Major Errors of Witness Lee’s Teaching

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No you aren't. You said "do you know more than Wallace". Nothing scholarly about that, no reference to NT Greek. Simply Wallace said it, so there. Very noble of you.

But Wallace is an expert so what he writes about titus 1:5 is according to his expert knowledge. If he thought there were multiple churches per city he would not have said that.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

But Wallace is an expert so what he writes is according to his expert knowledge. If he thought there were multiple churches per city he would not have said that.

Matthew Henry is a well respected theologian and I quoted him. He agrees with me that the same ones who were sectarian in chapter 3 were those who were being sanctified, that he addressed the letter to in chapter 1 as "the church in Corinth".

The point of Paul is not that the sectarian Christians need a better name. Since a better name doesn't make them the genuine church, neither does a sectarian name change the fact that they are sanctified in Christ Jesus, redeemed by His blood to be saints, with all those who call on His name.

The only thing that having a better name gets you is envy, strife, and reveals that you are babe in Christ and walking as men.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Matthew Henry is a well respected theologian and I quoted him. He agrees with me that the same ones who were sectarian in chapter 3 were those who were being sanctified, that he addressed the letter to in chapter 1 as "the church in Corinth".

The point of Paul is not that the sectarian Christians need a better name. Since a better name doesn't make them the genuine church, neither does a sectarian name change the fact that they are sanctified in Christ Jesus, redeemed by His blood to be saints, with all those who call on His name.

The only thing that having a better name gets you is envy, strife, and reveals that you are babe in Christ and walking as men.

Yes I like Matthew Henry that is good that you quoted him. But I don't believe what you say I believe. All believers are sanctified including all those in Corinth.

Please see the second paragraph of this website:

http://www.lsmradio.com/hearing-of-f...-recovery.html

It says exactly what you said.

Anyhow,my post was concerned with whether there was one church per city in the early church. This seems to be an established fact according to Greek NT experts like Wallace. This does not prove anything because we must answer the question of a) is it for today? and b) was Lee/Nee chosen by God to practice it?

[UntoHim]

You guys are talking past each other and it's getting rather tedious and boring.

No serious student of the NT would ever deny that there was one church per one city back 2,000 years ago. They also didn't have running water or electricity or fancy sound systems or flat screen TVs to display verses and the words to the songs and hymns.

Let's discus these notions in the here and now. Many large metropolitan areas have 100,000+ Christians. The reality of the current situation is that "one church" for any particular large city is not practical. This is to say nothing of the fact that the Local Church of Witness Lee does not even practice one church in one city. Oh, they call the different churches within a city "hall 1", "hall 2" etc. It's a word game that doesn't fool anybody, and it certainly isn't fooling God.

Move on fellows.
-

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

No serious student of the NT would ever deny that there was one church per one city back 2,000 years ago. They also didn't have running water or electricity or fancy sound systems or flat screen TVs to display verses and the words to the songs and hymns.
Let's discus these notions in the here and now.

Serious students of the NT weigh in:

I Corinthians 1:10: “Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.”

Ellicot —

Now I beseech you, brethren.—With these words the Apostle introduces the topic which is indeed one of the chief reasons of his writing this Epistle (see Introduction), viz., the PARTY-SPIRIT existing in the Corinthian Church.

Matthew Henry —

Paul and Apollos both were faithful ministers of Jesus Christ, and helpers of their faith and joy; but those disposed to be contentious, broke into parties. So liable are the best things to be corrupted, and the gospel and its institutions made engines of discord and contention. Satan has always endeavoured to stir up strife among Christians, as one of his chief devices against the gospel.

Matthew Henry is very much aligned to Witness Lee’s “Satan’s strategy against the church”. He sees that “Satan has always endeavored to stir up strife among Christians” — so the strife we see today is not unique or new. He saw that the church in Corinth had broken up into parties.

Barnes —

The first of which he had incidentally learned, was that which pertained to the divisions and strifes which had arisen in the church.

Gill —

The apostle having observed the many favours and blessings bestowed on this church, proceeds to take notice of the divisions and contentions which were fomented in it;

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Serious students of the NT weigh in

ZNP, where do one of these writers say, or even suggest, "one church per city"? You and I can be in the same assembly and be factious and divisive. Likewise, the apostle can write the Christian polity in Rome and ask them to greet the 'ekklesia' in one person's house. A factious spirit isn't engendered by different groupings. Jesus had the thousands sit in different groups of hundreds and fifties when He fed them, yet I see no trace of rancorous party spirits arising.

[ZNPaaneah]

I don't really understand what you are asking.

My point has been that the use of Paul's address to "the church in Corinth" could have been a catch all, the Christians in Corinth could have been meeting in multiple homes and meeting halls. Or they could have been meeting together as one large meeting while dividing up into factions and parties. But no one can deny that there were parties in Corinth to the extent that they were denominating themselves as "of Paul" or "of Peter".

I don't think the situation has changed. Today there are many different meetings of Christians, many different denominations, but all of them feel that the book of Corinthians was written to them.

All of the serious Bible expositors agree that there were parties and that this was so serious that it was the primary reason for the letter.

My second point was that Corinth is put forth as a typical church, not a healthy church. Therefore it is reasonable that this situation occurred in other churches, like the 7 churches in the book of Revelation.