Various by YP0534

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by OBW

No, I’ve got to believe that when Paul referred to the “whole assembly” with respect to the Corinthians, he was simply noting that sometimes they met in smaller groups and sometimes they all got together.

Right. But my point was that the use of the modifier, in this context, strongly implies to me that the smaller groups were ALSO recognized and legitimately described as "the assembly". At worst, it seems "part of the assembly" would apply, but, I'm not aware of THAT formulation anywhere.

I just think that this other author as well as Lee, by reserving their use of their word "church" to necessarily mean more than just 2 or 3 gathering, are being far too slavish to a prescriptive and limited definition. I've seen God's glory in small groups that were less than "the whole assembly" and I'm clear that that was "the assembly", at least to the extent that we need that defined in the first place. If the glory of the Living God is seen in the meeting, that's "the assembly" because "the assembly" is the house of the Living God.

[Hope]

Brothers,

A most excellent topic for fellowship.

Consider two passages, both from 1 Corinthians.

1 Cor 11:17-20, 17 But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part, I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, in order that those who are approved may have become evident among you. NASB

1 Cor 14:23-26, 23 If therefore the whole church should assemble together and all speak in tongues, and ungifted men or unbelievers enter, will they not say that you are mad? 24 But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or an ungifted man enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all; 25 the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so he will fall on his face and worship God, declaring that God is certainly among you.
26 What is the outcome then, brethren? When you assemble, each one has …NASB

First of all in 11:18 the literal Greek is not “as a church” but “in church.”

While we are urged in Hebrews not to forsake assembling together we may assemble for the worse.

We lose a lot with the English word “church.” I much prefer the word “Assembly.” In Greek it referred to the official gathering of the citizens of a city state for the purpose of conducting the business of and caring for the welfare of the citizens and for that of the city. It was an administrative unit. The so called Universal Church is never referred to in the New Testament as something of an administrative unit. Thus it is hard to say the Universal Church is anything tangible or anything other than the sum of all genuine believers in Christ across time and space.

From the above passages we can pick up a few things for our practice today. On the one hand, if we come together as a division within the church, a party, then it is actually a loss. Those in chapter one of 1 Corinthians, would be examples of assembling in a damaging way. On the other hand, in chapter 14 we see members taking responsibility to participate and contribute. Note the passage declares “each one has.” Today many assemble with the goal for each one to get, receive.

It is important how we assemble. To assemble may or may not be profitable.

I doubt if many of the practices in the New Testament were meant to be templates to overlay our practice today. Nor do I believe we are free to do whatever is right in our own eyes. God does have His administration. Violate it regarding marriage or the family and you will suffer a great loss and God’s plan for you and the good works He has prepared for you to walk in could be damaged.

God has His administration regarding the manifestation of the Headship of Christ. Violate it and you will suffer a loss.

Whole church is obviously a larger group. Would it mean every single solitary believer in a city like Dallas? If so it would hardly fit the rest of the passage. According to James, the Lord’s brother, Jerusalem had tens of thousands of believers. They did not have a facility where all could assemble at the same time.

As the number of disciples grew in the Roman Empire, there was a nearly universal desire to have a united front regarding orthodoxy and unity. They did use the title, church in so and so city. You will not find “the church in Italy,” or “the churches in Athens,” etc.

But there were an ever growing number of believers in Christ. How to maintain their practical unity? This forum has had a lot of discussion around one set of elders being essential for the practice of one church, one city. Prominent early church fathers took this route. Eventually they decided that a bishop was different from an elder. Each church had one bishop and many elders. Oneness with the bishop was oneness with the church. Thus in their reasoning, Christians could meet spread out to wherever in a city and there was still only one church in that city because all recognized the one bishop of that city. Eventually strong brothers who served as bishops would oversee surrounding city churches and became regional bishops. Ultimately the Bishop of Rome became the bishop of the world.

So brothers and sister what shall we do? We surely need the leading of the Lord, the supply of the Spirit, the Word of God, and much prayer and fellowship. May we always assemble for better and not for the worse. May God be known in our midst even by unbelievers and unlearned.

Hope

[awareness]

Great post Hope. I see you've done your homework. Your words about ecclesia being in common currency as a political assembly (in Athens) is right on. Of course the writers of the NT used words in common currency back in those days. We could say we owe a lot to those damn pagans back then. Even the name for God in the NT came from those pagans (as does all the names of God in the Bible.) Gratitude is in order : "Lord, thanks for the pagans."

Hope:
I doubt if many of the practices in the New Testament were meant to be templates to overlay our practice today.

When you think about this, how could it? Calculating known population numbers backwards there were less than 200 million on the earth back then. And that includes lands that weren't even known to exist back then, to those in the Bible area, like the Americas. So world population back then was 2/3rds of the population of just America today, which is only 4 percent of today's world population.

