One Church - One City - Biblical?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

The opinions to which you point are those that cannot be established by showing what is there. Only by noting that it is not.

You are the one who is making claims that some special rules are there. To do that, you need to do more than say "the whole bible supports it." You are the one making a positive claim about what the Bible insists upon. That means you need to be able to show how and where the Bible so insists.

The burden is upon the one who claims the unique, not the one who cannot find any such thing and has not been given anything worthy of looking at for the purpose of rethinking.

Please note that if you put something specific out there, I may not agree with how you read or understand the passage. But without even a passage to look at, the problem is yours, not Igzy's.

And over the past 11 years I have changed my position on things, so I do not simply assume you are wrong and seek to disprove you. I will give your evidence an honest reading. As will Igzy and others. But just because we cannot figure out how to arrive at your understanding does not mean that we did not at least try.

Now if you say that no one was called to go into all the world and preach the gospel, then I would have something to work with. But you have said some things that just aren't there. And they weren't even imagined, so there was no reason to refute them back in the first century. That does not make you right and me or Igzy wrong. And it does not require that we come up with verses to refute what was never imagined to need to be refuted.

You are the one needing to provide something that actually supports what you say. And so far, you are failing miserably.

Post #52 in "Various Themes by Evangelical" testallthings wrote "It is a clear historical fact that there was only one church in one city.". So at least one person on here was educated enough to know that one church in each city is a historical fact.

These are not my opinions but the revealed facts from the Bible and history. From the Bible I can easily show there is one city per church (has already been discussed at length). You cannot provide me one example of a denomination.

Therefore the score is:
one city per church: 1
hundreds of denominations: 0

Now just because it is a historical fact, does not mean we have to follow it.

However I think if we want to do things the bible's way, we should adopt the same model revealed in the bible. This is because even though there is no biblical command "you must meet one church per city", clearly this was the way in which the Lord built his church. But there are plenty of commands against divisions and denominations are nothing but organized divisions/sects, as even the Catholics will say.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

From the Bible I can easily show there is one city per church (has already been discussed at length). You cannot provide me one example of a denomination.

Therefore the score is:

one city per church: 1
hundreds of denominations: 0

You have a funny way of keeping score. There is nothing making one church per city a rule. That is an overlay that requires that it be accepted before considering all the evidence so that the contradictory evidence can be simply dismissed by declaring that "it can't mean that."

You have established that references to Christians within a city, or possibly even also in the nearby environs, being identified by reference to the city in which they resided. It does not establish that they were simply meeting together, or that their elders were a single unit that agreed on all things. It does not find that there is anywhere that suggests that churches (assemblies) are required to be a single unit based on the limits of the city within which they are found or that if multiple assemblies are allowed (even required?) that they must share a single bank account, or have the same elders overseeing the entire collection of assemblies. There is not even a suggestion as to what kind of context it was that Timothy was left in Ephesus for the purpose of appointing elders. It is nothing short of assumption to think that it simply means appointing elders for a single assembly that covered the whole city. Nothing stands for or against that proposition, therefore it is not of doctrinal significance.

So, based on the need for real analysis of scripture, I have moved the score to 0 - 0.

As for denominations, if I need to prove that they are allowed, then I cannot change the score. If I simply need to prove that they are not disallowed, then I think I can succeed.

First, there appear to be two primary teachings used to discredit normal, orthodox Christianity by exclusivist groups. One is to look at Revelation and declare that "Nicolaitans" has to be a reference to clergy-laity. But that is completely speculative. The determination that a term must be referring to specific understandings of the root Greek words being used is purely presumptive. It only holds as much water as you can put in an idea. Sort of like the Emperor's clothes. The understanding of the fineness of the fabric was said to observed only by the truly noble. But it was a hoax. It completely ignores the idea that so many references to groups of people who are "ans" with respect to much of anything are often people following certain people. Like a Nicolas. Those that were following he pagan teachings of a Nicolas would be Nicolaitans. And in this case you have the clear possibility that this is the meaning. And to readers today who have no idea what the error behind the term is, not matter how you want to parse it, it is clear that there is a problem of accepting teachings that are contrary to what the true apostles were teaching.

