One Church - One City - Biblical?

[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

Originally Posted by Nell

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

What scriptural basis is used in this teaching that we can dismiss the descriptive in favor of the prescriptive? Anyone could make up a prescriptive to replace the text of the Bible!!

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Drake

What scriptural basis is used in this teaching that we can dismiss the descriptive in favor of the prescriptive? Anyone could make up a prescriptive to replace the text of the Bible!!

It's not a teaching. It's common sense. One example,
2 Timothy 4:13 The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.

Is this verse prescriptive or descriptive? Actually, it's just a personal request from Paul to Timothy.

Another one: Mark 16:18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

There is a group who took this verse as a prescriptive and formed a religion of "snake handlers".

But you are right. Anyone could make a prescriptive and WL DID repeatedly made up prescriptives when observing what the Bible described in the New Testament, and made a religion out of it...especially related to his locality doctrine.

This was not my bright idea. The first time I heard about prescriptive v. descriptive was in a conversation with Bill Mallon. If you Google "prescriptive v. descriptive" you will see that without determining how text is used, it would be easy to come up with "prescriptions" that were never intended to be anything other than a description. Seminary students are familiar with this tool used to study the Bible, as are students of linguistics. WL boasted that he had no degree from a seminary and he knew the Bible better than.....on and on. Maybe he should have taken a class or two.

Regardless, I'm not dismissing anything. Rather, I'm suggesting that the context in which a statement was made be studied to determine its intent...before we go running off to Troas to see if we can find Paul's cloak and the parchments.

Nell
PS: Do you eat bacon?

hi Nell,

An example from the topic of this thread: The descriptive view of the local churches in the Bible is one church one city. A prescriptive view is there can be a number of churches in a city made up of 2 people each!

Drake

P.S. I probably eat more bacon than I should. I would not eat any were it not for Acts 10.

Yet, I prefer duck hands down. ;-)

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Nell

PS: Do you eat bacon?

Oh Nell! The law was abolished!! We just wait for the dispensing. If we don't have enough to fulfill the law of letters, then it doesn't matter. Must be premature light.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

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

There was a reason Christians met as one church per city for 1000 or so years. It was not because the Bible told them how to do it. It was because that's how Christ established the practical administration of the church. It is wrong to think that we can reject everything that is not a prescriptive command, and that descriptive text does not have to be followed. There are a number of things that Christians do because of what was done, rather than what was instructed. In fact, many Christians do things that are neither prescriptive or descriptive texts in the Bible - celebrating Christmas and Easter for example.

[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

[aron]

It seems to me that you are re-branding. When the Bible speaks of multiple ekklesia in one area, you call them "meetings". But when you see multiple meetings that you don't like (because they aren't "affiliated with" [read: subservient to) the lone ministry of the age, so-called) you call them "churches", and say there's only one, allowed. So that is a division.

When your denomination has multiple gatherings, assemblies, services, you call them "meetings", as in "College meeting" or "Prayer meeting at sister Smith's house". But the Bible called them ekklesia. Both NT and OT (LXX).

Originally Posted by aron

It seems to me that you are re-branding. When the Bible speaks of multiple ekklesia in one area, you call them "meetings". But when you see multiple meetings that you don't like (because they aren't "affiliated with" [read: subservient to) the lone ministry of the age, so-called) you call them "churches", and say there's only one, allowed. So that is a division.

When your denomination has multiple gatherings, assemblies, services, you call them "meetings", as in "College meeting" or "Prayer meeting at sister Smith's house". But the Bible called them ekklesia. Both NT and OT (LXX).

hi aron,

I understand you cannot discern the distinction between the reasons and causes for divisions/denominations vs. the physical distance between multiple meeting halls of believers in the same city standing on the ground of oneness.

No amount of explanation has convinced you. And though I disagree with your views on this point you have your reasons for holding them based on events that shaped your viewpoint.

My experience was different from yours even though I also lived through the same era and events you did. I also had some firsthand experience in your patch. I have a guiding vision where the biblical facts align perfectly with the leading of the Spirit concerning the Church and the churches. Some have argued that the leaders were/are imperfect, or the execution was flawed, or awful things happened and therefore the whole is to be rejected. I will not argue with any of those citations except what should be done about it. I am reminded that none of us are without sin, faults, and shortcomings, and yet God still viewed the church in Corinth with all its sin, faults, and strife as the church of God in Corinth. His view is what matters to me the most.

I understand that is a moot point for you.

Drake

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Drake

"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

First, it would help the conversation if you registered. But it is not my problem, so I will go on.

