Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
That is essentially the way every expositor has interpreted this.
They have also interpreted these parties as the root of denominations, and that includes WL.
But I have a couple of questions.
1. Suppose they didn't have a single meeting place where they all could meet. That seems like a very reasonable question since this is the case today. Would these various meetings be homogenous, or would they separate based on their parties? We already know as Ohio has brought up that their Lord's table meetings were in disarray due to the factions and parties. That is a direct reference to the fact that the divisions were visible in the way they met.
|
In contrast to the idea of different factions meeting separately to others, I believe this is more like an ecumenical church assembly where everyone came together to worship but everyone kept to their "corner of the room".
As Gill's commentary alludes to, if Paul said they could eat however they wanted "in their own homes" and the issues arose when they assembled together, this seems to preclude any notion that they were meeting in separate houses based upon factional preference. These issues were a problem when people of different factions came together for worship.
It is possible that they came together in the one place, as Gill believes, or they came together in multiple locations for practical reasons.
In any case, both of these scenarios seem to rule out separation based upon faction. People of different factions were meeting together and this was when the problems arose.
I would think of it as like Catholics and Protestants meeting together either in one central location in the city, or in various locations around the city. In either case, Paul's words applies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
2. If people were subject to parties, factions and divisions, would that have been expressed in the home meetings? Did all those who "were of Paul" meet together in their home meetings? That seems reasonable to me based on my experience in the church and on internet forums.
|
I have been to ecumenical services before where the Catholics sit on one side and protestants (etc) on the other. I think it would have been like that. I don't believe things had gotten to the point where the different factions would meet separately, for the primary worship at least. Possibly they met together informally based upon faction, but they did not break the tradition of coming together in one place for worship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
3. We (every Bible expositor and myself) all agree that the major issue addressed in the epistle to Corinth was the parties and factions, yet we also all agree that the epistle was written to all of them (even those who were denominated based on their pet doctrines and favorite apostles). How is that any different from today? Every Christian, regardless of denomination or pet doctrine, feels this epistle was written to them.
|
Paul's letter was written to all believers in the city, so I agree with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
4. When WL says that Corinth is a typical church, just like today, I agree that the "Church in NY" is just like Corinth, it is full of babes in Christ, Christians who are walking like men based on envy and strife. They are denominated based on doctrine, favorite apostles, and wealth. But that doesn't mean that there is a single fellowship meeting in one meeting hall like that, but rather refers to the entire situation in NY when viewed as a whole. So then, do you agree with WL that the church in Corinth is typical to the situation today in NYC in total?
|
To me it is similar but different. In the time of Paul I believe the factions were not worshiping independently, but becoming denominations would have been the next step. The mistake today is to assume that Paul's words applies to a single denominations/faction, because every church considers itself to be a church and not a sect as they really are, and not to every believer in the city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah
Based on that I am questioning whether the term "the church in Corinth" applied to a single meeting hall address or rather was the way Paul addressed all the Christians in the city as a whole. When I read 1Corinth 3 it seems absurd to me that the conclusion of Paul's rejection of names like "of Paul", "of Peter", and "of Christ" is to present a better name of the "church in blank".
|
Suppose those "of Paul" and those "of Peter" and those "of Christ" met independently of each other. Where do the people meet who are not of those factions and wish to follow Paul's instructions? Can't they refer to themselves as "the church in Corinth" ? This is not to present a "better name" but to have no name and meet as the church in the city not aligned with any faction.