And no matter how you want there to be no leadership, Jesus did not reject leaders. He didn't even reject the Levites simply because they were leaders. He rejected them for being "lord it over" leaders rather than servant leaders. So having leaders was not the problem. Just consider the first church. Several thousand in just a few days. And they went to the Temple for their teaching. The didn't just get it from their own quiet time or from PSRPing the latest HWFMW. They went to sit in the Temple and listen to the apostles teaching. Just like virtually every church in the world today. And it was evident at different times that there were different ones among the apostles and elders who were in the lead among the church's leaders. Early on it was clearly Peter. Later it seems to have been James.

Took too much time on that one.

The other discredit, heavily used by Lee, is to declare that the problem in Corinth that was addressed in the first 3-1/2 chapters of 1 Corinthians was names. But that cannot be what it was about. Besides, do you actually think that saying that you are of Christ is a problem if your intent is not to lay claim to a superior position? In other words, it wasn't that they were differing on which teachers to primarily hear. It was that they were fighting about it and even excluding each other over it.

Even saying that they were "of Christ" was a means of rejecting all the other teachers. Let's see how that fares. You won't listen to any other teacher but Christ. So who are you listening to since there is not yet a New Testament with his words in it. Just you and you indigestion? No!. The problem was not that some were "of Christ" and others were not. It was that they were fighting about it. They are all "of Christ" (or they are not Christian). Just not in the way that the arguments made it out to be.

In any case, I can assure you that the Lutherans are less about Luther than the LRC is about Lee. Same for the Calvinists (none of which really throw that name around so much). All these different groups disagree about less and agree about more. Meanwhile, you disagree with all of them for not agreeing with you and declare that they are the verboten "denominations" and you are not.

Yet the LRC does have a name. They sue to get it. They sue other Christians using that name. And they very clearly follow a single man more than any of the so-called denominations. (I say so-called not because they are not denominations, but because it does not mean what you think it means.) They go to great lengths to deny that they have a name or follow any man. But just try to start talking about what you appreciated from something John Piper, Chaplain Mike, Scot McKnight, Billy Graham, Matt Chandler, or any other preacher or Christian leader said in a sermon, book or blog and you will find out how much you follow a man. They will sugar coat the message. It is that they have come to appreciate that anything Lee said was always right. And they don't need to refer to anyone else. Or something like that.

And while I could buy that as a remote possibility, it becomes the evidence required to suggest that you will be incapable of understanding scripture in any way other than how Lee taught it. He could have been a snake in the grass, but because you are certain that he was right, you will not even read the words for your self and analyze whether they mean anything like what you claim they mean.

So at this point, it is either 0 - 1 or still 0 - 0.

And I am not adverse to leaving it at 0 - 0. Not because I can agree that denominations are simply wrong (as Lee declares from a serious misreading of the scripture). But because the idea is not to prove you wrong about what you hold to that is not essential in the faith, but to admit that we are not going to agree about everything. And that is not the end of Christian unity. Instead it should be the proof of our oneness that we don't see everything the same yet are not antagonistic with each other or declaring that the other is pagan, heathen, or only marginally Christian.

You have simply said that you showed how one church per city, defined by the legal boundary, and headed by a single unit of elders that agree on everything is in the Bible. But you have not. You have insisted that vague implications about very little can be stretched to include even more and that based on that you can withhold your unity from those who disagree.

So Igzy really said it right.

I've concluded that there is no worse divisiveness than divisiveness in the name of so-called oneness.

[Evangelical]

So even though I can show you one church per city in the Bible and from history, you say it is "not a rule". You cannot really claim you are following the Bible then. At least, you cannot claim to be doing church the way it should be done, the way it was setup by God from the beginning.

I suppose then you would be okay with replacing the communion wine (or grape juice) and bread, with peanut butter and kentucky fried chicken? There is no rule about that.

I suppose then you would be okay with replacing the baptismal water with a bucket of sand? There is no rule about that either.

I can show you that denominations are wrong and that what Lee taught is no different to others, from evangelical websites such as this one:
https://gotquestions.org/denominations-Christian.html

where they claim to be "We are Christian, Protestant, conservative, evangelical, fundamental, and non-denominational."

