Quote:
Originally Posted by seekerman
Nope, not a form of arguing from silence. The pattern of meeting New Testament church was from home to home per scripture, the bible isn't silent at all about that. Never was it taught to build some building, call it a 'church' or 'tabernacle' or 'house of God' or 'bro so-and so's church' and replacing that with the bible based teaching of house to house.
The Romanists introduced the building-based system with all it's trappings and the oneness pentecostals are following it very well. It's not according the teachings of the bible though.
So no, it's not arguing from a position of silence. It's arguing between following the Roman system or the New Testament system.
|
Hello seekerman,
While I agree that "ekklēsia" applies to the body of believers, it appears that the location/building where they actually congregated was inconsequential. Nowhere do we see in the NT a prescription
against a particular meeting place and/or building. In fact, nowhere do we see a prescription
in favor of such. It simply isn't discussed, therefore, it was inconsequential. This is why I said that to argue for or against a building is to argue from silence.
Threaded Mode
