What is the boundary of the Local Church? [Archive] - Page 2

Steel

02-22-2018, 09:16 AM

The Body of Christ is a reality. It is a great truth."

And having not yet been fully perfected... According to scripture... It is a great truth that you, and everyone else, can only know in part... So where does that leave us when considering this "...great truth..." regarding the nody of Christ?

Ohio, again you are allowing your experience to define truth and that is clouding your ability to hear what Evangelical is saying.

Everyone abides in and speaks out of our experience... And that included Witness Lee... And includes those who head up LSM... And all elders of local churches.

It's not our experience that clouds our thoughts, Drake... It is the source that we hold to while considering things... When we realize the Lord's shining in our lives, His shining uses our experiences to reveal to us what we are, and Who He is... Which then becomes the reality that builds us up as members of the body.

If there is a difference between members of the body regarding how each sees "...truth..." then this simply indicates that there is a difference in the source that each is holding to... And it is the source being held to that causes the person to either be cloudy or clear regarding their thinking on a matter.

For the moment, forget your experience and consider the biblical revelation.

Scripture tells us that what you are asking is impossible for a human to do... Which brings up the question... What source were you holding to when you thought to ask the above question?

You can always revisit your experience at any point and do the reconciliation between the truth and your experience. I’m not saying your experience is to be ignored, I am encouraging you to step away from it and examine truth, in this case the great truth concerning the Body of Christ and acknowledge it and affirm it.

Only in our vanity... Which is foolishness before God.

Instead you are rejecting it in favor of your past experience... as if affirming the truth will open the door and people will come to your house and start telling you what to do.

From your own speaking, it seems that three fingers are pointing right back at you, Drake.

Yet, if the biblical revelation of the Body of Christ is truly evading you at this point, then that is an entirely different issue.

Drake

From your own above speaking, it seems that biblical revelation of just what a believer in Christ Jesus is in our humanity is evading you... And if so, then the source you are speaking out of is certainly not truth... Which would mean that everything you said above has no value whatsoever... Other than in a negative sense... Where it allows the Lord to shine on you and use your above erroneous speaking experience to cause you to see who you are, and realize Who He is.

See how that works.

awareness

02-22-2018, 09:27 AM

In I Corinthians 12:12-27, Paul likened the church to a human body, that is correct. But he also concluded by saying, "Now you are the body of Christ, and members in particular."
Bodies can become sick. Lee's body was one of them. It had two heads.

ZNPaaneah

02-22-2018, 11:32 AM

The Body of Christ is a reality. It is a great truth.

Ohio, again you are allowing your experience to define truth and that is clouding your ability to hear what Evangelical is saying. For the moment, forget your experience and consider the biblical revelation. You can always revisit your experience at any point and do the reconciliation between the truth and your experience. I’m not saying your experience is to be ignored, I am encouraging you to step away from it and examine truth, in this case the great truth concerning the Body of Christ and acknowledge it and affirm it. Instead you are rejecting it in favor of your past experience... as if affirming the truth will open the door and people will come to your house and start telling you what to do.

Yet, if the biblical revelation of the Body of Christ is truly evading you at this point, then that is an entirely different issue.

Drake

You appear to have a clear biblical revelation, so why don't you help Evangelical out and tell us all how we can know if a group of believers is "meeting in the name of Jesus Christ"? What is the evidence that this group is fulfilling the prerequisites for the promises in Matt 18?

Drake

02-22-2018, 01:07 PM

No, Drake, I am using my experience and study to define the system known as the Recovery.

Evangelical does not have the experience necessary to speak on behalf of the Recovery. His experience is limited by time and space. He has informed us that he is in Australasia, which is the other side of the world from SoCal, and he has not been with them long enough to really know them. For example, he never heard Lee speak live.

Well, I think we all bring different perspectives Ohio, obviously, and Evangelical has his view which I find to be thorough in the scripture, and we all are limited by time and space in our experience. He is describing something that really cannot be argued for a christian in that the Body of Christ is not autonomous. Just as your body is not autonomous and if it were you would not be here to discuss it! I am pretty sure you really believe that but all I am saying is that if the starting point of a christian's argument against another is experience and not the biblical revelation then how do you establish what is really the truth? It is not a variable. The reason I mention it here again is that in another recent instance you also let experience take the lead which caused you to define a truth (the Jerusalem principle) as that of Judaizers because in your view that is what some folks were acting like based on your experience. And though you may choose to apply the scripture that way, in so doing, you also run the risk of calling a work initiated by the Holy Spirit, a biblical truth, a work of Judaizers.

So, my point is that regardless of your experience there are biblical truths that do not deviate, sway, or modify based on your experience. The Body of Christ is one of those truths. I brought this up because you seemed to be rejecting it altogether.

Thanks
Drake

Drake

02-22-2018, 01:11 PM

You appear to have a clear biblical revelation, so why don't you help Evangelical out and tell us all how we can know if a group of believers is "meeting in the name of Jesus Christ"? What is the evidence that this group is fulfilling the prerequisites for the promises in Matt 18?

Evangelical is very capable of articulating his viewpoints.

Drake

Ohio

02-22-2018, 02:16 PM

Well, I think we all bring different perspectives Ohio, obviously, and Evangelical has his view which I find to be thorough in the scripture, and we all are limited by time and space in our experience. He is describing something that really cannot be argued for a christian in that the Body of Christ is not autonomous. Just as your body is not autonomous and if it were you would not be here to discuss it! I am pretty sure you really believe that but all I am saying is that if the starting point of a christian's argument against another is experience and not the biblical revelation then how do you establish what is really the truth? It is not a variable. The reason I mention it here again is that in another recent instance you also let experience take the lead which caused you to define a truth (the Jerusalem principle) as that of Judaizers because in your view that is what some folks were acting like based on your experience. And though you may choose to apply the scripture that way, in so doing, you also run the risk of calling a work initiated by the Holy Spirit, a biblical truth, a work of Judaizers.

So, my point is that regardless of your experience there are biblical truths that do not deviate, sway, or modify based on your experience. The Body of Christ is one of those truths. I brought this up because you seemed to be rejecting it altogether.

Thanks
Drake
Talk about contorted reasoning!

Drake your selective and biased reading of my posts is both boring and almost idiotic.

You dodge all the points of scripture, only to use some obscurity to dismiss them in total.

You don't like my *experience* but I have seen operatives of LSM in action, and they do behave like the Judaizers of the N.T. I realize that you disagree, but so be it.

Regarding your comment, "that the Body of Christ is not autonomous. Just as your body is not autonomous and if it were you would not be here to discuss it!" is pretty absurd. Of course, my body is autonomous! I have relationships with other bodies, but we are not "connected." For example, when I take a shower, I am the only one getting clean, and I do not consider my actions to be "independent and destructive" to all the other members I know -- which is the line of reasoning constantly heard from LSMers about this subject.

Here is one extremely important reason for the autonomy of local churches: Problems, both in teaching and practice, do not spread beyond the local congregation. In effect, each local church, like each city of old, needs a protective wall around it. Today these are commonly known as relational "boundaries."

Cal

02-22-2018, 02:33 PM

So, my point is that regardless of your experience there are biblical truths that do not deviate, sway, or modify based on your experience. The Body of Christ is one of those truths. I brought this up because you seemed to be rejecting it altogether.

I'm sorry, I don't get this statement. I know Ohio, and I know he believes in the Body of Christ. What you seem to be saying is if someone doesn't believe in the Body of Christ the way you do then he has rejected it altogether. That's black and white thinking that is inappropriate in regard to something as mysterious as the Body.

My reading of the Bible on the Body is that it never establishes the Body as a matter of authority between the members anyway, but of authority of the Head. In no place does the Bible imply or suggest that the picture of the Body teaches us that one member obeys another, only that all members respect and honor other members, and obey the Head.

The Body is a mysterious thing, there can be no doubt. So to try to make it so concrete that you assert that one member can go into a local church and fire elders and install new elders seems a bit much.

The early Apostles were different. I don't believe such gifts exist today. No one these days has seen Jesus (1 Cor 9:1) and none I know of can work miracles (2 Cor 12:12).

Unless you can show me an apostle who has seen Jesus and can work miracles, you aren't showing me one who has the kind of authority Paul did, i.e. can hire and fire elders.

Drake

02-22-2018, 02:42 PM

Ohio>“ Of course, my body is autonomous! ”

No, no. You misunderstood. I meant the members of your body. That is what we are discussing, not the whole.

Drake

Cal

02-22-2018, 02:46 PM

Ohio>“ Of course, my body is autonomous! ”

No, no. You misunderstood. I meant the members of your body. That is what we are discussing, not the whole.