The whole biblical/unbiblical analysis is something that needs understanding. There are things that are:

• Clearly required by the Bible
• Permitted by the Bible
• Clearly forbidden by the Bible

These things might be referred to as biblical or unbiblical. But there is a huge host of things that are simply not addressed, or addressable, in terms of the biblical/unbiblical dichotomy. This is because the reason that the Bible does or does not have anything to say about them is not directly related to the thing itself.

Is driving a car unbiblical? Clearly, without qualifiers, there is nothing in the Bible about it. It can be neither biblical nor unbiblical in itself. Speeding while driving a car is technically unbiblical because it is contradiction of the general rule to obey they authorities. But that is not about simply driving the car, but how you are driving the car.

So you think that divisions and denominations are simply covered in the Bible. That is a question that must be answered before you can apply the Bible to it. I believe that there is a passage that mentions something about "that there be no divisions among you" or words to that effect. And I would agree. But first, the passage is written to people who are meeting together. They are an assembly, not the whole of the collection of all Christians universally. And even within that assembly, the writer goes on to say that there must be division, or factions.

So the question to you is, what do you think is meant by the references to division here in 1 Corinthians? Does it simply mean don't see eye-to-eye on everything? Or that those who do agree meet separately to keep the peace? Or that they seriously disagree and presume that the others are in grievous error such that their standing before God is significantly (if not completely) compromised?

And no matter which version you come down in favor of, on what basis do you determine that your solution — that of defining what is the correct formula for having a church — actually cures "division"? Do you think that simply meeting as the church according to a city will make you agree on all things doctrinal or even practical? If the format of the meeting is that anyone can speak from what we have gleaned from our thoughts, reading, prayers, experience, etc., during the week will my consideration of the enlightenment I received from a certain passage of scripture based upon some reading from (Swindol, Piper, Wright, McKnight, Fitch, Henry, Scofield, etc.) be appreciated or groaned at? (I know how this works. I saw 14+ years of it.) If I cannot get behind the peculiar teachings of Lee, and even question some of them, will I still be allowed to remain? Will that be permitted as part of the "factions that will cause those who are approved to be made manifest" or will it simply not be tolerated?

The problem is that you want everyone to come your way. But you can't defend your way. And even if were to give in on the "ground of the church," it would not be enough. There would be a new round of reasons for excluding us. Things like asserting that we want clean sheets. Or that we dared to teach young people to start with the Bible and a host of commentaries and Bible dictionaries, then after going through all of that, discover whether it supported and agreed with "the ministry" (meaning the ministry of Lee). There is a very long publication defining the reasons that Titus Chu was expelled. Among them was the fact that he did those things mentioned above. He also self-published materials that he used for his meetings and for his evangelistic efforts. And he did not always agree on everything that the so-called "blended brothers" said about things.

Then when this happened and whole churches, still meeting according to the "local ground of oneness" refused to excommunicate Titus Chu like Anaheim and the LSM wanted, Anaheim sent lawyers to sue to get property back — as if Anaheim or the LSM was the holder of the property of a local church. And they went to sue to get the right to use the original name, "church in [city]."

Let's discuss division. What are they talking about when the Bible says "that there be no divisions among you"? Are you certain that simply meeting on the ground cures or avoids all division? The evidence is that it absolutely does not.

And you know what was meant when it said "division"? Does it simply mean "they don't agree on every nuance of doctrine and practice"? Or does it mean that they are effectively at war? The description that Paul gives in his letter to Corinth looks at least a little like war. They wouldn't even eat with each other. They were excluding each other. There is a reference to "when the whole church comes together." Was this the place of inability to get along? They simply couldn't stomach those "others" (sounds like something from "Lost").

I will admit that there is a level of division within Christians. But that division is generally smaller than the agreement that we have. Oddly, the division between almost any Christian group and the LRC is greater than what stands between most of the groups excluding the LRC. And that division is viewed as "very great" from the perspective of the LRC, and "not much different than between us and any other group" from the other perspective.

I disagree with you about many teachings. But none of the core of the faith. My disagreement with you is not significant. That does not mean that I do not think the things I consider errors in your teachings are completely benign and harmless. But I do not consider any of it to impinge upon your inclusion and participation in the household of faith. Our assembly would not withhold communion from you. Nor would we refuse to participate in communion with you. But you would. And you see the failure of everyone to not go your way as evidence of grievous error. Error so extreme that you cannot partake of communion with them. You make some claims of having fellowship with all Christians, but you withhold the most significant part of fellowship.

Since you also want to discuss denominations in the same context, I will start by noting that there is no scripture for or against the practice. At this point in time, it is evident that the number of churches (assemblies) within the city of Dallas is very large. No matter how you dice it, if we stick to the city proper and assume that only 10% of the population is Christian, and that you want to keep the population of any particular meeting (assembly) to an average of 250 people, there will be roughly 500 assemblies (based on the 2015 population estimate). Some of those will be in mostly Hispanic neighborhoods. Some will be in older, well-established neighborhoods that have mostly retired persons. Others will be neighborhoods of mostly young urban professionals, many of them single. And so on. The manner of meeting will somewhat reflect aspects of the people who are in the meeting. The younger ones will gravitate to more modern forms of worship and music while the older will gravitate to other forms. If we assume that the Spirit is free to move as He wills, there is nothing to cause any of these to simply be just like any other.

