Major Errors of Witness Lee’s Teaching

[Evangelical]

You are correct it doesn't say that. But let's examine the most logical explanations and I think you are reading into it something which isn't there. That is, when you read "church", you imagine a multiplicity of different churches/denominations within the city. But scholars tell us that such was not the case.

Well, reading the text carefully, Jesus did not say:

"tell it to your church", as if He expected every person to have their own church.

How do you deal with the fact that theologians like Wallace state there was one church in each city? It somewhat puts a big dent in your argument of multiple churches per city, unless you can come up with theologians of equal weight. At the very least, even if Wallace is wrong, it shows that one church per city is a valid interpretation of the Bible.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

How do you deal with the fact that theologians like Wallace state there was one church in each city?

Because of the fact that the word gets translated inconsistently. Where it fits the theology of one church per city, it's translated Church. (And even there it doesn't always work, like the greetings in Romans 16). Where it doesn't fit, it's translated meeting, or assembly. How many ekklesia like the one dismissed in Acts 19:41 were there in the city at that time? Probably several. But there, the word usually gets translated as something other than Church, so as not to upset the current theological construction. And so forth - it appears to be a theology of convenience, of preference.

Where the concept doesn't fit at all, like in Psalms 1:5, the word is ignored as if it weren't even real. Whatever happened to "Christ and the Church in the Psalms"? It (the concept, or theology) apparently does not exist in Psalm 1:5, when I read the RecV footnotes. Yet the word is right there, in LXX scripture. Why are there voluminous footnotes on the church elsewhere, but nothing in Psalm 1:5? Whatever happened to the vaunted principle of first mention?

So, back to your question, what "church" is that there, in the proposed "one church in each city" template? I don't see it in clearly and consistently presented in exposition of scripture. I see human artifice, a slice-and-dice hack job of textual representation. (Not that I've done much better. But I'm not proposing a new Christian polity a la Nee and Lee)

And my point remains from Matthew 16. When Jesus spoke of "my church", it would be understood that there were ekklesia not of Jesus. The word ekklesia was in common usage long before Matthew 16. It had meaning, already. That's why it was used. Jesus didn't invent the term, whole cloth. Yet we typically treat it as such, in these kinds of "recovered church" conversations.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

How do you deal with the fact that theologians like Wallace state there was one church in each city?

The operative word here is "WAS". There WAS one church in every city. There WAS one apostle Paul, who "did not receive the gospel from any man, nor was he taught it, but he received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ." (Gal 1:12) There WAS one group of original apostles. There WAS one "Revelation" received by the apostle John. There WAS one group of church fathers who received the wisdom and knowledge to assemble the New Testament. Getting the picture? Even if one subscribes to be a "continuationist" (believing that there are apostles today), no serious scholar or widely accepted teacher has ever claimed that we have apostles today like the original scripture writing apostles, such as Paul, Peter, John etc.

Yes, it appears that there may have been only one church in one city in the infancy of the church. But it cannot be considered as something prescriptive - something for the church for all places and all times. Only baptism and the Lord's table were such prescriptive "commandments". We know that by the time of the end of Paul's life and ministry, many false teachers had already appeared on the scene. What if one of these false teachers had started/or taken over "the one church in anytown"? Were the genuine believers in this one particular city supposed to go against God and their conscience and meet with this false teacher and his followers? I submit that were not bound to do so. In fact, the apostles strongly urged the genuine believers to avoid, and even oppose, if necessary.

This was probably the first legitimate reason for "divisions" in the church. And the situation remains so all these centuries later. But there are still genuine believers who will hear the voice of the Good Shepherd and enter his fold. Amen. May it be so Lord.
-

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

[COLOR="Navy"]The operative word here is "WAS". There WAS one church in every city.

Yes, it appears that there may have been only one church in one city in the infancy of the church. But it cannot be considered as something prescriptive - something for the church for all places and all times.

I read something recently about the requirement for a "city." It had to do with how far one could walk. That described a "city" in ancient days.

In this regard, the definition is very similar to today's boundaries for the Jews concerning the Sabbath. I used to live in a community filled with Jews and Synagogues. The rabbis had bordered an area within the community, which btw was already much smaller than the city, which was prescribed as a "Sabbath Day's Journey." All the serious Jews knew the borders of this area, and knew that they could not walk further than that for Sabbath service.

It is totally absurd to use the description of N.T. "cities" for today's mega-cities consisting of millions of people.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

I read something recently about the requirement for a "city." It had to do with how far one could walk. That described a "city" in ancient days.

In this regard, the definition is very similar to today's boundaries for the Jews concerning the Sabbath. I used to live in a community filled with Jews and Synagogues. The rabbis had bordered an area within the community, which btw was already much smaller than the city, which was prescribed as a "Sabbath Day's Journey." All the serious Jews knew the borders of this area, and knew that they could not walk further than that for Sabbath service.

It is totally absurd to use the description of N.T. "cities" for today's mega-cities consisting of millions of people.

There was this bizarre wire that ran around Brooklyn, people were freaked out, what is that thing. Then they explained, that was the boundary set up by the orthodox Jews so they knew how far they could walk on the Sabbath.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

The operative word here is "WAS". There WAS one church in every city. There WAS one apostle Paul, who "did not receive the gospel from any man, nor was he taught it, but he received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ." (Gal 1:12) There WAS one group of original apostles. There WAS one "Revelation" received by the apostle John. There WAS one group of church fathers who received the wisdom and knowledge to assemble the New Testament. Getting the picture? Even if one subscribes to be a "continuationist" (believing that there are apostles today), no serious scholar or widely accepted teacher has ever claimed that we have apostles today like the original scripture writing apostles, such as Paul, Peter, John etc.

