Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
My issues with the teaching of Deputy Authority:
- There is no direct NT counterpart to Noah, Moses, King David, King Solomon, Samuel, or any other notable OT person except for Jesus Christ Himself.
- Jesus Himself instructs us never to rule as the Gentiles. He never even hinted that Peter, or John, or James would one day rule the church.
- NT leadership is always a plurality. There is no justification whatsoever for a Pope, MOTA, the oracle, the acting god, etc.
- The concept that Paul, the senior worker, ruled all the other workers in "the work," is nothing more than a convenient circumvent to modern day popery.
- I Tim 5.20 stresses accountability by the elders who have "sinned" publicly for all to learn. Matthew 18 instructs us in some cases to tell "it to the church."
- The concept of "covering" is rife with dangers because "absolute power corrupts absolutely." When do we stop covering "nakedness," and start covering up serious "sins?"
- The concept that "God alone will deal with His deputy" has no basis in the scripture or in history -- just read up on the popes.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nell
Your points are well taken. With all the "unknowns" both of you make, it further weakens the case for Nee's "deputy authority". There is not enough scriptural justification for a "deputy authority".
"Deputy authority" is a convenient means to "spiritualize" men's attempt to control the members of the Lord's church.
Whose church is it, anyway?
Nell
|
Ohio does make a good point. The Old Testament shouldn't be evaluated in the absence of the New Testament. Perhaps that was Nee's problem. He came across Old Testament examples of what he thought supported his teaching, but he didn't go on to consider how the same issue is handled in the New Testament.
The verse that
Nell points out, 1 Tim 5:20, presents a completely different view of authority than how those in the LC view it. I can guarantee if someone tried to challenge an elder in the LC, things wouldn't go down so well.