Quote:
Originally Posted by Evangelical
That's very true Drake. They are ignorant of the fact that denominations have no support or basis in the Bible (prescriptive or descriptive, I have been asking for such evidence since I came here and none have given), and yet demand us to show them the "red letters", ignoring the clear descriptive "teaching" of the Bible. They also ignore the revelation of the Spirit and of the vision such as Nee, Lee and many others had. I believe this is because they feel following the "red letters" of the Bible only gives them security and safety and I don't blame them for that.
|
When you say that denominations have no Biblical support, that’s a given, because they didn’t exist in the Bible. However, to make the argument that denominations are wrong, it requires that there exists a clear form of Biblical practice is both 1) prescriptive and 2) timelessly applicable. BTW, I don’t believe it is the intention of anyone here to make the argument that denominations are desirable. We are just through with badmouthing them.
For sure, some churches in the NT are referred to by city. I also wouldn’t deny that there were cities at that time with a single assembly. But what about the exceptions? How should the exceptions be accounted for if someone wants to construct a model? Paul’s epistle to Philemon addresses the church in a house. Do you know how Lee accounted for this exception? He simply said that the exception doesn’t count without providing any kind of legitimate support as to why he felt that way. I can provide quotes if necessary.
Nee and Lee saw a supposed pattern in the NT. They attempted to emulate the pattern without considering any exceptions to the pattern that are also found in the NT. Even beyond discussion of developing a model, there is the question of whether the model would still be applicable today. Lets say that it could easily be proved that a certain church model exists in the NT. How would we know that it is still applicable in the 21st century?
This is where the whole prescriptive/descriptive discussion comes into play. The NT provides some description (incomplete at that) of what churches were like at that time. I don’t see any indication that such description was intended to be prescriptive. Even at that, I don’t have a problem with people taking a description and developing a model from it. What I do take issue with is
insistence on a model without sufficient support for insisting upon it. So we’re not asking you for red letters to ‘prove’ the ground of locality. Just wondering where is the evidence to support insisting on it.
I believe the Bible leads us away from insisting on certain models or places (boundaries) to worship. Consider Jesus’ response when the Samaritan woman asked Jesus about the proper location to worship:
John 4:20-24
Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship.” Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”