Regarding the Ground of Locality - David Canfield

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

[Canfield] used a rule already established (by himself) to exclude and redefine the meaning of evidence of a contrary explanation. This is the classic case of begging the question. State a rule as true before any evidence that could contradict it is considered. Then assess contrary evidence based on the rule rather than in concert with all evidence to determine whether the rule is actually valid.

I agree with your assessment. This is not cutting straight the word of the Lord; rather it seems to be forcing the Bible to fit a conceptual matrix. Canfield says "no exceptions"... what happens when there is a scriptural exception? What happens when there is a use of ekklesia which doesn't fit his local church philosophy?

For example: in the LXX the word ekklesia is used repeatedly, and these OT examples are cited in constructing the NT(Acts 7:38, Hebrews 2:12, e.g.). But since there was no "local church" before the day of Pentecost, and their interpretive grid allows "no exceptions", Nee et al must then re-interpret the Bible so our scheme is not disturbed. So what does Nee/Lee/Canfield do? Just call it an "assembly". Then you can have multiple "assemblies" in one city and not violate the "One church per city rule".

All of which involves some mental gymnastics, which Canfield's explanation of Romans "house churches" involves. His conclusion is not self-evident to me. Ultimately we are required to believe that Nee's interpretive logic is equivalent to "the way of the Lord". As Ohio said, now we have to "Believe into Nee", in addition to believing into Jesus Christ. If Nee says it, then we have to accept it, no matter the mental strain, and the decades of bad fruit.

Which brings me to my real objection. The "way of the Lord", it seems to me, is that we are to love one another. If you don't have that, all your "church models" are rubbish. Where is the love in Canfield's message? Where is the saving love of God in Jesus Christ? Does he really think that the proper organization will bring in brotherly love?

I really don't see any mature and thoughtful believer taking this path. It is only going to convince the simple and unschooled, who are easily blown about by various winds of teaching.

p.s. all of us do mental gymnastics, and interpret partly in truth and partly in error. Such is the benefit of the assembly: of critical examination by others, of "...in many counselors there is safety" (Prov 11:14). I am just kind of peeved that David Canfield thinks Nee's interpretation is "the way of the Lord" while everyone else is "going his own way". How can anyone have a conversation with such ideas?