Drake

The members are obedient to the Head. Obedience of the members to each other is neither stated nor implied by the picture of the Body. In our bodies, none of the members have their own mind. They all obey the head, not each other.

They naturally cooperate with each other, because that's the way they are arranged. But the picture of the Body in the Bible is not about this. It's about variety of function, value of each member and obedience to the Head. That's it. You are taking the metaphor to places the Bible does not intend, IMHO.

Drake

02-22-2018, 03:02 PM

Igzy>”I'm sorry, I don't get this statement. I know Ohio, and I know he believes in the Body of Christ. What you seem to be saying is if someone doesn't believe in the Body of Christ the way you do then he has rejected it altogether. That's black and white thinking that is inappropriate in regard to something as mysterious as the Body. ”

Igzy,

I am sure he does and I said as much. He does not have to define it the same as I do. Does experience define what is truth? I think not.

Drake

Drake

02-22-2018, 03:04 PM

The members are obedient to the Head. Obedience of the members to each other is neither stated nor implied by the picture of the Body. In our bodies, none of the members have their own mind. They all obey the head, not each other.

They naturally cooperate with each other, because that's the way they are arranged. But the picture of the Body in the Bible is not about this. It's about variety of function, value of each member and obedience to the Head. That's it. You are taking the metaphor to places the Bible does not intend, IMHO.

I agree with that, Igzy. No member of my body is autonomous. Why, in that sense, is it any different in the Body of Christ?

Drake

Cal

02-22-2018, 03:45 PM

I agree with that, Igzy. No member of my body is autonomous. Why, in that sense, is it any different in the Body of Christ?

Drake

Again it depends what you mean by not autonomous. If you mean we depend on each other, I agree. If you mean we mutually submit, I agree. If you mean a non-member of a local church has the right to come in and fire elders, I disagree.

Cal

02-22-2018, 04:14 PM

Again it depends what you mean by not autonomous. If you mean we depend on each other, I agree. If you mean we mutually submit, I agree. If you mean a non-member of a local church has the right to come in and fire elders, I disagree.

Autonomous simply means self-ruling. In the case of an individual Christian, it means we each have the right to make our own decisions. In the case of local churches, it means no one from the outside has the right to come in and take over.

I think this is pretty clearly the way God set things up.

Autonomy does not mean that individuals and churches are not required to be open to fellowship. But, ultimately, each individual and church is allowed to be self-governing, for better or for worse. The Bible gives none of us the right to rule over another, except in very narrow contexts.

In the case of churches, ministries or movements, if you decide to be a part of any of those, you should respect the existing leadership. If as a member you feel to suggest reforms, that is okay. But if you cannot co-exist with the group, you don't have the right to wrest control of the group by force or intimidation. You should simple go in peace.

The same principle applies from the topside. Though there is one Body, there are not authorities in the Body. There are only authorities in groups. So a church outsider, however qualified, does not have the right to come into a church and take over, claiming apostleship or whatever.

God has called us to peace. We should minister to churches, not push them around. If you are an traveling preacher (apostle) then preach. Don't assume you can dictate to elders what they can do. If you are a member, support. If either of you isn't happy, move on. There are lots of churches. Maybe you'll find one that will listen to you.

ZNPaaneah

02-22-2018, 04:44 PM

I agree with that, Igzy. No member of my body is autonomous. Why, in that sense, is it any different in the Body of Christ?

Drake

I am trying to follow this discussion and it is very difficult.

My understanding is that Igzy said that no member of the body is autonomous but rather is connected to the head. Every member is respectful and works together with every other member of the body, but as far as "autonomy" is concerned (self ruling) the ruling is done by the head.

However, that is not how I understand Evangelical or you, even though you say you agree with Igzy.

So the question I have is when you say you agree with Igzy that the members are not autonomous are you referring to "each one answering to the Lord" or is there anything else?

Evangelical

02-22-2018, 05:10 PM

Autonomous simply means self-ruling. In the case of an individual Christian, it means we each have the right to make our own decisions. In the case of local churches, it means no one from the outside has the right to come in and take over.

I think this is pretty clearly the way God set things up.

Autonomy does not mean that individuals and churches are not required to be open to fellowship. But, ultimately, each individual and church is allowed to be self-governing, for better or for worse. The Bible gives none of us the right to rule over another, except in very narrow contexts.

In the case of churches, ministries or movements, if you decide to be a part of any of those, you should respect the existing leadership. If as a member you feel to suggest reforms, that is okay. But if you cannot co-exist with the group, you don't have the right to wrest control of the group by force or intimidation. You should simple go in peace.

The same principle applies from the topside. Though there is one Body, there are not authorities in the Body. There are only authorities in groups. So a church outsider, however qualified, does not have the right to come into a church and take over, claiming apostleship or whatever.

God has called us to peace. We should minister to churches, not push them around. If you are an traveling preacher (apostle) then preach. Don't assume you can dictate to elders what they can do. If you are a member, support. If either of you isn't happy, move on. There are lots of churches. Maybe you'll find one that will listen to you.

"Don't assume you can dictate to elders what they can do. "

Statements like this, if taken to the extreme, contradict the evidence of the apostle Paul, who clearly "dictated" to elders and churches what they should do:

Titus 1:5 "The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you."

Here Paul left Titus to follow what Paul charged him to do and resolve the unfinished business.

Here Paul lays down the "rules" for an elder:

1 Tim 3:2

A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

So on the one hand yes an outsider should not tell elders what to do. But clearly this does not mean they are completely disconnected and completely autonomous, or "self ruling".

Clearly in the early church they were not completely self-ruling otherwise Paul would have let the churches appoint their own elders and would not have given instructions to the elders.

Nowhere in the bible does Paul say "let the elders decide for themselves, it's completely their decision". Paul had a ministry from the Lord and part of his job was to care for the churches. Caring for the churches included being involved in their affairs, which may have been perceived by some within those churches as outside interference - 2 Tim 1:15 You know that everyone in the province of Asia has deserted me, including Phygelus and Hermogenes.

Somewhere there is a balance between complete self ruling and complete dictatorship. A genuine church or churches will strive to get the balance right. But a person who holds to either extreme e.g. baptist (self-ruling) or Catholic (complete dictatorship) would likely find fault with any churches attempting to strike the right balance and only see the black or white aspects.

Ohio

02-22-2018, 05:48 PM

So on the one hand yes an outsider should not tell elders what to do. But clearly this does not mean they are completely disconnected and completely autonomous, or "self ruling".

Clearly in the early church they were not completely self-ruling otherwise Paul would have let the churches appoint their own elders and would not have given instructions to the elders.

Nowhere in the bible does Paul say "let the elders decide for themselves, it's completely their decision". Paul had a ministry from the Lord and part of his job was to care for the churches. Caring for the churches included being involved in their affairs, which may have been perceived by some within those churches as outside interference - 2 Tim 1:15 You know that everyone in the province of Asia has deserted me, including Phygelus and Hermogenes.

Somewhere there is a balance between complete self ruling and complete dictatorship. A genuine church or churches will strive to get the balance right. But a person who holds to either extreme e.g. baptist (self-ruling) or Catholic (complete dictatorship) would likely find fault with any churches attempting to strike the right balance and only see the black or white aspects.
Paul had a unique place among the Gentile churches, firstly because he was called by the Lord directly, and second because he brought the gospel to these new converts.

So, based on your great wisdom, how do the Midwest churches "strike a balance" when operatives from LSM came to these churches, fomenting discord, dividing the church, and assisting the malcontents to file lawsuits.

Many of these agents from LSM had never even visited Midwest churches before, so how would anyone consider them "today's Paul," and yield all authority to them? Those from LSM had never appointed the elders, preached the gospel, or established the churches. They rather assumed their authority because some folks bought their books.

How is this so "clear" for you, but not for the thousands of victims in the Midwest?

Ohio

02-22-2018, 05:57 PM

Ohio>“ Of course, my body is autonomous! ”

No, no. You misunderstood. I meant the members of your body. That is what we are discussing, not the whole.

Drake
Are we then members of a local assembly as in Corinth, or we members of the "body" connected to the LSM publishers?

When Paul spoke of the metaphor of the body of Christ, he never said the foot was in Ephesus, the hand in Rome, and the nose in Jerusalem. He simply likened the members in Corinth, breaking bread at the same Table of our Lord, as one body.

These members were together regularly, and being part of a publisher does not include you in the body.

