[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Koinonia

Yes, Lee taught that to declare "I am of Christ" in 1 Corinthians 1:12 is just a more spiritual-sounding way of dividing oneself from the other believers (instead of saying "I am of Paul," "I am of Peter," etc.). Basically, I find this to be a reasonable interpretation of the verse. Yet, to make a similar point over calling yourself "the church" (instead of any other name) shows exactly the same attitude.

I just can not accept Lee's interpretation of I Cor 1.12 any longer. Here are my reasons ...

• Paul never once elaborated that "I am of Christ" was negative in any way
• The entire intro (1.1-10) to this matter of division pointed them to God calling them into the fellowship of His Son
• Paul immediately chided them for uplifting his own name, asking the Corinthians who was crucified for them? Into whose name were they baptized? (1.13)
• Paul then went on a long discourse about Christ as God's wisdom (1.18-2.16)
• Paul came right back to this point (3.4) "whenever one says I am of Paul ... Apollos, are you not men?" Here "I am of Christ" is not included.
• Lee's interpretation of these scripture are entirely self-serving. Paul diminished himself, exalting Christ, and only Christ. Lee, however, exalted himself as MOTA. Paul recommended other ministers to the saints in Corinth, Lee recommended no one.
• Paul said, "all are yours." (3.23) Lee and his minions made it clear that "we are all his."
• Paul concludes, "we are Christ's." In other words, "we are of Christ." Amen!