Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
But you are starting with a presumption of what constitutes the whole church (assembly). You presume that for Corinth, or any other city, that there can be only one such assembly.
But even your commentators do not say that there cannot be multiple assemblies. They only say that when the members of a single assembly meet together that there was this problem. It is the extra-biblical teachings of the LRC that you are presuming on top of the commentators to declare that this means all the Christians in a city must be part of that one assembly. Paul was writing to deal with a problem of acrimony, not of ecclesiology. Those who meet together should not have such acrimony. Paul did not ever say that no one should have a preference of teacher. His complaint was that they were fighting about it. The current environment of assemblies, whether independent or grouped, is not general with the kind of acrimony that Paul was speaking to in Corinth. I know you can point to certain exceptions. Like the Westboro Baptist Church. And there are issues of teaching that are discussed openly. Especially related to the teachings of a prosperity gospel. But even those generally are not like what Paul was pointing to in Corinth.
If it doesn't fit . . . .
|
It is clear from the text that the divisions arose when they assembled together.
Either this occurred when they all assembled in the one place (most likely), or they assembled in various meeting homes across the city.
Consider Gill's commentary, where he distinguishes the "one place" common assembly from their own houses, indicating that these issues were not when they were scattered into their own places of worship, but in a one common assembly.
Gill —
For first of all, when ye come together in the church,.... The place where the church met together to perform divine service, called "one place". 1 Corinthians 11:20 and is distinguished from their own "houses", 1 Corinthians 11:22 and the first thing he took notice of as worthy of dispraise and reproof, in their religious assemblies, were their animosities and factions:
An idea that they met independently based upon whom they were "of" is not supported by the text.