed to self-defeat. This is what I call the ironic paradox of trying to apply practical oneness in a one-size-fits-all model. It contains the seeds of its own failure.” Igzy, you are not consistent in defining “being divisive” You said "Being divisive is a matter of heart and attitude," meaning being divisive is not just any model but the heart and attitude of those who hold that model. I totally agree with this definition of your own. And I hope you are consistent in your wonderful definition. Let’s think about the practice of head covering of sisters. Even though I do believe sisters had better to cover their head during church meetings according to the Paul’ instruction, I do not condemn any sister who does not cover their head. Also, I expect other Christians not to condemn me by my holding that truth. So, I do not want to be divisive in my heart and attitude. Now can you say that the practice of head covering contains the seeds of its own failure? Is that ironic paradox? The principle is the same with the ground of locality. You wrote. “Now, some might call this defeatism, even unbelief. Others, like Gubei, might say that the problem is not with the idea of locality, but with fallen human nature. But saying that fallen human nature is the problem forgets that the problem with achieving "practical citywide oneness" is not just a lack of geniality, it is also a lack of clear insight to know precisely which "model" of practical oneness is the correct one. Since it is not clear that we can, in this life, ever hope to achieve a level of holiness where we could expect to agree on precisely what "locality" means, a precise viable locality model which is not heavy on liberality is a pipe dream.” Igzy, it is very clear. “One city – one church – one set of elders in that city.” How can it be clearer? You wrote. “Is this defeatism and unbelief? I do not think so. I believe it it realism with faith.” I think it is a compromise to ease our obligation to keep practical oneness. You wrote. “Gubei sincerely thinks his model is according to God. He is "fully persuaded in his own mind." That's good. That's as it should be. However, the real question is: What does he do when others in the city he lives in disagree with him on his interpretation? Does he "condemn" them, or does he drop the matter to preserve the fellowship? If he does the latter, this suggests that his model was not as fundamental to oneness as being willing to drop it was, which suggests that his model (and all others) was just another potential point of doctrinal contention which must, in the end, like head covering and musical taste, be expendable.” Igzy, please do not wrongly boil down what I said. Despite repeated requests, you are not properly “quoting” what I said. The same thing is happening with OBW. I said the phase 2 (having one set of elders in a city) is not essential in our Christian life. BTW, OBW thinks Trinity is not fundamental. Once again, I want to clarify my belief. I will not drop my belief of the ground of locality, including one-set of elders in a city. But I will keep fellowshipping with other Christians in my city. To me, fellowshipping with them is more important than insisting one set of elders in my city. PLEASE QUOTE THIS! You wrote. “It is not that locality is wrong. The issue is: Just what does locality mean? Since the Bible is unclear on this, pushing a particular interpretation is detrimental to exactly what locality is supposed to be about. That's the ironic paradox.” My simple question to you which you did not answer at all. Have you ever read the book – “Rethinking our work” by WN? If you did not read, I have to be surprised how you can criticize the ground of locality without knowing what locality is as defined by its first proponent. Gubei __________________ Less than the least

12-30-2008, 12:36 PM	#3
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,333	Re: Clarification Gubei, The ground of locality teaching is an ironic paradox because though it is supposed to issue in oneness, by definition one cannot practice it without condemning other groups, thus it works against oneness. One can believe in head covering while receiving believers and even churches that do not believe it. But one cannot practice the local ground without invalidating every group in the city that doesn't believe it. Thus it is divisive. You say you receive and fellowship with all Christians which don't hold the local ground. That's as you should. But how do you feel about their groups? Do you feel they are not real churches? If so, your model has proven to be divisive. For example, I don't believe in Catholicism. Yet, I cannot say the Catholic group down the road is not a real church. The church in Thyatira was a church. I've been to Catholic services where I definitely felt the Lord presence. Call me crazy but it's true. *Who am I to say others shouldn't be there if He's there?* 99.9999% (at least) of people being saved in the world are being saved via groups that LCers would say are not real churches! Isn't it strange that the Lord is choosing to do such a majority of his saving work in groups LCers won't even recognize. Sounds like He recognizes them. Sounds like you and He are out of sync.

12-30-2008, 01:37 PM	#4
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,333	Re: Clarification Gubei, Let me also say that if you genuinely receive all believers and respect all churches in a city then I have no problem with your local ground beliefs. However, if you genuinely receive and respect then the local ground belief is rather superfluous, isn't it? Because if we all genuinely receive and respect, then real oneness has been achieved, unless you interpret oneness as marching in lockstep under one set of elders, which I most certainly don't, since the downside of such an arragement is potentially much worse, and more likely, than the upside, as history has shown again and again.

