Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
How can it be a "straw man" if it is a cornerstone in WL's teaching concerning the ground of the church?
1. A major pillar of this doctrine is that every letter is addressed to "the church in _____"
2. A second major pillar is 1Cor 3.
This is not a "straw man" argument, it is the root of the tree.
WL teaches that the proper name for the church is "The church in ____" and that any other name is akin to a wife taking some other man's name for her own. That is ground of the church 101.
So let's look at this carefully. WL teaches that Corinth was the "typical" church. In this typical church Paul addresses his letter to "the church in Corinth" yet that included all the believers, even those who were meeting in groups claiming to be "of Peter" or "of Paul" or "of Apollos" or "of Christ". Paul rebukes them for this saying they are fleshly, and babes in Christ.
One way to understand this is that trying to have the best, most spiritual name is fleshly, walking according to envy, strife and the ways of men.
The other way is to build your own sect by coming up with a new name, "The church in blank".
But regardless you have to agree that the book of Corinthians was written to the church in Corinth, it signified a typical church, and there were many babes in Christ, fleshly ones who were not spiritual and who were hung up on the name of their meeting hall. Yet they were all included in Paul's reference to "the church in Corinth".
|
The Recovery is not about naming the church with the proper name, but to have no name. Even to take the name of the locality can be divisive.
Why do we say "The local churches do not have a name. ". It is a straw man because we do not believe in properly naming the church as you are claiming. We believe in NOT naming the church. But to identify ourselves we refer to our locality. Obviously Paul no where rebukes anyone for saying "I am of Corinth", "I am of Ephesus".