They say (emphasis mine)

There seems to be at least two major problems with denominationalism. First, nowhere in Scripture is there a mandate for denominationalism; to the contrary the mandate is for union and connectivity. Thus, the second problem is that history tells us that denominationalism is the result of, or caused by, conflict and confrontation which leads to division and separation. Jesus told us that a house divided against itself cannot stand. This general principle can and should be applied to the church. We find an example of this in the Corinthian church which was struggling with issues of division and separation. There were those who thought that they should follow Paul and those who thought they should follow the teaching of Apollos, 1 Corinthians 1:12, "What I am saying is this: each of you says, “I’m with Paul,” or “I’m with Apollos,” or “I’m with Cephas,” or “I’m with Christ.” This alone should tell you what Paul thought of denominations or anything else that separates and divides the body. But let’s look further; in verse 13, Paul asks very pointed questions, "Is Christ divided? Was it Paul who was crucified for you? Or were you baptized in Paul’s name?” This makes clear how Paul feels, he (Paul) is not the Christ, he is not the one crucified and his message has never been one that divides the church or would lead someone to worship Paul instead of Christ. Obviously, according to Paul, there is only one church and one body of believers and anything that is different weakens and destroys the church (see verse 17). He makes this point stronger in 3:4 by saying that anyone who says they are of Paul or of Apollos is carnal.



So Lee's teachings and what I have been saying about de-name-iating and what the scripture says about that is right, this is the proper interpretation of Paul's words about this matter.

But it is not surprising if some or even many would disagree, the Bible does not say that being a spiritual man as opposed to a carnal man, was ever easy.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So even though I can show you one church per city in the Bible and from history, you say it is "not a rule". You cannot really claim you are following the Bible then. At least, you cannot claim to be doing church the way it should be done, the way it was setup by God from the beginning.

I suppose then you would be okay with replacing the communion wine (or grape juice) and bread, with peanut butter and kentucky fried chicken? There is no rule about that.

I suppose then you would be okay with replacing the baptismal water with a bucket of sand? There is no rule about that either.

This is where you get a little crazy. Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of Me." There is no verse that says every Christian in town must be under one eldership and ministry.

The Bible also says "repent and be baptized every one of you." This is why all Christians teach and practice baptism. The Bible mandates it.

There is more scriptural basis for head-covering and communism (all things common) than there is for your brand of "practical oneness."

Sorry, Evan, but you have been sold a bill of goods. Ask any believer.

And, in regards to the breaking of bread, there is no scripture that demands bleached white flour be used for the bread, as LSM insists on. Bleached flour was not invented until the late 19th century, just in time for the Recovery to reach China, and obviously no church in history has ever broken bread properly until Nee and Lee came along.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is where you get a little crazy. Jesus said, "Do this in remembrance of Me." There is no verse that says every Christian in town must be under one eldership and ministry.

The Bible also says "repent and be baptized every one of you." This is why all Christians teach and practice baptism. The Bible mandates it.

There is more scriptural basis for head-covering and communism (all things common) than there is for your brand of "practical oneness."

Sorry, Evan, but you have been sold a bill of goods. Ask any believer.

And, in regards to the breaking of bread, there is no scripture that demands bleached white flour be used for the bread, as LSM insists on. Bleached flour was not invented until the late 19th century, just in time for the Recovery to reach China, and obviously no church in history has ever broken bread properly until Nee and Lee came along.

There is no rule that bread and wine be used for communion. But everyone does it, why? Because they know that's how Jesus did it. Now I'd like to see you suggest or propose that you use something different in your next communion, and you can tell everyone "folks, it's okay, there's no rule about it, as long as we pass around some food and drink and remember the Lord it will be okay".

In the same way then, we follow one church per city. Because we know that's how they did it. And we believe how they did it was how God told them to do it.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is no rule that bread and wine be used for communion. But everyone does it, why? Because they know that's how Jesus did it. Now I'd like to see you suggest or propose that you use something different in your next communion, and you can tell everyone "folks, it's okay, there's no rule about it, as long as we pass around some food and drink and remember the Lord it will be okay".

In the same way then, we follow one church per city. Because we know that's how they did it. And we believe how they did it was how God told them to do it.

What about LSMs demand for bleached white flour?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What about LSMs demand for bleached white flour?

What's wrong with that, it's still bread.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Lee's teachings and what I have been saying about de-name-iating and what the scripture says about that is right, this is the proper interpretation of Paul's words about this matter.

But it is not surprising if some or even many would disagree, the Bible does not say that being a spiritual man as opposed to a carnal man, was ever easy.

