Quote:
Originally Posted by Igzy
His treatment of house churches is a circular argument. It presumes what it purports to prove. Nowhere does the Bible make it clear that the mentions of house churches correspond directly to city churches, and Canfield should know better than to pretend it does. He's reaching for a conclusion that the Bible doesn't provide, I guess because he thinks there ought to be one. But why does he think that?
He says there is "absolutely no exception" to the local pattern of churches in the Bible, then proceeds to sweep five plain exceptions under the rug. The mention of the church in the region, and the four mentions of house churches.
|
Spot on.
I remember when we had this discussion two or three years ago, probably on the other forum. I recall reading Nee's writings on the subject and seeing clearly that even Nee was doing the same thing. When he came to the house churches, he simply said (in so many words) "since we have the city-church rule, this cannot mean that there is something different from a city-church."
He used a rule already established (by himself) to exclude and redefine the meaning of evidence of a contrary explanation. This is the classic case of begging the question. State a rule as true before any evidence that could contradict it is considered. Then assess contrary evidence based on the rule rather than in concert with all evidence to determine whether the rule is actually valid.