Cal

02-22-2018, 08:27 PM

"Don't assume you can dictate to elders what they can do. "

Statements like this, if taken to the extreme, contradict the evidence of the apostle Paul, who clearly "dictated" to elders and churches what they should do:

As I've said, Apostles like Paul no longer exist. The Bible clearly says the Apostles of that time had seen the Lord Jesus and were able to work miracles. (1 Cor 9:1; 2 Cor 12:12). Neither Witness Lee nor any workers in the LCM nor anyone else I know have such credentials or power. They do not have the signs of an Apostle that the Bible specifies.

The original Apostles had special authority. They could direct churches, they could define the faith, they could author Scripture. No one in the modern age has such power. The Bible has replaced them.

I do not believe extra-local workers have the right to go to churches and order elders around. If invited they can teach, preach, exhort, even rebuke. But whether the leaders of a church listen to them is totally the prerogative of those leaders. Direct authority begins and ends at the doors of a church or ministry. And even there it is narrow in scope.

Cal

02-22-2018, 08:44 PM

It's interesting that the errors of LCM teaching generally fall into two cateogries:

Teachings that depersonalize God and our relationship with him, turning him into a substance, thing or force. (e.g. taking metaphors of "life," "nature," "food," "drink," "dose," "transfusion," "constituting," "inwroughting," "mingling," etc. too far.)

Teachings that over-emphasize the authority of leaders and arrange collective rules to control members (e.g. MOTA, locality, "Body," "Recovery," etc.)

Thus God is pushed to the background as a vague force which empowers the leaders in the foreground to control the members. Other collective controls like "locality" and "the feeling of the Body" are applied to solidify that control.

The whole dynamic of LCM teaching is contrived to do one thing: Keep the rank and file in line. Box them in at every turn. Sure, enjoy God as your "food" and "drink," but when it comes to obeying a person, follow "the brothers."

Drake

02-22-2018, 10:10 PM

Again it depends what you mean by not autonomous. If you mean we depend on each other, I agree. If you mean we mutually submit, I agree. If you mean a non-member of a local church has the right to come in and fire elders, I disagree.

Igzy,

Will you agree that a co-worker may come in and appoint elders and set things in order? If so, why can a co-worker appoint an elder but not remove an elder?

Drake

Drake

02-22-2018, 10:27 PM

ZNPaaneah

02-23-2018, 05:30 AM

Igzy,

Will you agree that a co-worker may come in and appoint elders and set things in order? If so, why can a co-worker appoint an elder but not remove an elder?

Drake

I have been in many different Christian fellowships and have yet to meet anywhere where that did not have an elder that was not appointed. So neither of those criteria separate the LRC fellowship from other Christian fellowships. So once again, the question is "how can we know if a Christian gathering is meeting in the name of Jesus"?

Neither you nor Evangelical are able to answer this even though you have taken the position that this meeting cannot be a "church" meeting. There is no biblical basis to say that.

Since we can know false prophets by their fruit why can't we know genuine meetings by their fruit?

Do not the rich oppress you, and themselves drag you before the judgment-seats? 7 Do not they blaspheme the honorable name by which ye are called? 8 Howbeit if ye fulfil the royal law, according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well: 9 but if ye have respect of persons, ye commit sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors.

I think Igzy and Ohio are not objecting to things being done in order, or that elders are being appointed according to the NT, rather what they have observed is people "having respect of persons" and that is contrary to the Lord's command to love thy neighbor as thyself. It is played out by the "rich" in the "spirit" oppressing others, dragging them into law courts and before "judgement seats".

Drake

02-23-2018, 06:30 AM

ZNP>”Neither you nor Evangelical are able to answer this even though you have taken the position that this meeting cannot be a "church" meeting”

Hi ZNP,

Sorry brother. I do not mean to ignore you, it’s just I can’t follow your logic most of the time. I try but your entries are often long, seem repetitive, a little complicated, and even when you ask a question in reply as above it’s worded in such a way that is different from the conversation, sometimes slightly, I might be having with someone else. That is why I have not responded to most of your posts. I assume it’s me, not you. I can’t speak for Evangelical but it seems he has the capacity to ingest, analyze, and respond to your train of thought and occasionally I understand what you were saying by reading his posts.

The few times I have responded to you directly it is mostly on a point or a single post at most because I can’t consolidate your many posts into something I can articulate. Forgive me, it is just me. It is helpful if you ask me to clarify something I said, and that can jump start a conversation between us., though regrettably that too may be short lived.

Drake

Ohio

02-23-2018, 07:05 AM

Will you agree that a co-worker may come in and appoint elders and set things in order? If so, why can a co-worker appoint an elder but not remove an elder?

What Drake never wants to acknowledge is what qualifies a co-worker. How does he justify the actions taken by operatives from LSM who worked with belligerent saints to undermine elders and divide the churches?

The Bible also indicates that leaders are selected by the Spirit and approved by His people. LSM conveniently forgets these as they exercise their false authority to hire and fire unqualified LC elders.

During the chaos of the Midwest quarantines, I heard every elder say this. They all expressed dismay how editors and workers at LSM could tell them how to serve and follow the Lord, "Those brothers never raised me up, raised up my church, nor were my spiritual father." And particularly disturbing were the book editors at LSM, Kangas and Marks, who had never even established a LC.

Cal

02-23-2018, 07:51 AM

Igzy,

Will you agree that a co-worker may come in and appoint elders and set things in order? If so, why can a co-worker appoint an elder but not remove an elder?

Drake

Not in the way of practically owning a church as the LCM does. The worker can come and advise, and the church can cooperate with him. But the church does not have to. That's between them and the Lord. Just like any decision is between a person and the Lord.

Clearly in the New Testament some Christians chose to no longer follow Paul. Whether that was right or wrong in particular instances, it was clearly their right. What is the apostle going to do if the church says, "We appreciate your advice but we are going a different way"? Is he going to put the lead elder in a headlock? Is he going to march into the church meeting with arms and take over? Is he going to declare the church "rebellious" or "leprous"? Paul did none of these things. He had his point of view and thought what he had to offer was good for churches, but only took the authority the churches gave him. He never forced himself on any church and he never condemned a church for not following him.

Even so, as I said, I do not believe Apostles of the type of Paul, Peter and John even exist anymore. There are still apostles, but not with the kind of power they had. You said this had no scriptural basis, but it does:

Paul said the sign of an Apostle was being able to work miracles. This is clear in 2 Cor 12:12. So, either (1) apostles who can't work miracles are not really apostles, or (2) Paul was talking about a special kind of Apostle. I think it is #2. Paul also implied that this kind of Apostle had physically "seen Jesus" (1 Cor 9:1).

Clearly there are "sent ones" now. In a sense we are all sent ones. But there are none of the type of Paul, Peter and John. These men could work miracles, they could define truth, they could author Scripture, they had firsthand experience of seeing Jesus physically. They had more power in the churches. But even so they did not throw their weight around and they did not accuse churches of being leprous for not following them. If they did not do this then certainly Lee and his henchmen don't have such authority.

Please don't say this has no scriptural basis, unless you can give a plausible different explanation for 2 Cor 12:12. Don't tell me I have no basis for this belief. You may not agree with it, but it has a basis.

If a worker comes along who can heal people and raise the dead and get bitten by snakes or be stoned and not be affected, like Paul, then he can dictate to my church who should be the elders. Until then, his counsel will be taken under advisement.

Cal

02-23-2018, 08:07 AM

As Ohio implied, how do you even know who is an Apostle so you can let them appoint elders? Well, Paul makes it very clear. An Apostle can work miracles (2 Cor 12:12). Paul said plainly that this was the sign of a true Apostle.

Could Lee work miracles? No. So plainly he was not an Apostle of the kind Paul spoke. He was a traveling preacher, and if you want to call him some kind of little 'a' apostle that's your business. But he was not given the sign that Paul said identified a true Apostle of the kind he and Peter and John were.

The Lord was wise. He provided irrefutable proof of true Apostle credentials: the ability to work miracles.

You don't have that sign? Then you ain't no Apostle. And you're not appointing any elders in my church. Sorry. We might let you teach. We might even take much of your fellowship very seriously. But you have no appointing or firing authority.

Cal

02-23-2018, 08:25 AM

Let me tell a story here.

The church I meet with started out as one church. Then the leaders felt to plant other churches in the area having similar vision and to be associated with us. There are now five or so, I lose count. You may not like that kind of arrangement, but I don't think the Bible prohibits it.

What's funny is that Lee and Nee used to say it was wrong. Nee called a church that was really controlled by a outside entity a "kite." It was controlled by a long string held by someone far away.

I agreed with that at the time. But now I don't think it's wrong for churches to be associated with and advised by a central entity. What matters is what the churches freely feel to do.