So "I am of Paul" is carnal, and "The local churches, lovers of Jesus affiliated with the ministries of Watchman Nee and Witness Lee" is spiritual?

"Of" is carnal and "affiliated with" is spiritual? You are right on that, it is not easy.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So even though I can show you one church per city in the Bible and from history, you say it is "not a rule".

First, you cannot and you have not shown any such thing. You have shown that terms were used. in reference to the Christians in a region that approximated a city. It did not in any way prove that they were a cohesive group with only one assembly, or if two or more, that the elders of each assembly were in such agreement on everything and/or were a single unit that was amorphous over the city. There is even evidence of the writing of a letter to the church in a place that referred to someone and the church in their house, and because of the wording, almost assuredly not simply the same group that got the original letter. You can try to argue that they must not have been from within the same city. But you don't know that. You only insist on it because you have devised a rule that says it cannot be otherwise.

I won't bother asking you to restate your reasons that the city-church rule exists because you have already tried and been found wanting.

Aren't you embarrassed? Doesn't the fact that you have to insist that words and intents that are not there must be anyway to get your theories to fly? Don't warning bells go off every time that someone says "it can't mean that because of God's economy"? So the clear words can't mean what they mean because of an unclear and simplistic definition of God's economy? And a definition that rejects large portions of the scripture?

You wandered out here and it is clear that you have your blinders on. You are thoroughly steeped in the unscriptural use of scripture to achieve what the scripture had no intent of achieving.

But if it makes you feel better, I don't think you are a marginal, mooing cow, Christian that is associated with the Whore of Babylon. Just very misguided on a lot of things that are not central to the mission that we have been called to.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

First, you cannot and you have not shown any such thing. You have shown that terms were used. in reference to the Christians in a region that approximated a city. It did not in any way prove that they were a cohesive group with only one assembly, or if two or more, that the elders of each assembly were in such agreement on everything and/or were a single unit that was amorphous over the city.

I agree that showing a correlation does not prove causation. I think the most that can be claimed is that there is a correlation between the mention of one church and one locality.

This does not mean that the locality causes the church to be one. In fact the Apostles mention many things related to oneness. Generally it is the flesh and sin which cause us to lose our oneness. There is no suggestion at all that locality is some kind of antidote to the flesh or sin.

The church is likened to a city, to the New Jerusalem. So there is some allegorical references that can be made, but nothing in the black and white teaching.

Originally Posted by OBW

First, you cannot and you have not shown any such thing. You have shown that terms were used. in reference to the Christians in a region that approximated a city. It did not in any way prove that they were a cohesive group with only one assembly, or if two or more, that the elders of each assembly were in such agreement on everything and/or were a single unit that was amorphous over the city. There is even evidence of the writing of a letter to the church in a place that referred to someone and the church in their house, and because of the wording, almost assuredly not simply the same group that got the original letter. You can try to argue that they must not have been from within the same city. But you don't know that. You only insist on it because you have devised a rule that says it cannot be otherwise.

I won't bother asking you to restate your reasons that the city-church rule exists because you have already tried and been found wanting.

Aren't you embarrassed? Doesn't the fact that you have to insist that words and intents that are not there must be anyway to get your theories to fly? Don't warning bells go off every time that someone says "it can't mean that because of God's economy"? So the clear words can't mean what they mean because of an unclear and simplistic definition of God's economy? And a definition that rejects large portions of the scripture?

You wandered out here and it is clear that you have your blinders on. You are thoroughly steeped in the unscriptural use of scripture to achieve what the scripture had no intent of achieving.

But if it makes you feel better, I don't think you are a marginal, mooing cow, Christian that is associated with the Whore of Babylon. Just very misguided on a lot of things that are not central to the mission that we have been called to.

An unseemly victory lap.

The church, like many truths in the Bible, are a matter belief based on biblical facts, faith, and revelation. The Bible reveals truths about God, Jesus, the divinity and humanity of Jesus, redemption, salvation, resurrection, the Holy Spirit, The Spirit of Jesus Christ, the Church universal, the local churches, glorification, the second coming of Christ, the judgements, the New Jerusalem, and many other things.