And they all agree that they are just "church" and are part of the city of Dallas, taking no particular name. People will refer to each assembly as simply the church meeting at [address].

So you live in the Victory area of Uptown and the closest assembly is using newer songs of praise, and sprinkling their meetings with some intentional practices like responsive readings, and a certain part of every meeting is designed for the people to join in repentance (a "forgive us our trespasses" kind of thing).

But that is not what you want to be doing. Are you going to get in your car and drive a little further to attend a group that doesn't do any kind of "liturgy" (at least in the old-style sense) and sings only hymns from an approved hymnal. And uses only a piano and occasionally a couple of acoustic guitars rather than also having some drums, and organ, or even electric guitar?

And beyond the somewhat outward differences, some of the groups have gravitated to understand salvation as requiring more than a one-time claim of "belief" since even John 3:16 says "whosever believes," not "whosoever believed."

Yet despite all of these differences (and probably more) each of them is joining with the others in evangelistic efforts. In efforts to help the poor, underprivileged of their communities (both Christian and non-Christian). They come out to fix up the meeting place of the poor group that doesn't agree with everything they hold to so that those people can worship God without fear that the foundation will fail as they meet. They all send missionaries to various places and pray for the needs of each others groups.

And given the likely diversity among these groups, I suspect that you will start to have an unwritten listing of what groups generally fit together so that you and others can decide which will be your regular meeting place. No one is offended that you drove past theirs to get to the one you meet with. They are happy that you are meeting.

And since the various groups tend to sort of further simplify into those common groups of groups, they get labeled. Not to be ugly. Or to exclude anyone. But to let anyone know what is different about each. So that the members of the universal church can meet without distraction.


The funny thing about all of this is that even within denominations, there is diversity. The association is not entirely inflexible. And it does not cover every aspect of belief and practice. But to hear the LRC talk about it, there is some serous control. Are you aware that Baptists are not required to do anything? They are members of the group by choice. And they can choose to not be part of the group.

I am a member of a church that has a common naming convention with other churches, yet is not a denomination and has no headquarters. We do believe a lot the same about things. But not entirely. There was recently some serious controversy about one of them that did something that had many of the others up in arms. The debate in the open media was intense. There was even a few threats of violence. But the truth is that none of these separate assemblies every considered this particular assembly to be in grievous error, or cut them off from fellowship. In the middle of it all, the preacher of this one and one of the others switched pulpits a couple of times. And the "issue" was never on the agenda for discussion or preaching about.

That is unity in diversity. You think it is division. But it is not. You want unity in conformity. You want the contemporary service at our church to dump its praise band, and the traditional service to accept popcorn testimonies read from a single, pre-defined source of writing. You really don't care whether forcing your will on others is spiritually correct or helpful. You just want to wield "unity" as a weapon to force conformity. And conformity to your image, not the image of God.

Division is spoken of in the Bible. But you cannot assert that there really is any real division "out there." And denominations are just a boogeyman. You want conformity to your ways but decry any others who agree to conform without forcing others in the same way. Your version of unity is worse than division. It is like when the RCC declares all Protestant and EO assemblies to be "damaged" since they are not meeting with the "true church." Of course their version of the true church is the RCC.

You mock people for praying "poor" prayers. You would scoff at "Bless us, Oh Lord, and these thy gifts which we are about to receive from thy bounty, through Christ, Our Lord. Amen." But cherish simply saying "Oh Lord Jesus" over and over without ever saying anything about anything.

And you insist that the world beat a path to your door.

The Bible does not speak against diversity. Only division. It does not say that we cannot meet in any particular way, only that we meet.

Rather than charging me to say how the Bible supports our meetings and groups, you should show how it denies them. The groups are neither biblical nor unbiblical from where I sit. Therefore I cannot provide a list of verses to say that it is so. I can only say that I do not find anything that denies them. So it falls on you to establish that they are not allowed and provide evidence for your claim.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

First, it would help the conversation if you registered. But it is not my problem, so I will go on.

The whole biblical/unbiblical analysis is something that needs understanding. There are things that are:

• Clearly required by the Bible
• Permitted by the Bible
• Clearly forbidden by the Bible

Excellent. I think the NT clearly requires that we gather together.

I think that all gatherings of Christians in the name of Jesus are permitted.

I think that much of what WL did with the LC was clearly forbidden by the Bible.

[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.