Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
Our discussion has become very rancorous over this issue.
There is no doubt that there are valid claims made by both sides of this debate.
What I find fascinating is that Matt 16 begins by Jesus condemning the Pharisees because they are seeking a sign. He calls them an evil and adulterous generation and says that this is the motive in them seeking a sign.
You have to compare that with Matt 24 where the disciples ask Jesus for a sign of His coming and He doesn't rebuke them, doesn't say that is evil or adulterous, but rather spends the entire chapter providing signs of His coming.
So this is where I think this goes off the rails, the issue Jesus is making is not that signs or names are evil. Rather, it is the motive. He contrasts the Pharisees seeking for a sign from God with Him building "MY church". They were seeking to put a sign from God outside of their gathering to prove that God was with them. That is evil and adulterous. The apostles were commissioned by Jesus to shepherd "His church" and therefore needed to know the signs in the same way you might print out the directions before taking a long road trip.
Names have been used to build little kingdoms to various people -- that is evil and adulterous.
On the other hand God has provided signs and wonders as a testimony. The biggest one of course is the sign of Jonah.
Arguing that "this is the correct name that indicates God's presence" that is evil and adulterous. The only name given to us is Jesus. If you are meeting into the name of Jesus there is no other name necessary nor will a name on the meeting hall, or in the phone book going to short circuit that.
Looking again at Post#1, Witness Lee said "No particular name" is the first criteria. Those who have taken issue with Witness Lee argue that the Local Churche's name is the most particular name. They have built an entire doctrine on the name so that you can't meet properly with Jesus unless you have this particular name.
On the other hand Evangelical has taken issue with Denominations for having a particular name.
Therefore I think we can find agreement that claiming that meeting on the proper ground requires you have to have a particular name for your meeting (gathering of the called out ones, hence church) is evil and adulterous.
|
Probably you are the least divisive person on here ZP because you try to consider both sides of the argument. Thankyou for that. Many topics in Christian easily revert to a two sided argument. Calvinist vs Arminian, free will versus no free will, saved by grace or saved by works.. etc. Probably this is the case here as well. The solution to a two-sided argument is a third option. That third option is Jesus Christ Himself. He is the only thing (or person rather) that unites two sides of the argument together.