To continue my story, one of the churches we planted decided they didn't want to be in our little fold anymore. They wanted to go a different way. You know what our leaders said? They said if that's how you feel God is leading you then that is fine us. They allowed the church to be autonomous.

That is exactly what the LCM DOESN'T DO. The LCM condemns churches that break ties with them. That's wrong and I shouldn't have to go into why it's wrong.

So I don't think it's wrong for LCM churches to associate in a movement. What's wrong, among several others things, is the way they treat churches that want to go a different way.

Drake

02-23-2018, 08:33 AM

What Drake never wants to acknowledge is what qualifies a co-worker. How does he justify the actions taken by operatives from LSM who worked with belligerent saints to undermine elders and divide the churches?

The Bible also indicates that leaders are selected by the Spirit and approved by His people. LSM conveniently forgets these as they exercise their false authority to hire and fire unqualified LC elders.

During the chaos of the Midwest quarantines, I heard every elder say this. They all expressed dismay how editors and workers at LSM could tell them how to serve and follow the Lord, "Those brothers never raised me up, raised up my church, nor were my spiritual father." And particularly disturbing were the book editors at LSM, Kangas and Marks, who had never even established a LC.

...and probably that explains the strange teaching that the "Jerusalem principle" is a work of Judaizers. I suspect that was the origin of that teaching. It appears, the mid-west elders and co-workers needed an alternative explanation to that of workers outside their patch coming in and what they perceived as interfering in their "autonomous churches" so they concocted that Jerusalem Principle - Judaizers teaching to justify their actions to disengage from the ministry and rally around Titus Chu's ministry.

Drake

Drake

02-23-2018, 08:47 AM

Igzy>"Paul said the sign of an Apostle was being able to work miracles. This is clear in 2 Cor 12:12. So, either (1) apostles who can't work miracles are not really apostles, or (2) Paul was talking about a special kind of Apostle. I think it is #2. Paul also implied that this kind of Apostle had physically "seen Jesus" (1 Cor 9:1)....... Please don't say this has no scriptural basis, unless you can give a plausible different explanation for 2 Cor 12:12. Don't tell me I have no basis for this belief. You may not agree with it, but it has a basis. ....If a worker comes along who can heal people and raise the dead and get bitten by snakes or be stoned and not be affected, like Paul, then he can dictate to my church who should be the elders. Until then, his counsel will be taken under advisement. "

Fair enough Igzy. I will ponder your reasoned scriptural argument here and return to discuss it.

Thanks
Drake

Cal

02-23-2018, 10:43 AM

Fair enough Igzy. I will ponder your reasoned scriptural argument here and return to discuss it.

Thanks
Drake

See also Romans 15:18-19.

Ohio

02-23-2018, 10:58 AM

To continue my story, one of the churches we planted decided they didn't want to be in our little fold anymore. They wanted to go a different way. You know what our leaders said? They said if that's how you feel God is leading you then that is fine us. They allowed the church to be autonomous.

That is exactly what the LCM DOESN'T DO. The LCM condemns churches that break ties with them. That's wrong and I shouldn't have to go into why it's wrong.

So I don't think it's wrong for LCM churches to associate in a movement. What's wrong, among several others things, is the way they treat churches that want to go a different way.
Wow! No lawsuits? No training sessions to undermine the elderships and usurp the meeting hall?

Real men of God with big hearts, faithful to a heavenly vision!

Ohio

02-23-2018, 11:11 AM

...and probably that explains the strange teaching that the "Jerusalem principle" is a work of Judaizers. I suspect that was the origin of that teaching. It appears, the mid-west elders and co-workers needed an alternative explanation to that of workers outside their patch coming in and what they perceived as interfering in their "autonomous churches" so they concocted that Jerusalem Principle - Judaizers teaching to justify their actions to disengage from the ministry and rally around Titus Chu's ministry.

Drake
Read The Resumption of Watchman Nee's Ministry (Vol 57,) he speaks much about this.

ZNPaaneah

02-23-2018, 12:22 PM

Sorry brother. I do not mean to ignore you, it’s just I can’t follow your logic most of the time.Drake

Simple point, Evangelical was very frank in saying what was not a church. I feel that if you can say what isn't a church then surely you can tell us what is a church.

Evangelical said that it is "all the Christians in a city" and used numerous verses from the NT where this can be inferred. Therefore he has delineated the "boundary" of the church as being equal to the city boundary. Hence the question for this thread "What is the boundary of the local church?"

The goal has been to find the black and white verse that gives us this "boundary". Without that you cannot answer the most basic question, what is a church?

I feel that this verse in Matt 18 -- wherever two or three meet in the Lord's name refers to that bare minimum requirement for a "gathering of the called out ones".

Evangelical said no, it has to be more than 2 or 3, and then revealed that the magic number is 12 because there were 12 apostles. I reject that explanation. He said you can't have a church unless you have elders, yet the verses he quoted to support this position clearly said they appointed elders in every church, hence the gatherings were considered to be a church prior to the elders being appointed. Steel said that this forum cannot be a considered a gathering of the called out ones because we are not verifying that every person on the forum is a born again believer. Again, I reject that because in 1Cor 14 Paul makes it very clear that unbelievers can come into the midst of a church meeting.

Therefore the only verse that has been suggested as "the boundary" that can pass scrutiny is this verse in Matt 18. That would mean the boundary between a gathering that is the church and a gathering that is not the church is "to meet into the name of Jesus". That would include every Christian gathering I have ever been in.

That is the logic behind my question: "how can you know if a Christian gathering is in the name of Jesus?"

ZNPaaneah

02-24-2018, 03:19 PM

Sorry brother. I do not mean to ignore you, it’s just I can’t follow your logic most of the time. I try but your entries are often long, seem repetitive, a little complicated, and even when you ask a question in reply as above it’s worded in such a way that is different from the conversation, sometimes slightly, I might be having with someone else. That is why I have not responded to most of your posts.Drake

No problem, I'll try to make this simpler for you.

I said that WL and WN taught that the local churches were autonomous.

You challenged that.

Ohio, Untohim and Igzy provided quotes from both WL and WN proving that they in fact do teach this.

You said that "a careful reading of his point is in disagreement with your statement about autonomous local churches."

And I agreed with you that a careful reading of WL's ministry was not at all clear, rather I would call it doublespeak.

So I asked you if you could explain WL's position to us?

Drake

02-25-2018, 09:25 AM

No problem, I'll try to make this simpler for you.

I said that WL and WN taught that the local churches were autonomous.

You challenged that.

Ohio, Untohim and Igzy provided quotes from both WL and WN proving that they in fact do teach this.

You said that "a careful reading of his point is in disagreement with your statement about autonomous local churches."

And I agreed with you that a careful reading of WL's ministry was not at all clear, rather I would call it doublespeak.

So I asked you if you could explain WL's position to us?

Oh, that is where the disconnect is, By him, I meant UntoHim’s post .

Drake

02-25-2018, 09:42 AM

Read The Resumption of Watchman Nee's Ministry (Vol 57,) he speaks much about this.

When Brother Nee speaks of the Jerusalem principle as he did in Further Talks on the Church Life and the book you reference above he does not say the Jerusalem principle is a work of Judaizers as you did.

But perhaps I missed it, so give the exact quote.

Drake

Ohio

02-25-2018, 09:48 AM

When Brother Nee speaks of the Jerusalem principle as he did in Further Talks on the Church Life and the book you reference above he does not say the Jerusalem principle is a work of Judaizers as you did.

But perhaps I missed it, so give the exact quote.

Drake

Read the book yourself, and do try to portray my views accurately.

Drake

02-25-2018, 10:53 AM

Igzy>”As I've said, Apostles like Paul no longer exist. The Bible clearly says the Apostles of that time had seen the Lord Jesus and were able to work miracles. (1 Cor 9:1; 2 Cor 12:12). Neither Witness Lee nor any workers in the LCM nor anyone else I know have such credentials or power. They do not have the signs of an Apostle that the Bible specifies.

The original Apostles had special authority. They could direct churches, they could define the faith, they could author Scripture. No one in the modern age has such power. The Bible has replaced them. ”

Igzy,

Several arguments you present here have no scriptural foundation. Its fine if you want to believe them but they are not biblical facts.

For instance, there is nothing that says apostles have to have seen the Lord and work miracles. Timothy is the obvious example of a NT apostle that does not meet that definition.

Again, the original 12 Apostles and Paul for instance, cannot be replicated, I agree, however there is no scriptural basis for saying there are no apostles at all.

There is no basis to say the Bible replaced the function of apostles.

