Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger
I have to respectfully disagree. I went back over the thread and reviewed it as much as time would permit me. Post after post included verses to refute what Matt was saying. Actually, it was not a matter of disliking what Matt said, but rather disagreeing with what he said.
Here is a bibilically balancing view that I am still waiting for Matt to answer:
Quote:
-from Roger
If Paul would have had Matt's definition of idolatry in mind, his word about not eating with idolaters would have effectively disbanded the whole church.
According to his definition, those who said they were of Paul, were guilty of worshiping him as an idol. Those who said they were of Apollos, likewise, would have been guilty of idolatry, and so on. The very few in the church in Corinth who didn't engage in "idolatry," would have been forbidden from eating with those who say they are of whomever. Isn't the problem with the Living Stream Church that they basically say: "I am of Lee."
|
Roger |
Thanks, Roger for this example. I missed this argument before, my bad. I did not review everything but was speaking from my general impression. I guess I didn't read this one closely enough at the time to grasp the point you were making.
Let me restate what you are saying here. You are saying that according to your understanding of Matt's definition of idolatry those who said they were "of" certain ones were idolaters. Later Paul says not to eat with idolaters, so then you say that Matt's definition would mean the whole church needed to disbanded.
Matt can speak for himself, but I don't see that this example fits what I heard Matt define. I wouldn' say that what was going on in Corinth related to saying "I am of" was the same as what we did in the Local Churches. There was someting happening in Corinth in seed form that was headed the wrong direction. If those with Apollos had put out everyone else, or had broken away and formed their own group saying they would submit absolutely to Apollos and whoever did not do this was not the true church and would not be received, then then Matt's definition might fit.
In the event that Appollos's followers had become exclusive and insisted on everyone following Apollos as God's man, the "not to eat with" directive would probably work out easily because I doubt Apollos's bunch would want to eat with the rest.
I think there is a difference between the situation in the Local Churches and that in Corinth. Corinth looks good by comparison.
TJ