Name A Church

[thatbrian]

When you have a city the size of San Francisco, more than one assembly of Believers is not schismatic. Also, the case maybe the other Gospel preaching church is not of the same faith and order, say its Orthodox Presbyterian or Free Methodist.

I don't imagine there are too many Christians in San Fransico to fit into a single building, firstly . Secondly, I said there is an argument to be made, which is my way of not being terribly dogmatic about this, yet I do think we should think more about it, and look to biblical examples for guidance.

The gospel is what unites Christians, not secondary issues of doctrine. We are never told to separate over anything other than gospel issues, quite the opposite, in fact.

Finally, cities have sections/neighborhoods, and those would be fine names for churches once a church is maxed out.

 

[thatbrian]

Depends on how big the city is.

Would it really make since to only have the New York City Baptist Church -
Or am I missing something.

Manhattan has 53 neighborhoods, so that's a start. . .

The point is, a geographic name is best because the Church is united be Christ and His gospel, not denominational markers, and I say that as a Reformed believer.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

I have no problems with using neighborhood or geographic point names. Believe it or not, there are more Christians in San Francisco that you may think. They would make up a nice sized "mega-church" if it was to only one in the City.

Finally, cities have sections/neighborhoods, and those would be fine names for churches once a church is maxed out.

 

[thatbrian]

Believe it or not, there are more Christians in San Francisco that you may think.

Glad to hear it. I live n the other coast, so I was only guessing at the lack of Christians (I mean evangelical Christians, BTW) in SF, so, out of curiosity, I looked for some actual numbers.

Here's what I found: San Francisco Bay Area Least 'Church Going' Metro In America

 

[Salty]

There is an argument to made that if there already is a gospel-preaching church in that city, then to plant another one is to cause a schism.

So, Brian - are you now saying that your original quote (as listed above) was a little over the top?

 

[thatbrian]

So, Brian - are you now saying that your original quote (as listed above) was a little over the top?

No. I am not. Perhaps it was not stated well, though.

I understand your shock over my post because we are all accustomed to the way things currently are, but I ask you one thing before you dismiss what I said, please show me from scripture that churches were planted for any other reason than geographic area. Show me that three churches existed within close proximity because of theological distinction.

Does the scripture every say, "To the Baptist church at Ephesus"?

 

[agedman]

No. I am not. Perhaps it was not stated well, though.

I understand your shock over my post because we are all accustomed to the way things currently are, but I ask you one thing before you dismiss what I said, please show me from scripture that churches were planted for any other reason than geographic area. Show me that three churches existed within close proximity because of theological distinction.

Does the scripture every say, "To the Baptist church at Ephesus"?

Did not the converts undress, be submerged three times and then given new clothes to redress?

I would think the first church at Ephesus was Baptist.

 

[thatbrian]

Did not the converts undress, be submerged three times and then given new clothes to redress?

I would think the first church at Ephesus was Baptist.

That completely misses my point.

 

[agedman]

That completely misses my point.

You ask the question about the Baptist church at Ephesus.

Where they not Baptist in submerging converts?
Where they not Baptist in separation of church and state?
Where they not Baptist in local polity of the assembly?

They don't fit into any other denominational grouping.

I didn't respond to the incorrect notion that churches were planted by geographical area, because I thought it rather obviously incorrect, doesn't mean I "completely missed the point."

So, because you don't recognize your misstatement, maybe this statement will help.
The churches were established by population areas, not geographical areas.

 

[rlvaughn]

Guys, your discussion brought to mind thoughts of Watchman Nee's teaching on the "city church". This seems somewhat related, but rather than distract the thread here, I have created a new one:
The City Church.