But you know what? No matter how much biblical evidence is presented some folks do not believe any of those things or maybe accept some but not others. Not that these matters are not written in the Bible but some do not to rightly divide the word, or do not have a spirit of revelation, or do not exercise faith to substantiate the biblical truths into their experience. Many here do not accept some of the truths because they've had a negative experience and that has become a veil. Humans are complex and what seems obvious to one appears as a complete fabrication to another for a many different reasons.

Not that Evangelical's explanation needs defending for he has presented the biblical facts as clearly as they are written in the Bible. But it's not enough for some for whatever reason.

Therefore, your haughty attitude is very unseemly and you act like the case was not presented. It was. It's just that you do not believe it. Not, as you suggest, was the effort inadequate. You do not have the ground to take a victory lap as if you have presented a compelling biblical argument in favor of denominations. I have heard some pretty clever arguments in favor of denominations but not here and not from you.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Drake

You do not have the ground to take a victory lap as if you have presented a compelling biblical argument in favor of denominations. I have heard some pretty clever arguments in favor of denominations but not here and not from you.

Why do you get your feathers in such a ruffle over "denominations"...You Are In One...or at least you defend it as if you were

Look, there is a very good reason that the denomination you are so gallantly defending is known as "The Local Church" or "The Local Church of Witness Lee". Just step though the door of any Local Church meeting hall and what do you see? What name is on all the Life Study messages and outlines, HWMR booklets, the notes in the Recovery Version, many of the hymns in the hymnal...etc, etc. etc. The "local churches" are denominated big time. In fact, their denomination is simply based upon the person and work of Witness Lee...that is the name they are denominated under, ipso facto.

The fact that the Local Church denomination ostensibly practices locating just one of their franchises within one political/governmental boundary doesn't exclude them from being a "denomination" anymore than if the Lutherans, Baptists or Presbyterians did the same thing. One Lutheran church in Anytown USA is still part and parcel of the Lutheran denomination just the same as if there were three or four.

-

[Nell]

A descriptive text tells us what was done.
A prescriptive text is instructional and tells us what we must do.

The verses about the New Testament church are descriptive. That is, "one church, one city" describes the church or the congregation of believers in the cities of Ephesus, Smyrna, Philadelphia, etc.

Do these descriptive passages also clearly prescribe, how all Christians for all times should meet? No. Could all Christians meet together as the church in that city? Yes, should they so choose. Is it mandatory? No. There is no evidence of a prescription that the church, even the early church MUST be local to the city. There is only a description of what the early church looked like during a period of time.

Nell

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

First, you cannot and you have not shown any such thing. You have shown that terms were used. in reference to the Christians in a region that approximated a city. It did not in any way prove that they were a cohesive group with only one assembly, or if two or more, that the elders of each assembly were in such agreement on everything and/or were a single unit that was amorphous over the city...

Someone needs to do their homework. There's definitely historical evidence for one administration per city in the early church.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Someone needs to do their homework. There's definitely historical evidence for one administration per city in the early church.

You say things like this, but cannot establish that any possible situation was more than the way it was at the particular time in a particular place. In one particular place there is reference to the people having all things in common. But even that was somewhat overstated. It was generally true. More like theoretical communism in which needs are met, but not necessarily meaning that only the collective owned anything and not the individuals.

When we get to other churches, there were meetings in the houses of wealthy persons, and among the attenders were slaves. And in at least one place there was eventually a slave owned by the owner of the house. So without going into grand speculation, there is a case of things very much not in common.

A situation in which you find an administration that covered the whole city could only refer to Jerusalem. The first church. The one that had all of the apostles for a period of time. Yet there is no evidence that how they did it (as sparingly as we can discern) was dictated as the way other churches should do it.

If there is anything to be learned from the descriptions of the churches that we can glean from Acts and the epistles, there was a lot of diversity in many ways among the churches. Not just in the makeup of the assembly, but even in how they met, what kinds of things were important to them. And Paul never said for any one of them to do it like they do it in some other place, including Jerusalem.

So you have a really vague example in Jerusalem, embellish what was revealed into something more, and then insist that everyone else must do it the same or else be relegated to the dust bin of illegitimate churches.

That is the sign of real unity.

Ye search the scriptures for in them you think that they will reveal that your peculiar set of rules are right and that you are thereby empowered to expel everyone that does not live up to your standard. But those scriptures point to Christ, not the church. You come to Christ for life, not the church.

Even Thyatira was not an illegitimate church. Neither was Laodicea.