12-30-2008, 01:57 PM	#5
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,333	Re: Clarification Dear Gubei and Oregon, Simply put, you both have failed to prove conclusively that the house churches in the NT are city churches. And there is no way you can prove it. You can argue all you want and believe what you want, but there is no way you can conclusively show this. Thus it is unreasonable for you to expect others to accept your interpretation. So for you to call others divisive for not meeting as a city church is itself divisive. If you cannot see this or understand at all what I'm getting at then this conversation is basically over, because you just don't get it.

01-03-2009, 08:49 AM	#9
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,828	To Gubei and others... This is going to sound like I am picking on you Gubei (and I sort of am) At this point Gubei, you are flooding this thread. You keep making the same points over and over again. Maybe you don't realize it, but most of us have heard these same exact arguments made in the exact same manner. Many of us heard these same arguments made before you were born. Igzy has answered most of your questions/contention in a reasonable and sound manner, yet you seem to be deaf. At this point you guys are just talking AT each other and not WITH each other...and this is mostly your fault. The dialogue between you and Igzy has ceased to be a discussion. For this most part you are just blogging now. May I suggest you start your own blog regarding "the ground of the church" and you will be welcome to put up a link to it on this thread. Thanks for your understanding. __________________ αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11

01-04-2009, 04:57 AM	#12
Ohio Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Greater Ohio Posts: 13,693	Re: To Gubei and others... But ... shall we continue with the discussion on the "Ground of the Church?" __________________ Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point!

01-05-2009, 07:38 AM	#14
Hope Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Durham, North Carolina Posts: 313	Re: Clarification Igzy, Better stay away from the golf illustrations. Jack Nicklaus' perfect round of golf if you contend it has eagles on the par fives is not a 54 but is 50. A birdie on every hole is a 54. By the way I also once shot a 54. Of course it was for nine holes. Though, I am getting closer and closer to matching my age. Hope, Don Rutledge PS I intend to reply to your observations about the one church one city teaching being a method of control etc. but I wanted to take care of the important stuff first.

01-05-2009, 08:10 AM	#16
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,333	Re: Clarification Gubei, If you don't see recognizing the local ground as mandatory, then why are you arguing with me about it? And if you do see it as mandatory, then your statement that you are not insisting on it is by definition false. I see head covering as commanded, but I don't know whether hair is good enough or whether something more is needed. Jesus himself said that if you marry a divorced person you commit adultery. Yet I know of such marriages that seem to be blessed. Who am I to judge? The point is I can know for my own life what God's commandments mean. But I can't know what they mean in all cases for others. I do not have complete wisdom. You act as if you have complete wisdom about practical oneness. The problem with your interpretation of local ground is that you seem to think your interpretation is precisely the right one. Yet I see reason to think, or at the very least to understand why someone else would think, you very well could be mistaken. When uncertainty is present liberality is required. For my trouble you announce that I oppose the truth. I must allow free movement because I don't think the Bible gives me enough information to restrict it. That's the difference between what I believe and what you believe--mine is more general and liberal, not because I'm for generality and liberality, but because more specificity or restriction is not within my allotment of wisdom to insist upon. Your model restricts people more. Mine says, go to the Lord and let him tell you what oneness is. You say, I know what oneness is and everyone who doesn't agree with me is working against oneness. Also, let me say that I don't appreciate your saying, in typically boorish LC fashion, that I am opposing the truth. Get off it. You don't have some monopoly on the truth, and you clearly don't have enough of a gift of discernment to be putting me in my place, as evidenced by your repeated in inability to properly interpret what I've written. You said I didn't quote WN or WL because I was opposing "the truth." This statement is completely uncalled for. In the first place you can't possible know that, in the second I could provide plenty of quotes by WL which practically make the local ground as an article of faith. I've done my homework. If you want to believe that the Lord's goal is to one day bring every city in the world under one eldership then you are certainly free to believe it. I for one would like more information before I commit to such a vision. For example, as I've asked ad nauseum, I would like to know what options the Christians who eventually come under such eldership have when they become convinced by the Lord that they should no longer follow that eldership if it becomes corrupt. Last edited by Cal; 01-05-2009 at 08:32 AM.