And you if you hold that apostles have been replaced by the Bible then why not Evangelists also? Why stop there? Why not Shepherds and Teachers?

Drake

Igzy,

Yours was a reasoned response so I wanted to offer a response in kind.

In this post I will address the first of your assertions that NT apostles are determined by those who have seen the Lord. That, is the 12 Apostles and Paul seem to be the focus of your argument, as if they alone alone were qualified to be apostles because they had seen Him.

In another post I will discuss the criterion for evidence of NT apostles, that is your assertion concerning miracles and works of power.

In another post I will address your assertion that the Bible replaced the function of apostles.

So to the first point above..... there are recorded in the New Testament the mention of apostles who did not see the Lord in person. Only one is needed to dispel that idea so I offered Timothy. Yet, we find several other apostles mentioned: Silvanus ( 1Thess 2:6) , Ephaproditus (Phil 2:25), Andronicus and Junia (Romans 16:7), Titus and others (2Cor 8:23).

Do the 12 original Apostles hold a special place? Yes as evidenced by the foundations of the New Jerusalem with their names on it (Rev 21:14). Are they and Paul the only apostles in the New Testament? No, as shown in the verses mentioned above.

So, when were these other apostles appointed and by who? They were appointed by the Lord Himself after His ascension. (Ephesians 4:7-11)

Drake

Drake

02-25-2018, 11:05 AM

Read the book yourself, and do try to portray my views accurately.

I have read the book... and in trying to muster Watchman Nees support for your erroneous views on the Jerusalem principle being a work of Judaizers there is none.

That strange teaching you are promoting was a twisting of a term by the “autonomous churches” promoters in the Midwest. The term was originally introduced by Brother Nee in Further Talks and expounded on in the Resumption messages where he showed that principle as a work initiated by the Holy Spirit and explained our need to apply it in the work of ministry to the churches.

If you think I am wrong about that and portrayed it inaccurately then you can explain it yourself... or not! for the record in post 211 of this thread you said:

“......with workers sent out from headquarters overseeing the elders, and a Minister of the Age overseeing these workers. Some have referred to this as the "Jerusalem Principle" practiced by Judaizers who were in some cases sent out by James.”

You apparently are included in “some” by your promotion of the notion.

Drake

ZNPaaneah

02-25-2018, 11:54 AM

“People continually refer to Matthew 18:20 as their ground for meeting. But this is wrong. To judge a church according to the presence of the Lord is never conclusive. Even the Catholic Church can testify that they have the presence of the Lord today. If you inquire of them, they will steadfastly maintain that they have the Lord's presence. But does that vindicate and justify them?” (Witness Lee, The Practical Expression of the Church, Chapter 9, Section 2).

I agree that “Claiming that you have the Lord’s presence” does not make it so just as claiming that you are "the church in NY" makes it so.

Matt 7:21 “Not every one who says to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but he who does the will of My Father Who is in the heavens.”

That is what Matthew 18 is focused on “doing the will of My Father who is in heaven”.

For example: v.14 “it is not the will of your Father who is in heaven, that one of these little ones should perish.” This chapter discusses seeking the lost sheep.

v. 21“Then came Peter and said to him, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? until seven times? 22Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times; but, Until seventy times seven.”

The Lord’s will is forgiveness. If you try to overlook this he makes it very clear in the conclusion: 35So shall also my heavenly Father do unto you, if ye forgive not every one his brother from your hearts.

In conclusion I agree that every Christian gathering will claim to be meeting in the name of Jesus, but the evidence will be easy to see. Mercy, forgiveness, seeking the lost sheep, and cutting off those that stumble others.

Cal

02-25-2018, 08:12 PM

Igzy,

Yours was a reasoned response so I wanted to offer a response in kind.

So to the first point above..... there are recorded in the New Testament the mention of apostles who did not see the Lord in person. Only one is needed to dispel that idea so I offered Timothy. Yet, we find several other apostles mentioned: Silvanus ( 1Thess 2:6) , Ephaproditus (Phil 2:25), Andronicus and Junia (Romans 16:7), Titus and others (2Cor 8:23).

So, when were these other apostles appointed and by who? They were appointed by the Lord Himself after His ascension. (Ephesians 4:7-11)

Drake

The Bible doesn't specifically say these men had not seen the Lord Jesus. However, I think the probability that they all had is low. It's doubtful the Roman brothers had been in the Holy Land while Jesus was there.

The "seen Jesus" portion of my post was not a major assertion, more of a footnote. I never claimed Lee was not an apostle with the authority of a Paul because he hadn't "seen Jesus." So I didn't really do the idea justice. Let me do that now.

It seems that everyone who was a true apostle or who wrote the New Testament was either someone who had followed Jesus (seen Jesus) when he was on earth OR someone who was closely associated with such a person. For example, Mark was associated with Peter and got his Gospel story from Peter. In other words, all true apostles likely only had 2 degrees of separation from Jesus himself.

Paul clearly showed some disrespect for certain so-called apostles (2 Cor 11:5). Why did he do that? He probably didn't think they really were apostles. Why? Because he knew they didn't fit the criteria. Possibly because he knew who had been with Jesus or was associated with someone who had, and he knew who could work miracles.

Your assertion that Jesus appointed apostles after the ascension begs the question of how we know who Jesus appointed. I don't think we can know that, so I don't think it's safe to assume anyone after the early apostles have that kind of authority. Certainly history has shown that latter-day people claiming apostleship have no evidence of such a gift other than the credulity of certain followers. This usually ends up being a problem. I think it is safe to say the Lord knows the Church needs more evidence from a so-called apostle that just that person's claim that Jesus appointed him.

Revelation says the church in Ephesus tested those who claimed to be apostles and were not. How did they do that? It's safe to say they didn't give them a test on "God's economy."

Finally, if Lee was an apostle he should have asserted that. Paul had no problem making the claim. But Lee was coy about it. To me that's evidence he knew he wasn't, and so had no business butting into the authority affairs of churches.

Cal

02-25-2018, 08:39 PM

Let me make another point. The Church has no problem saying certain members are evangelists, pastors, shepherds, teachers and healers. But for some reason it no longer seems to want to designate anyone as an apostle. Even giants like Rick Warren are not designated apostles.

Why is that? Why would the Church be so hesitant?

I think there are two reasons:

The Church knows intellectually that saying a person is an apostle confers immense authority to that person, and is careful about doing that.

The Church does not have the prompting from the Holy Spirit recognize anyone in such a way.

The only groups that ever claim anyone is an apostle are tiny, fringe groups like the Local Church Movement. And it's always one of their guys who gets the honor. Surprise!

I think it's dangerous to go around claiming present day men (or women) are apostles. I don't think the Lord hands out that kind of authority anymore. So for me, no miracles, no apostle. Period.

You guys need to be more keen on the potential of abuse of authority. You don't just call someone an apostle because he has what you think is an impressive ministry and has planted some churches--not unless you like opening the door to Mr. Apostle stepping in and running your lives.

Some people are abusers. Some are enablers. It's called co-dependent dysfunction.

ZNPaaneah

02-26-2018, 06:43 AM

ZNPaaneah

02-26-2018, 06:47 AM

Let me make another point. The Church has no problem saying certain members are evangelists, pastors, shepherds, teachers and healers. But for some reason it no longer seems to want to designate anyone as an apostle. Even giants like Rick Warren are not designated apostles.

I would prefer we use "The signs of an apostle" and alignment with "the fellowship of the apostles" for this rather than current church practices and mores which tend to change from generation to generation. After all, the two witnesses that appear at the end of the age will have the signs of an apostle and are clearly "sent ones". Besides the scriptural basis for claiming prophets and evangelists also includes apostles. Also, why does the NT repeatedly designate "the 12" and the necessity for having "the 12" if there are no other apostles? If you are sent by the Lord to speak a word and do it, then I see no reason not to consider that action the act of "an apostle". But there is a big difference between "the 12 apostles" and the thousands of other saints who have done the work of an apostle. I also agree with you that seeing the Lord is a critical component, Peter said as much when they replaced Judas, and Paul made a big deal of being caught up to heaven and seeing things (though he was never one of the 12).

Evangelical

02-26-2018, 03:19 PM

I think what is very safe is that the reference to the name of the apostles as the foundation of the wall refers to these 12. The idea that the wall is the boundary of the church and that the foundation of this boundary is "The apostles" does not refer to future ones, but rather to these 12. Therefore I understand this to refer to the "Fellowship of the apostles".

As long as a meeting of believers is within the fellowship of the apostles it is within the boundaries of the NT for a church meeting.