But to the ones who think they are the only game in town, it doesn't matter.

And while you like to say that you have history and scripture on your side, maybe you could try to show some of it. Try starting with a single item of evidence. Let's see if it really means what you think it means. When we have either proved or disproved that, let's move to another. Posting a 1,500 word listing of alleged proofs and saying "See! I did it" does not prove anything. Only that you can post scripture. Let's spend some time on each portion.

"And while you like to say that you have history and scripture on your side, maybe you could try to show some of it. Try starting with a single item of evidence. Let's see if it really means what you think it means. When we have either proved or disproved that, let's move to another"

OBW,

For comparison and contrast provide a scriptural basis for division/denominations.

Try starting with a single piece of evidence. Let's see if it really means what you think it means

When we have either proved or disproved that, let's move to another.

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

You say things like this, but cannot establish that any possible situation was more than the way it was at the particular time in a particular place. In one particular place there is reference to the people having all things in common. But even that was somewhat overstated. It was generally true. More like theoretical communism in which needs are met, but not necessarily meaning that only the collective owned anything and not the individuals.

There are two questions to this. 1) what was it like in the early church? and 2) does it apply today?

Regarding the first question 1)

Actually testallthings already posted some factual things in Post number #53 "Various Themes by Evangelical" thread. I repost it here:

It is a clear historical fact that there was only one church in one city.

Ignatius of Antioch, a student of the Apostle John, and the third bishop of Antioch, while on his way to be martyred in Rome, wrote to

“the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia,”
“the Church which is at Magnesia, near the Moeander,”
“the holy Church which is at Tralles, in Asia,”

“the Church...which also presides in the place of the report of the Romans”
“the Church …. which is at Philadelphia, in Asia,”
“the Church which is at Smyrna, in Asia,”

https://www.ewtn.com/library/PATRISTC/IGNATIUS.HTM

Regarding authority in the church he writes to the Ephesians (and to other churches, too)

CHAP. V.--THE PRAISE OF UNITY.
For if I in this brief space of time, have enjoyed such fellowship with your bishop--I mean not of a mere human, but of a spiritual nature--how much more do I reckon you happy who are so joined to him as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father, that so all things may agree in unity! Let no man deceive himself: if any one be not within the altar, he is deprived of the bread of God. For if the prayer of one or two possesses[4] such power, how much more that of the bishop and the whole Church !He, therefore, that does not assemble with the Church, has even[5] by this manifested his pride, and condemned himself. For it is written, "God resisteth the proud."[9] Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God.
CHAP. VI.--HAVE RESPECT TO THE BISHOP AS TO CHRIST HIMSELF.
Now the more any one sees the bishop keeping silence,[10] the more ought he to revere him. For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household,[11] as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself. And indeed Onesimus himself greatly commends your good order in God, that ye all live according to the truth, and that no sect has any dwelling-place among you. Nor, indeed, do ye hearken to any one rather than to Jesus Christ speaking in truth.

“The model of church organization that was formed during the first three centuries of Christianity was based on the principle of "one city-one bishop-one Church", which foresaw the assignment of a certain ecclesiastical territory to one concrete bishop. In accordance with this principle, the "Canons of the Apostles" and other canonical decrees of the ancient Church point to the inadmissibility of violating the boundaries of ecclesiastical territories by bishops or clergy.”
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articl...nOneBishop.php
..................................................
Dale Mody, The Word of Truth: A Summary of Christian Doctrine Based on Biblical Revelation, page 435

https://books.google.com.tw/books?id...page&q&f=false

If we can agree that this is how things were in the early church, then we can focus on the question of whether it applies today?

To address the second question 2) does it apply today? I can easily show that the early church model continued for 1000 of years (in Catholic, Orthodox). It was considered important to keep to the apostolic traditions and still is today in many respects.

Protestantism was not a license to do church however we wanted, ideally it should have reformed the existing Catholic church. What you are advocating for is not reformation or continuing the apostolic traditions but a license to do whatever we want however we want.

I can easily show that going back to the way things were in 1) is the genuine expression of Christianity.

Therefore your church with its name doing things how it sees fit is a division of a division of a division, or a sect of a sect of a sect ..

Actually your idea that we can do church however we like would be a foreign concept to the early church just as it is a foreign concept to the denominations that hold to apostolic traditions today.