And everyone wasn't Christian back then. It's doubtful that the number of Christians back then would even warrant an entry into world statistics today.

Hope:
According to James, the Lord’s brother, Jerusalem had tens of thousands of believers. They did not have a facility where all could assemble at the same time.

So today it's actually impossible for all Christians in one city to all assemble together in one place.

Hope:
So brothers and sister what shall we do? We surely need the leading of the Lord, the supply of the Spirit, the Word of God, and much prayer and fellowship. May we always assemble for better and not for the worse.

I don't even know if assembling is as required as it was back then. Communication was so primitive back then compared to today that fellowship required assembling. But today we can communicate in many ways. I have to admit that today my best fellowship is over the phone, or Skype, or some such. I assemble with Christians to be a part of a group, but my best fellowship is over the phone or something like it.

I doubt that the writers of the NT were even able to imagine that believers would be using their books as a standard 2000 years later.

Brother Hope, you ask "what shall we do?" Thankfully Christianity is not a fixed religion like Judaism. Christianity is not based upon fixed law. It's based upon the outpoured living Spirit. So we have everything we need to go on from here. The Lord gave it to us. Follow the Spirit is your answer brother Hope.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

Christianity is not based upon fixed law. It's based upon the outpoured living Spirit. So we have everything we need to go on from here. The Lord gave it to us. Follow the Spirit is your answer...

Brother awareness,

I hope you'd permit an addendum from a fellow flake, er, mystic. Christianity is also based on the Bible. The Bible is our book of rules, of laws, of proper conduct. It is our "what to do" book.

And I would sum up the rules given to us as these: first, believe in God. Second, love one another. Third, try not to sin.

If we are faithful to follow these commandments given to us by our dear Chief Shepherd and Captain of our salvation, then I think the promise of the Spirit will be fulfilled and the Comforter will indeed arrive, and lead us into all the reality & truth.

And this leading may bring us into various assemblies, both wonderful and strange...

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

Right. But my point was that the use of the modifier, in this context, strongly implies to me that the smaller groups were ALSO recognized and legitimately described as "the assembly".

... I've seen God's glory in small groups that were less than "the whole assembly" and I'm clear that that was "the assembly", at least to the extent that we need that defined in the first place. If the glory of the Living God is seen in the meeting, that's "the assembly" because "the assembly" is the house of the Living God.

Now I think I catch your logic. Thanks for having the patience to restate it. I think I completely missed your point the first time through -- in fact, I had it reversed!

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

Now I think I catch your logic. Thanks for having the patience to restate it. I think I completely missed your point the first time through -- in fact, I had it reversed!

So, you see what I'm getting at here?

Not that every group less than the "whole assembly" is "AN assembly", as is so commonly and widely held, but rather, that there is at least some implicit authority in scripture indicating that a group of less than the "whole assembly" meeting together is "THE assembly" regardless of the particulars.

This doesn't give approval to divisiveness but instead requires us to look beyond the divisions and see the oneness in Christ.

Thus, for instance, the First Baptist Church could be legitimately recognized as "the assembly" meeting as "the First Baptist Church" and we could be done with the harmful effects of the exclusive doctrine of localism.

Without endorsing a name or their practices, we return to the true ground of oneness, namely, that all the believers in a place are "the assembly" in that place and we don't have to condemn others implicitly or explicitly for their denominational affiliations.

It's not that we're the great ones standing on the "local ground" and all others are in error and the flesh for not joining us. It's just that we have grace and light to assemble this way while they have grace and light to assemble that way and, should the Lord sound the trumpet, we would all gather as "the whole assembly".

And I think it's a very good point awareness made concerning numerosity in modern urban settings. It is a practical impossibility that "the whole assembly" should meet in this day and age. Has God set before the saints in a locality the requirement that they accomplish an impossible task?

It's a rigid and legalistic conception of the assembly that compels that interpretation, not the life and glory of God.



But I'd really like additional confirmation of this before I concluded that this notion of mine truly has any merit. Scripture confirms scripture and I do not trust myself to see so clearly as I think I might.

And my first thought, which I admittedly haven't given much time to since I posted this, was that verses containing this word
"comes together."
G4905 συνέρχομαι synerchomai
might be an area of study which may bear fruit.

I've never heard this word before and yet it appears a number of times in the New Testament.

It apparently has three defined meanings.

1. to come together
2. to travel together with
3. to "have relations"

The odd thing is that Paul uses this term in 1 Cor. 7:5

1Cr 7:5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

and then again in 1 Cor. 11:18

1Cr 11:18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that there are divisions among you. And I believe it in part,

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

...we return to the true ground of oneness, namely, that all the believers in a place [irrespective of how they assemble] are "the assembly" in that place...

