Quote:
Originally Posted by InOmnibusCaritas
I also note your use of Acts 9:31, Rom. 16:5, and Col. 4:15-16 to counter Nee's local church model but these verses do not really provide much refutation. Acts 9:31 does not provide information on how the early churches organised themselves. Col. 4:15-16 talks about the church in Nympha's house, which is probably where the church in Laodicea met. Both Colossae and Laodicea is connected along the Lycus River.
|
Neither do they provide much support for Nee's model. There is enough grey area, however, to question the scriptural support for Nee's model. If we take a careful look at the New Testament and especially Revelations chapters 2-3, the
most we can conclude is that the Bible is merely
descriptive of the one-church-one-city model and
not prescriptive in any way.
Concerning Acts 9.31, Nee based his model partly on the mis-translation in the KJV, "
then had the churches." Perhaps the Textus Receptus is to blame here. Darby follows this rendering with "
assemblies." All other contemporary translations use the singular "church." Nee's model would mandate the plural use however.
A parallel verse in Acts 16.5 does not use the singular "
church" implying either that Luke (and his mentor Paul) did not actively distinguish the difference, or that the plural "
churches" was used in the Gentile world when referring to small and isolated assemblies.
What do you think?