Quote:
Originally Posted by Thankful Jane
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
|
What were the Corinthians doing that Paul said: "Do not even eat with such a one..."?
Is everyone in LSM-abiding churches doing something equivalent?
If so, should I turn down meal invitations?
If not, is there something other than affiliation with an "LSM-church" which determines whether the "idolatry" is so bad that, as in Corinth, I should refuse and reject certain believers?
Peter