Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohio
If we study the church in Jerusalem in the New Testament after the conversion of Saul/Paul, we see nothing but problems concerning the church there. Jerusalem, though some of the apostles were still there, became the source of many problems. Few examples:
- Acts 15.1 Certain ones went out of Jerusalem teaching that salvation required circumcision
- Acts 21.20 The believing Jews in Jerusalem were still obsessed with the law of Moses
- Acts 21.24 Church members still performed rituals at the Temple
- Acts 21.22 Like the unsaved Jews, the church in Jerusalem still despised taking the gospel to the Gentiles
- Gal 2.4 False brothers from Jerusalem would sneak into Gentile churches causing chaos and persecution
- Gal 2.12 Those sent out from Jerusalem demanded Kosher adherence and separation between Jews and Gentiles
Paul in Gal 2.4-5 describes the motive of all those being sent out from the headquarters in Jerusalem -- not to spread the gospel, not to preach the good news of Jesus Christ -- but to bring the Gentiles into slavery, under subjection to their demands.
Both Nee and Lee in their early ministries demanded that LC's be completely free from all outside influences and subjections. Whether they be foreign, legalistic, mission boards, or denominational, no LC should ever be brought under the subjection to outside influences. Read their books on this subject.
At the end of both of their ministries, they conveniently became flip-floppers for self-serving, personal gains. They elevated their own ministry to "the" ministry, and the "ministry of the age." They surrounded themselves with minions and sycophants who would protect them from moral impropriety and grossly elevate their status in the movement. |
Ohio,
Your scriptural argument against the Jerusalem principle is rational. I just don't think I agree with it completely. I will have to think about it.
However, even in Brother Nee's earliest teachings on the work and the churches there is an interaction and dependency between the two. So I disagree with your characterization that the latter teaching introduced an element that was not present before. Yet, I will agree that the model in the earlier teaching was mostly based on Paul's ministry (Antioch principle) and the Jerusalem principle came later and was based on the interaction of the work conducted in the same place as the a big church (Jerusalem). That is, Peter lived in Jerusalem and ventured out but returned. Nevertheless, though Paul had a more pass through model in his earliest journeys he nevertheless appointed elders, assigned apostles to work in churches and instructed those apostles and co-workers what to teach and directed any actions he felt needed to be taken based on what was happening in that local church.
Drake