Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
Actually, I think Nee tried to in Further Talks. But he mostly declared that it could not mean that because of the ground of locality rule. The rule is raised to dismiss the evidence that the rule could be wrong. The ultimate begging of the question.
|
So the passages in scripture meant what they seemed to say when they supported the proposed interpretive rule, while other passages didn't mean what they seemed to say, simply because they couldn't be used to support the proposal? Sorry but I'm not impressed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
As for whether the church in Rome was something different from the house church mentioned, that is debatable on several levels. It could be that the reference to the church in Rome is a generic greeting to all the Christians there, but the fact that the letter was delivered to certain persons gave Paul cause to request that they specifically say something to some of the others for him.
In one sense the church is not limited by assemblies. In another the assembly is the church. But if you are not concerned with the distinction, then it isn't even a point of equivocation...
|
But someone who
is concerned with making distinctions should be true to the rules of their own proposal. Don't make words mean one thing somewhere, and mean something different elsewhere, simply because this is convenient to the argument. Ultimately, the main support for Nee's proposal of the church ground is that he saw it. Nee was the Seer of the Age, right? If Nee saw it, then it was a revelation from God, and who are we to question revelations from God?
Here's the rationale, as I get it: Nee was the seer of God's revelation for the present age. So if Nee saw the so-called ground of the church, this was God's speaking to us today, God's present oracle. And how, pray tell, do we know that Nee was the seer of the divine revelation? Because he gave us the truth! There's only one church per city! Everybody knows that! It's so obvious... don't be dense, folks -- get with the program!
Both statements, that Nee was the seer of divine revelation, and that what he saw was God's uncovered truth for the present age, depend on assumptions that shouldn't be questioned. Don't be negative, right? The whole thing, at its root, seems to be little more than a personality cult. Don't question the Boss. The Apostle is always right. God has spoken to us through His present oracle. That seems to be the foundation of the whole enterprise.
If one critically cross-examines the idea itself, on its own terms, it begins to lose credibility and motive force; instead, one has to simply take it on faith, that it's actually a revelation from God. This is how religions start, and religious movements, for that matter.
Brother or Sister So-and-so is God's revealed Person of the Hour. "Then God raised up So-and-so, and the light of truth shone upon us all, and rescued us from the darkness of the present evil age." Sound familiar?