Paul is a problem since he is not one of the 12. It sort of deflates the 12 apostles argument. If the 12 apostles thing is correct then the true church boundary would be messianic Judaism since without Paul protestantism would not exist.

ZNPaaneah

02-26-2018, 03:59 PM

Paul is a problem since he is not one of the 12. It sort of deflates the 12 apostles argument. If the 12 apostles thing is correct then the true church boundary would be messianic Judaism since without Paul protestantism would not exist.

Yes, it definitely throws a wrench into the equation, however Peter is an apostle and he referenced Paul's epistles as the divinely inspired word of God. That is certainly part of the "fellowship of the apostles".

Steel

02-27-2018, 10:46 AM

Let me make another point. The Church has no problem saying certain members are evangelists, pastors, shepherds, teachers and healers. But for some reason it no longer seems to want to designate anyone as an apostle.

Let me make another point. The Church has no problem saying certain members are evangelists, pastors, shepherds, teachers and healers. But for some reason it no longer seems to want to designate anyone as an apostle.

Interesting observation.

Why is that? Why would the Church be so hesitant? . . . I think there are two reasons: The Church knows intellectually that saying a person is an apostle confers immense authority to that person, and is careful about doing that. . . . The Church does not have the prompting from the Holy Spirit recognize anyone in such a way.

I think there's very related third reason... The church is sufferingfrom the effects of folly religion.

The only groups that ever claim anyone is an apostle are tiny, fringe groups like the Local Church Movement.

Kind of like what the church actually was back in the days when folks claimed to be apostles... And even wrote letters to other believers saying just that.

And it's always one of their guys who gets the honor. Surprise!

Paul is very clear regarding how people love to hold to those they are familiar with... And we are all gulity of doing so, in ine way or another and to one degree or another.

I think it's dangerous to go around claiming present day men (or women) are apostles. I don't think the Lord hands out that kind of authority anymore. So for me, no miracles, no apostle. Period.

According to a simple definition of the word "apostle" as used by Paul in Romans 1:1... It seems that all Paul was saying is that he was a type of representative/messenger of God... "...a delegate; specifically an ambassador of the Gospel; officially a commissioner of Christ..."

And I think that being born again is a wonderful miracle... And if it is a miracle... Then there are miracles happening every day throughout this earth.

But you might be referring to a specific type of miracle... But even regarding that, unless you are aware of what goes on in every part of this earth with all believers in Christ Jesus... Then it would be impossible for you to know if there are "...no miracles, no apostle. Period."

Do you know what goes on in all places with all believers in Christ Jesus, Iggy?

You guys need to be more keen on the potential of abuse of authority. You don't just call someone an apostle because he has what you think is an impressive ministry and has planted some churches--not unless you like opening the door to Mr. Apostle stepping in and running your lives.

Many members... One body... With each member having a particular part.

Some people are abusers. Some are enablers. It's called co-dependent dysfunction.

In our fallen man... We all, including yourself... Suffer from the above.

aron

02-27-2018, 02:46 PM

I think. . .the church is suffering from the effects of folly religion.I think promoting oneself as apostle is folly religion.

"But Paul did it!"

But Paul got the right hand of fellowship from Cephas. He had some ground, there.

Kind of like what the church actually was back in the days. . .And a horse is kind of like a hippopotamus: both have four legs, two eyes and a digestive tract.

ZNPaaneah

02-28-2018, 06:45 AM

Kind of like what the church actually was back in the days when folks claimed to be apostles... And even wrote letters to other believers saying just that.

According to a simple definition of the word "apostle" as used by Paul in Romans 1:1... It seems that all Paul was saying is that he was a type of representative/messenger of God... "...a delegate; specifically an ambassador of the Gospel; officially a commissioner of Christ..."

You do realize that the context of what Igzy wrote is in a thread called "the boundary of the local church". The apostles became a key issue because the boundary of the NJ is the wall. "And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."

So I do not understand how these comments are relevant or contribute to the understanding of the boundary of the church?

Are you saying that Witness Lee was one of "the twelve apostles of the Lamb" and wrote letters to the church saying this?

Are you saying that this reference to the "twelve apostles to the lamb" is a generic term referring to anyone who represents God or brings a message from God?

Steel

02-28-2018, 09:53 AM

I think promoting oneself as apostle is folly religion.

Okay... You are responsible for your thoughts before the Lord.

"But Paul did it!"

Paul did a lot of things... Including trying to go somewhere that God didn't want him to go to.

But Paul got the right hand of fellowship from Cephas. He had some ground, there.

The ground Paul had was between him and the Lord. Paul claimed it, but no one could actually see it... This is where faith comes in... Do you believe Paul's speaking, or don't you believe Paul's speaking... It's not rocket science.

And a horse is kind of like a hippopotamus: both have four legs, two eyes and a digestive tract.

And a foolish remark is just a foolish remark... Not matter how the speaker tries to justify it.

aron... "...kind of like..." doesn't do it where God's concerned.

Steel

02-28-2018, 10:24 AM

You do realize that the context of what Igzy wrote is in a thread called "the boundary of the local church". The apostles became a key issue because the boundary of the NJ is the wall. "And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."

Yes... I was clear that Igzy's speaking was in relation to the topic of this thread... As is my speaking in the comment you quoted.

So I do not understand how these comments are relevant or contribute to the understanding of the boundary of the church?

In both the comment I quoted and responded to, and the comment just prior to it, Igzy brought up the matter of what determines apostleship... Which is the line of thought that I was responding to.

If there is such a things as "...the boundary of the church...", then this matter would have been addressed in scripture, and spoken to through apostleship.

Are you saying that Witness Lee was one of "the twelve apostles of the Lamb" and wrote letters to the church saying this?

Honestly... I have no idea why you would think I was saying that.

Are you saying that this reference to the "twelve apostles to the lamb" is a generic term referring to anyone who represents God or brings a message from God?

Again... I have no idea why you would think I was saying that.

Tell you what though... Why not stick to what I actually said, rather than assume/suggest something I absolutely did not say or suggest... And let's start from there.

Ohio

02-28-2018, 10:56 AM

The NT Testament only gives two solid validations of an Apostle.

They were closely associated with Jesus while he was here, or with somebody who was.
They could work miracles. (I don't see how you can explain away 2 Cor 12:12.)

Without criteria such as these, how could Ephesus "try those who call themselves apostles and are not, finding them false"? (Rev. 2.2)

Why wasn't Lee content to be a traveling teacher and author like most other teachers in the Church? Because he wasn't content with having a ministry. He wanted to control things.
According to all the testimonies from those who knew him, during his first decade in the US, Lee was "content to be a traveling teacher and author like most other teachers in the Church."

But then, beginning in early 1974, Lee changed. He wanted to control things. He wanted to control not just his ministry, but all the workers, elders, and Local Churches. Things at first did not work out so well, but once he placed his son Philip in charge, what a ruler he became!

ZNPaaneah

02-28-2018, 11:17 AM

Yes... I was clear that Igzy's speaking was in relation to the topic of this thread... As is my speaking in the comment you quoted.

Whether or not we have apostles in all ages, the twelve apostles of the Lamb are those recorded in the NT. The fellowship of the apostles refers to the NT, not to WL, WN, or anyone else. That is the boundary of the church.

This thread is not about whether or not we still have apostles.

Cal

02-28-2018, 11:27 AM

But you might be referring to a specific type of miracle... But even regarding that, unless you are aware of what goes on in every part of this earth with all believers in Christ Jesus... Then it would be impossible for you to know if there are "...no miracles, no apostle. Period."

Do you know what goes on in all places with all believers in Christ Jesus, Iggy?

I'm saying if I am going to follow someone as an Apostle, I'm going to need to see the sign of Apostleship. What other people claim to have seen is their business.

Steel

02-28-2018, 11:55 AM

When I read the title of this thread — "What is the boundary of the Local Church" — my thought was that it would be a thread discussing the idea of one church per city as presented in Living Stream Ministry publications... And that is the context my following speaking will be related to.

The first time I heard about the "...one church per city..." thought was just after I started meeting with the local church in Miami... And my first response to it was "Wonderful, this is how it should be."

And this wasn't because I had come to hold to anything Witness Lee or Watchman Nee or LSM... It was because I had just spent three years working through a project called OneAmen, which had as the thought behind it, a platform on and through which all believers in Christ Jesus could come together outside of the denominations/specifc "churches" they were associated with.

"WWJD" . . . Remember that acronym that was popular back in the '90s... "What would Jesus do?" . . . Well... I asked that question regarding this scripture... John 17:21... "That they all may be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that You have sent Me." . . . And I asked it because from my POV there was nothing "...one..." about the church I was seeing around me.

