"Early Nee" vs. "Later Nee"

[Oregon]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Oregon,

Actually to be honest we must see in the NT believers in a house referred to as the church in that house.

I know, Nee taught that the church in the house is really the church in the city, but this is really just his assumption based on his bias.

If you really study it you must admit that saying the NT house church equals the city church is really an argument employing the fallacy of petitio principii (begging the question) in which the conclusion is assumed in the premise.

In other words, if a person hadn't already decided that city churches are the only valid ones, he never would claim based on the evidence of the NT text that the house church equals the city church.

I’m well aware of the “house” churches in the NT Igzy. In Jerusalem “they continuing daily with one accord in the temple and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, Praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.”
Thousands were being saved and added to the church…not churches….even though they were meeting from house to house. These thousands of believers were referred to as “ the church in Jerusalem”….not “the churches in Jerusalem.”

Acts 8:1 “the church that was at Jerusalem”

Acts 11:2 “ the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem”

Acts 15:4 “And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and the apostles and elders…”