The ironic thing, to me, is that the LSM-ites would probably agree with you, in principle. But in our attempts to "implement" our doctrines, we get all turned around. Funny how that works with fallen mankind, isn't it?

I had a friend in the LCs who was catching up with me after a long absence between us. In our Greater Metropolitan Statistical Area (I think that's how they phrase it) there was one city without a LSM-approved "local church", and the dear saints recently "took the ground". My friend said to me, "There's a church in _________ ", with a triumphant look on his face. I just smiled. I didn't have the grace to say anything. There's been a church there for hundreds of years.

Neither John nor Paul would have tolerated such foolishness, I suspect, but they both had greater grace than I, and could have spoken "in Christ". The best I could do was just smile. Like, "I love ya, bro. Nice to see you. Have a good day."

[awareness]

Aron:
I hope you'd permit an addendum from a fellow flake, er, mystic. Christianity is also based on the Bible. The Bible is our book of rules, of laws, of proper conduct. It is our "what to do" book.

And our jigsaw puzzle too. But bro Aron, as you likely well know, without the Spirit the Bible means jack. That's where the Bible came from. Without the Spirit nothing would even be here. There would no here here, nor there there, nor no when then, now now, nor anything else. And there would be no you and me.

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

But bro Aron without the Spirit the Bible means jack. That's where the Bible came from. Without the Spirit nothing would even be here. ... there would be no you and me.

True. Without the Spirit my addendum would be for naught. The Spirit is the Spirit of Reality. Without the Spirit there is no reality.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by aron

I had a friend in the LCs who was catching up with me after a long absence between us. In our Greater Metropolitan Statistical Area (I think that's how they phrase it) there was one city without a LSM-approved "local church", and the dear saints recently "took the ground".

This is not 19th century America where one can place a stake in the ground to claim as his own land!
Among some circles there is too much talking and not enough action. If a locality claims to be meeting on the ground of oneness, please show by your actions you are one in receiving fellow believers. Can a locality emphatically receive as Paul writes in Romans 15:7?

Terry

[awareness]

Terry:
Can a locality emphatically receive as Paul writes in Romans 15:7?

Yes. All that's needed is for you to do it. You can't tell others what to do. But you can do it. Start today....

[manna-man]

That was easy!

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by aron

The ironic thing, to me, is that the LSM-ites would probably agree with you, in principle.

I used to think so but I'm not so sure any more.

There is a great deal of neglect of Lee's earliest writings and Nee's ministry and a verystrong focus on the later teachings, even the latest teachings.

When older material is referenced at all, it is very selectively cited.

Lee himself is most likely the root of this problem. By introduction of something called "new" ("The New Way") to some small minds he thereby implicitly designated everything else as "old" - including his own prior ministry.

[aron]

Originally Posted by YP0534

There is a great deal of neglect of Lee's earliest writings and Nee's ministry and a verystrong focus on the later teachings, even the latest teachings.

When older material is referenced at all, it is very selectively cited.

Lee himself is most likely the root of this problem. By introduction of something called "new" ("The New Way") to some small minds he thereby implicitly designated everything else as "old" - including his own prior ministry.

Well, that's probably true. In order to make everything fit just right, certain unhelpful things from the past need to be ignored (or even re-written, or expunged from the record) and others get stressed, or promoted. It stands to reason.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by YP0534

I used to think so but I'm not so sure any more.

There is a great deal of neglect of Lee's earliest writings and Nee's ministry and a verystrong focus on the later teachings, even the latest teachings.

When older material is referenced at all, it is very selectively cited.

Lee himself is most likely the root of this problem. By introduction of something called "new" ("The New Way") to some small minds he thereby implicitly designated everything else as "old" - including his own prior ministry.

I know someone will take this the wrong way, but when I read your analysis of the transition in Lee's ministry, it reminds me of the "progression" of the Koran. It came in stages and says contradictory things with the proviso that the last one is always the right one.

Don't over-analyze it. Just a comment. Probably says more about the BBs than about Lee anyway.

[YP0534]

Originally Posted by OBW

I know someone will take this the wrong way, but when I read your analysis of the transition in Lee's ministry, it reminds me of the "progression" of the Koran. It came in stages and says contradictory things with the proviso that the last one is always the right one.

Don't over-analyze it. Just a comment. Probably says more about the BBs than about Lee anyway.

Not familiar with the origin story of that tome but it resembles a lot of things.

There's a reason I translate y'all's shorthand of "BB" into "Big Brothers" rather than the intended abbreviation.
I assume you've read 1984?