The answer I got was this... 2nd Corinthians 1:20... "For as many promises of God as there are, in Him is the Yes; therefore also through Him is the Amen to God, for glory through us to God."

This told me that it's all about the Son... All about Christ Jesus... And He is just One... It's not about doctrines, or ministries, or denominations, or anything else... It's only about the Lord Jesus... And if the body is to be one body... Then the members of the body need to realize this reality... That is is all about, and only about, Jesus.

There is only... one... Amen... To God's calling/desire... And anything outside of this one Amen is not according to God's calling/desire.

Now when I came to see this truth regarding the one body of Christ, I had no idea about the "...ground of the church..." or "...one church per city..." . . . I just knew that what I was seeing when I looked at the body of Christ around me wasn't aligning with what I had come to know about the matter after considering scripture before the Lord.

And then the Lord removed my wife and myself from meeting with believers in what I'd later come to see as Christianity... And brought us to the local church meeting in Miami.

And no... I didn't for a moment think I'd found the oneness of God's body being expressed on this earth... But what I realized is that the Lord had revealed another part of the matter of the oneness of the body that I had been seeking Him on.

Before you can truly enter into something you need to first see it... There is just no way to truly enter into something without first seeing it... And what I came to see as I met with the local church, and read the ministry of LSM, help me see a little more about the matter of the oneness of the body of Christ... Something that the ministry publications referred to as "...the ground of the church..." and the thought of "...one church per city...".

And what is "wrong" with the thought of "...one church per city..."?

Isn't that what the reality of being in Christ actually is, for those of us who live in a city?

In the Lord's eyes... How many churches are there in a city?

One, right... And if so... How many churches should we see, as believers in Him, when we look at a city?

Again... Just one.

Not two... Not three... Not four... Only one.

"...I will build My church..."

And yet... Here we are... Three "churches" right here on my quarter mile of street where I live... And one more half a mile away... And four more maybe one mile away... Eight "churches" within one mile of where I live... And none having anything to do with the others.

Lord Jesus... Help us. . . . Is this what you want Lord?

No... It isn't. . . . He certainly allows it... But it's not what He wants... Not according to scripture... "That they all may be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that You have sent Me."

"...that the world may believe that You have sent Me."

It doesn't say "...that believers may believe that You sent Me." . . . It says "...the world..." . . . But the world looks at Christianity and doesn't see this oneness... Every day I participate on online forums in which some claimed atheist states that there is so much division between believers... And they are correct, there is.

Why do we believers allow this to take place? . . . Why don't we care for the oness of the Lord in His church?

I have come to see that this is where the rubber hits the road regarding the matters of "...the ground of the church..." and "...one church per city..."... It's about how much we care for the oneness of the Lord in His church.

You want to know what the "...boundary of the local church..." is, saints... It's the measure of grace that God has given you to care for the oneness of the body of Christ... And the capacity you have through this measure of grace God has given you to care for the oneness of the body of Christ... And finally... It is the environment into which the measure of God's grace has brought you so that you can express this care for the oneness of the body of Christ in a living/practical way.

In new testament the word translated as "city" defines a particular geographic area related to a particular set of inhabitants within that geographic area. And it's somewhat similar in the old testament also.

It's not rocket science... How can you care for the oneness of the body of Christ in relation to those who live a hundred miles from you... Or even fifty miles from you... On a monthly basis maybe... But weekly... Daily... Hourly... Not so much.

This is what I clearly see in scripture as a pattern for us to follow... The oneness of the Lord's church is seen locally, then regionally, then universally... In and through the caring of the saints for this oneness... First locally, then regionally, then universally.

And why a "...city..." for the local boundary of this caring? . . . It's what the apostles set as a pattern for us... And our fellowship is with the apostles... Whose fellowship is with the Father and the Son (1 John 1:3).

Steel

02-28-2018, 11:59 AM

But then, beginning in early 1974, Lee changed.

Why do you think this happened, Ohio?

Steel

02-28-2018, 12:03 PM

I'm saying if I am going to follow someone as an Apostle, I'm going to need to see the sign of Apostleship.

So you are speaking in regards to your own personal experience... Which is limited?

What other people claim to have seen is their business.

Absolutely... Just as what you claim to know is according to your own limited experience.

On another note... Can you reference the scripture/s that tells us we should follow an apostle?

ZNPaaneah

02-28-2018, 12:09 PM

What is "wrong" with the thought of "...one church per city..."?

Yes, great question.

In the LRC I met in Houston (200), Irving (100), Odessa (<100), NYC (300).

Even if you considered yourself "one with all the Christians" in the city you couldn't possibly think that you were comprehensively one with them. There were obviously many, many meetings going on in the city of genuine Christians.

So then the question becomes "Is one church in one city = all the Christians have to meet with us?" That is where the error comes in. No, all the Christians have to meet with Jesus, that is the only requirement.

If "one church one city" means that only our elders are the "authority" in the church here then that is the error.

If "one church one city" means that every other Lord's table meeting in this city is in division and sin, then that is the error.

Ohio

02-28-2018, 12:12 PM

Why do you think this happened, Ohio?
We can only answer what happened and what was taught, and whether it was according to God's word.

You have to ask WL the why.

Ohio

02-28-2018, 12:22 PM

And what is "wrong" with the thought of "...one church per city..."?

There is only one church per city because there is only one body of Christ.

It is only the fallen, natural man who looks at all of God's children and sees differences. Are not all churches golden lampstands, indistinguishable from one another?

It was W. Lee who decided that only his LC's are legitimate, and only the elders he appointed are legitimate, and only his printing presses are legitimate, and only his seminaries are legitimate, and divided his followers from the rest of the body of Christ.

Steel

02-28-2018, 12:30 PM

Yes, great question.

In the LRC I met in Houston (200), Irving (100), Odessa (<100), NYC (300).

While you were meeting with these members of the body of Christ... Were you caring for all members of His body in those cities?

Even if you considered yourself "one with all the Christians" in the city you couldn't possibly think that you were comprehensively one with them. There were obviously many, many meetings going on in the city of genuine Christians.

What's impossible for man, isn't for God.

I don't need to consider myself one with all the Christians"... I only need to believe that I am one with Christ... In Whom, and out of Whom comes His body.

So then the question becomes "Is one church in one city = all the Christians have to meet with us?" That is where the error comes in. No, all the Christians have to meet with Jesus, that is the only requirement.

Actually, that's not the question/consideration.

According to scripture, one church in one city is the already accomplished/established reality... What needs to be worked out is the entering of believers within the city into this already accomplished/established reality.

And no... Believers don't just "...meet with Jesus..." . . . We meet in Him and through Him... And unto Him.

And if a believer doesn't see and enter into this reality... They are outside of Christ... Even as we might claim otherwise.

If "one church one city" means that only our elders are the "authority" in the church here then that is the error.

Scripture tells us that Christ alone is the Head... And as the Head, He alone is the authority, both over, and within His one church.

If believers are unable to submit ourselves to this reality of Christ being our Head... Then how can there ever be a proper expression of Christ in anything that we express... Including the matter of eldership.

Maybe we can take a look at how God arranged things when Moses had to manage the couple million Israelites he was caring for.

If "one church one city" means that every other Lord's table meeting in this city is in division and sin, then that is the error.

Division doesn't come out of works... Division comes out of not caring for what God cares for.

Works simply expresses what a believer cares for.

How can we have the oneness of Christ expressed in and through the body of Christ if the body of Christ doesn't care about His oneness?

Caring for the oneness of the body of Christ... That's the ground we should stand on... And when we do... The reality of this is what is then expressed... In all that we are and do.

Steel

02-28-2018, 12:32 PM

We can only answer what happened and what was taught, and whether it was according to God's word.

That's a wonderfully limited response... I appreciate your effort in being limited in it.

You have to ask WL the why.

He's dead.

But praise the Lord that we can all, if we choose to, before the living God... Enjoy the writings that come from his ministry.

Steel

02-28-2018, 12:44 PM

There is only one church per city because there is only one body of Christ.

Amen... And yet... That's not what folks see when they look at us, is it.

Is that their fault... Our fault... The Lord's fault... Or no one's fault?

It is only the fallen, natural man who looks at all of God's children and sees differences.

Really? . . . So God doesn't see differences between His children? . . . So God doesn't know each of His children individually, and even created us individually?

What are we... Just clones?

Are not all churches golden lampstands, indistinguishable from one another?

By "...all churches..." I'm going to conclude that you mean all expressions of God's one church that is in Christ Jesus... And in this context... Yes... All are golden lampstands, indistinguishable from one another.

