ARCHIVED: One City, One Church & Romans 16

ARCHIVED: One City, One Church

Romans 16

This Post Has Been Revised

Revised 02/10/2020

This is an archived version of this blog entry. Due to an error in its content, it has been revised. The next version of this post can be viewed here.

This version of this post was incorrect about Cenchrea being within the city of Corinth. Cenchrea being “within” the city of Corinth is inaccurate. Cenchrea was certainly a port of Corinth, and it had its own settlement, a town, but it was not “within” the city of Corinth.

The content below is the original post.

The “Biblical Pattern” of OCOC

Romans 16 delivers some starkly obvious blows to the “one city, one church” doctrine (OCOC), which is taught by the Lord’s Recovery. Although the Bible offers no prescriptive commandment regarding how to name a church, OCOC attempts to reconcile that by declaring certain parts of the Bible as “biblical patterns.” Although what the Recovery considers biblical patterns are only descriptive in nature, the Recovery interprets them as if they’re commandments, as if they’re prescriptive, even though that’s not true.

Conflating description with prescription is one of the main problems with OCOC. It already doesn’t hold up because God doesn’t command through His Word that Christians name churches anything, nor does He declare that Christians who don’t adhere to a certain naming standard are doing something wrong or missing some sort of blessing.

While the Bible’s identifying of churches is descriptive rather than prescriptive, biblical descriptions still matter in their own right but not in the same way.

For the sake of argument, let’s ignore prescriptions versus descriptions and say that all church naming has to follow the biblical pattern of church naming. For the sake of argument, let’s hypothetically say that we can come to the conclusion that church naming is addressed in biblically descriptive patterns Christians must adhere to. Does OCOC hold up? Again, ignoring prescription versus description here is solely for the sake of argument; it does matter. But if it didn’t, Romans 16 all by itself breaks OCOC logic entirely.

16:1 — Cenchrea Was a Port in Corinth

Take a look at the first verse in Romans 16.

16 Now I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church in Cenchrea.

Romans 16:1 (NET)

Cenchrea was a port/harbor within Corinth. Corinth was a city, called “the church of God that is in Corinth” in 1 Corinthians 1:2. According to the Biblehub Atlas’ Encyclopedia:

CEN’CHREA, was the eastern harbor of Corinth and 5 ms. e. from the city, the remains of which are called Kenkris.

Bible Hub Atlas Encyclopedia

According to Strong’s Definitions:

Κεγχρεαί Kenchreaí, keng-khreh-a’-hee; probably from kegchros (millet); Cenchreæ, a port of Corinth:—Cencrea.

Strong’s Definitions

And according to Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, it was “a port of Corinth.”

Needless to say, this fact all on its own breaks the pattern that OCOC attempts to follow. Based on the OCOC doctrine, the church in Cenchrea was supposedly using an incorrect, divisive name. OCOC doctrine says it should’ve been under the umbrella name of “the church of God that is in Corinth,” as in 1 Corinthians 1:2, not having its own name.

In Romans 16:1, the OCOC pattern doesn’t hold up. With the pattern broken just one time, OCOC is already logically flawed. If there is a biblically descriptive pattern that is a requirement for oneness in Christianity, the OCOC doctrine doesn’t follow that pattern.

16:5 — “The Church in Their House

3 Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus,

4 who risked their own necks for my life. Not only I, but all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them.

5 Also greet the church in their house. Greet my dear friend Epenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in the province of Asia.

Romans 16:3 – 5 (NET)

OCOC doctrine offers no other naming pattern for identifying and naming a church other than one church and one city (i.e., the church in [city name] city). Based on this doctrine, it should be divisive for Paul to have said, “the church in their house” in Romans 16:5.

But it’s not. Paul was describing a specific church, a church which met in Prisca and Aquila’s house. The Bible describing and identifying a church as “the church in their house” is not a commandment saying that all Christians should name their churches “the church in [someone’s] house.” Not only that, but if there’s a biblical naming standard, OCOC cannot possibly be it because “the church in their house” breaks OCOC’s main rule.

Conclusion: OCOC is Not Possibly Biblical

The “one city, one church” doctrine is based on church identifications and descriptions in the Bible being uniform in pattern. Although this is already a flawed approach to hermeneutics (how to interpret the Bible; Bible interpretation methodology), even the pattern OCOC doctrine attempts to adhere to doesn’t exist in the Bible. OCOC is logical fallacy.

10
Leave a Reply

avatar
5 Comment threads
5 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
5 Comment authors
Jacob Howard (Site Owner)Mike HSteve MillerJOHNATHANFormerChurchKid Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest
Notify of
FormerChurchKid
Guest
FormerChurchKid

For further articles debunking the OCOC maxim:

LSM’s Sacrament—the “Ground of the Local Church”
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showthread.php?t=4066

Jerusalem & Rome – Churches on the Local Ground?
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showthread.php?t=447

What ‘Recovery’? LSM’s Major Myth Debunked
http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vBulletin/showthread.php?t=4444

FormerChurchKid
Guest
FormerChurchKid

Cenchreae. The port of Corinth on the Saronic Gulf, indicating Paul’s location when Romans was sent. — Study note on Romans 16:1 from the Reformation Study Bible Cenchreae was about 6.5 miles (10.5 km) east of Corinth and was Corinth’s main port to the Aegean Sea. The Roman harbor of Cenchreae is still visible (though largely submerged), and excavators have identified warehouses, fish tanks, and what they believe may be temples to Isis and Aphrodite. — Study note on Acts 18:18 from the ESV Study Bible Cenchrea. A neighboring port city of Corinth, where Paul wrote Romans. The church in… Read more »

JOHNATHAN
Guest
JOHNATHAN

I have often wondered what the body of christ would look and function like if Witness Lee’s model was followed out world wide. Where would the ministries to the homeless, the drug addicts and outcasts, the single parent families etc be? If all the church where a LC of Witness Lee the church would be very weak indeed. The eye shouldn’t say to the ear because you can’t see I have no need of you!

Steve Miller
Member
Steve Miller

Romans was not written to “the church in Rome”, but to all the saints in Rome. The word “church” is not mentioned in Romans until chapter 16. In 16:5, Paul tells the saints in Rome to greet the church in Prisca and Aquila’s house. WL said that the church in Prisca and Aquila’s house was “the church in Rome”. But that could not be. Why would Paul tell the saints in Rome to greet the church in Prisca’s house if they were all members of that church? No, many of the saints in Rome were not meeting in Prisca’s house.… Read more »

Mike H
Guest
Mike H

I remember reading through Further Talks on the Church (Nee) a few years ago and noting that when he addressed some of the house churches (and maybe even Cenchrea), he essentially dismissed them by declaring that because of the OCOC rule, there must be some fact not stated that allowed them to avoid conflict. Classic “begging the question” — using the rule to dispute/dismiss any evidence that it is not a rule. I will note one thing, and that is the use of the term “biblical.” Unless you define what you mean by it, there is no way it is… Read more »