Antioch Principle vs. Jerusalem Principle of Church Administration

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I have heard it said that, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Others, however, have said, "It is not power that corrupts, but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it."

My observation of both Nee and Lee is that both feared the loss of power after fiery trials in their ministries. Transitioning from the Antioch to the Jerusalem Principle of church administration and ministry assured their continued control.

They simply followed the historical course of nearly every other denomination.

.

I agree with Aron on this. Judas was a real Apostle, but he was motivated by money and saw Jesus as a way to make a quick buck. I subscribe to the idea that he thought Jesus would simply "walk out of their hands" as he did previously and he would get to pocket the 30 pieces of silver.

Balaam was also a real prophet, but what made him false was that he was motivated by money. He was a "prophet for hire". That is the line that cannot be crossed. Either you get your reward in this age or in the next, trying to have it both ways is simply self deception and proves a troubling flaw in your faith in the Lord.

Therefore I don't think they were corrupted by power, rather if you are going to make money and you are a pip squeak it makes sense to lambast the big established denominations. Once you get bigger it makes financial sense (even though the hypocrisy is blatant) to imitate the big denominations with a centralized administrative center that everyone has to bow down to.