That is correct that it was the situation only then, and it is a separate question about whether it applies today, in which case we would be discussing prescriptive versus descriptive text.

If we use the term "apostle" as meaning the original authors of scripture, I agree that there are no more apostles today who can write Scripture.

However the gift of apostleship continues, as God is still building His church. We might just know them by another name such as an evangelist or a missionary. Still, in a sense we are all apostles or messengers for Christ.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Yes, it appears that there may have been only one church in one city in the infancy of the church. But it cannot be considered as something prescriptive - something for the church for all places and all times. Only baptism and the Lord's table were such prescriptive "commandments". We know that by the time of the end of Paul's life and ministry, many false teachers had already appeared on the scene. What if one of these false teachers had started/or taken over "the one church in anytown"? Were the genuine believers in this one particular city supposed to go against God and their conscience and meet with this false teacher and his followers? I submit that were not bound to do so. In fact, the apostles strongly urged the genuine believers to avoid, and even oppose, if necessary.

This was probably the first legitimate reason for "divisions" in the church. And the situation remains so all these centuries later. But there are still genuine believers who will hear the voice of the Good Shepherd and enter his fold. Amen. May it be so Lord.
-

We can't rule it out just because it is descriptive. Lack of a descriptive command does not mean we can meet however we like.

Many things Christians do are only descriptively found in the bible (in fact, not even that, more pagan, if Viola and Barna's book is correct). A clear example would be our 6 day working week and day off on Sunday and going to church on Sunday. Christmas and Easter is another example. Tithing 10% of one's salary is another example.

Even a definition of marriage as between a man and a woman is based upon a descriptive interpretation of Genesis. There is no actual command that says marriage must be between a man and a woman, and many people use this argument to define marriage in a way God did not intend. We define marriage as between a man and a woman because we know that is God's intention.

Therefore when coming to the descriptive passages about the church we should consider God's intent. There's a reason why God told us what the early church looked like. The intent of the early church structure was unity. A denominational church model does not satisfy that intent. If God had no intention concerning this matter, then the description of the early church would likely be one of chaos and disorder without any clear pattern.

Would love to converse with Drake on his research but to get his attention this question Why did Jesus stop in middle of prophecy concerning Himself in Luke and: 18-21? Not sure if giving e mail or telephone info allowed yet will try name heartofmatter1310@gmail dot com Would like to add Ecclesiastes The Preacher 7;8 with Luke 21:22 perhaps like Drake Luke 21:34-36* has much importance personally as Heb 5:8,9

[OBW]

I don't know about Drake, but that run-on of phrases, references, etc., was too convoluted to make any sense of. Can you take a little time and write out what you mean in a more coherent manner?

Thanks

[Drake]

Originally Posted by OBW

I don't know about Drake, but that run-on of phrases, references, etc., was too convoluted to make any sense of. Can you take a little time and write out what you mean in a more coherent manner?

Thanks

OBW,

I walked over to it intending to unpack it but then, recognizing a significant measure of novelty, decided to let it lay right there.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Leigh 1013

Would love to converse with Drake on his research but to get his attention this question Why did Jesus stop in middle of prophecy concerning Himself in Luke and: 18-21? Not sure if giving e mail or telephone info allowed yet will try name heartofmatter1310@gmail dot com Would like to add Ecclesiastes The Preacher 7;8 with Luke 21:22 perhaps like Drake Luke 21:34-36* has much importance personally as Heb 5:8,9

Leigh, the preferred way to correspond with another poster is for you to register with a username, and then communicate via the Private Message system the forum has. That way both of you can maintain anonymity.

Another way is to register and start a new thread which Drake can respond to.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You are correct it doesn't say that. But let's examine the most logical explanations and I think you are reading into it something which isn't there. That is, when you read "church", you imagine a multiplicity of different churches/denominations within the city. But scholars tell us that such was not the case.

Well, reading the text carefully, Jesus did not say:

"tell it to your church", as if He expected every person to have their own church.

How do you deal with the fact that theologians like Wallace state there was one church in each city? It somewhat puts a big dent in your argument of multiple churches per city, unless you can come up with theologians of equal weight. At the very least, even if Wallace is wrong, it shows that one church per city is a valid interpretation of the Bible.

I am confused by this argument. Let us suppose that your neighbor has ignored the property line and built something that is encroaching on your property. You know that this neighbor is a Christian, you have had fellowship with them, they don't meet with the LRC, but they have confessed that Jesus is Lord and been baptized into the name of the triune God. You go to them, they ignore you. You bring one or two others and still they ignore you. You don't want a lawsuit because of Paul's word in Corinthians. So, instead you decide to "tell it to the church".

Please tell us Evangelical what you do now?

(I would approach the leadership of the fellowship where this one meets, but if that is not a valid approach please tell us what is). BTW this is not a hypothetical, a very similar situation took place at one of the places I fellowship at. They bought a meeting hall which included a book store. The owner, knowing they were Christians and wouldn't sue him, refused to pay rent or leave. Ultimately they went to the congregation where he met and after talking to the leaders there he left.