But... Do all members of these "...golden lampstands, indistinguishable from one another..." expressions of God's one church... See this reality... And enter into this reality... And express this reality?

Tell me, Ohio... If the Lord was to come in and remove a golden lampstand from among a group of believers... What will happen to these believers?

It was W. Lee who decided that only his LC's are legitimate, and only the elders he appointed are legitimate, and only his printing presses are legitimate, and only his seminaries are legitimate, and divided his followers from the rest of the body of Christ.

Really... So the Pope is all on-board with the oneness of the body that is in Christ Jesus... And the head honchos of the various protestant religious institutions... Are they all on-board with the oneness of the body that is in Christ Jesus?

I'm asking because from your above speaking it's sounding like everything was just peachy keen regarding all believers being on-board with the oneness of the body that is in Christ Jesus before Witness Lee came and messed things up.

Ohio

02-28-2018, 12:53 PM

But praise the Lord that we can all, if we choose to, before the living God... Enjoy the writings that come from his ministry.
OK, enjoy, but ...

Don't choke on the leaven of pride, bro.

Steel

02-28-2018, 01:05 PM

OK, enjoy, but ...

Don't choke on the leaven of pride, bro.

I try... But know even if I do... The Lord cares enough for me that He won't allow me to lose my salvation even if my choking kills me.

My brother... I didn't come here today to speak the things I did below... But as I started reading the comments here I felt a compelling to write what I have below... And as I was doing this I was simply trying to do the best I can before the Lord... And if there is pride, my hope is that He will save me out of it.

And know this... The things I speak here, I speak anywhere... Because I believe the Lord has given these things to me to speak... And I want to be one with and obdient to Him.

If my speaking offends you, take it before the Lord... If my speaking uplifts you, take it before the Lord.

Cal

02-28-2018, 02:31 PM

Oneness is a laudable value and goal.

But the way the LCM tries to achieve it has not worked and has actually produced the opposite results.

When I hear LCMers talking about oneness, it sounds like when the Pharisees talked about Moses. Technically they had a point, but only technically. Otherwise they were off the reservation.

In the meantime, I see oneness growing in other ways.

God is going to cause us all to "arrive at the unity of the faith." Let's trust him and love each other.

ZNPaaneah

02-28-2018, 02:56 PM

While you were meeting with these members of the body of Christ... Were you caring for all members of His body in those cities?

That would require a very long and detailed response not appropriate for this thread, however if you open a new thread I would be happy to contribute.

How can we have the oneness of Christ expressed in and through the body of Christ if the body of Christ doesn't care about His oneness?

I think this is something that grows as you mature in the Lord. However, the boundary is a key issue. WL and WN were correct to identify the importance of only one ground on which the Temple can be built.

This ground is the same place Abraham offered up his son in a figure. It indicates we have to be absolute for the Lord, we are a burnt offering, we must take the way of the cross, a path we can only walk by faith.

It is also the same ground purchased by David as a Peace offering to make up for his arrogance in numbering the children of Israel contrary to the Law. If you want to keep the oneness you will have sins, offenses, even sins of ignorance. You need to also be willing to pay the price to make peace. [That plague was certainly a result of the census that David authorized. At that time you had an agricultural society that was rural. When you raise cows, chickens, horses, sheep, goats, etc you will develop diseases like Mumps and Measles. If you get these as a child you will develop immunity, but if you get them as an adult you will get sick and die. This does not apply to those who come to Jerusalem to the feast because they would not come if they were sick or infirm. But a census taker would have gone in and out of homes where the sick, infirm, children and elderly would be. They would transmit diseases from one part of Israel to another. The law was very clear, the only way to take a census is to have each family give their local levite an offering in copper coins, the tally of the offering would give you a census. Copper is very good at not spreading disease.]

Caring for the oneness of the body of Christ... That's the ground we should stand on... And when we do... The reality of this is what is then expressed... In all that we are and do.

Yes, my point in this thread is that this is what Matt 18 is talking about. It begins with "turning" from wanting to be "greatest" to "becoming like a small child". Our pride, arrogance and biases are a major cause of division. The second thing is to be very sensitive to the smallest saint being offended. If every saint is the "Body" then our body is covered with nerve endings to detect an attack. If a wolf is going to attack the sheep they'll attack the weakest members on the edge of the flock. Those saints will be your earliest indication of a problem. Also, if a saint stops meeting you need to seek out and find the lost sheep. Had we done this we would have discovered the truth of the Sister's rebellion and many other crimes committed by "wolves in sheep's clothing". Then it talks about resolving offences and with the strongest possible emphasis tells us to exhibit mercy towards one another.

ZNPaaneah

03-01-2018, 08:30 AM

When I hear LCMers talking about oneness, it sounds like when the Pharisees talked about Moses. Technically they had a point, but only technically. Otherwise they were off the reservation.

Yes, let's consider 4 ways they were outside of the boundary:

1. Arrogance. Those of us who were there know that we considered ourselves "elite" Christians, those who were absolute, not in dead Christianity, etc. You cannot enter the kingdom unless you become as a small child. Clearly a boundary.

2. We were not sensitive to saints that were getting offended. Instead we were told from elders and Witness Lee that they were "poisoned" and that you should not look "in the garbage can". In Houston I heard that every kitchen has a garbage can, who would come and visit someone and then go and look in their garbage can. The point was to not have any contact with those who left nor should we ask about them. If you offend one of these little ones it would be better if you tied a heavy stone around your neck and were flushed out of the city into the middle of the ocean. Clearly a boundary you cannot cross.

3. We were not permitted to seek out the lost sheep. We were warned to stay away from certain ones, don't see them, etc. So when someone did get offended no one was permitted to talk to them. This is directly contrary to what the Lord spoke in Matt 18. Leaving the flock to seek out the lost sheep is not outside the boundary, instead it is a defining characteristic.

4. There was no mercy. This forum is very much like those saints described in Matt 18. They saw their fellow servant who had been shown mercy by His Lord go out and abuse his fellow servants, so we were offended by this and came and told the Lord. Mercy is very clearly the boundary. No one enters this city without the Lord showing them mercy, and likewise no one stays in the city unless they will likewise show others mercy.

Ohio

03-01-2018, 08:51 AM

If my speaking offends you, take it before the Lord... If my speaking uplifts you, take it before the Lord.
Brother Steel, unfortunately it is only the heartless and the bullies who speak this way. This is how they "wash their hands" of any responsibility. Either you learned these bad habits within the LC, or you joined them because of similarity.

While I was inside the LC fold, all of the offenses flowed "down hill" in their well established hierarchy. Members had no recourse but to "take it before the Lord," because if one opened his mouth, it only got worse for him. Having left the LC structures, I then realized that I have a voice on behalf of others.

ZNPaaneah

03-01-2018, 10:46 AM

Brother Steel, unfortunately it is only the heartless and the bullies who speak this way. This is how they "wash their hands" of any responsibility. Either you learned these bad habits within the LC, or you joined them because of similarity.

While I was inside the LC fold, all of the offenses flowed "down hill" in their well established hierarchy. Members had no recourse but to "take it before the Lord," because if one opened his mouth, it only got worse for him. Having left the LC structures, I then realized that I have a voice on behalf of others.

Great point. I also remember being taught that this was part of taking the cross and if something offended you then that was an expression of the flesh, self, old man, etc. But it is completely different in Matt 18, the onus on an offense is on those that stumble the little ones, not on the little ones for being "in their mind".

Ohio

03-01-2018, 11:37 AM

Great point. I also remember being taught that this was part of taking the cross and if something offended you then that was an expression of the flesh, self, old man, etc. But it is completely different in Matt 18, the onus on an offense is on those that stumble the little ones, not on the little ones for being "in their mind".

Another point we don't often mention in the Matt 18 story is the benefits of "taking another brother with you." Oftentimes a perceived offense can almost vanish before our eyes once we begin rehearsing the matter to another brother. Speaking the event "out loud" to one another helps to deliver us from merely emotional bias and help us to be objective towards ourselves. Candid fellowship with one another can remove these emotional "mountains." Healthy married couples learn this regularly.

On the other hand, re-enactment of offensive events with another brother or sister can also highlight serious matters missed privately. With such a sounding board, with two gathered in His name, the Lord can step in to further enlighten the situation.

TLFisher

03-01-2018, 12:57 PM

Another point we don't often mention in the Matt 18 story is the benefits of "taking another brother with you." Oftentimes a perceived offense can almost vanish before our eyes once we begin rehearsing the matter to another brother. Speaking the event "out loud" to one another helps to deliver us from merely emotional bias and help us to be objective towards ourselves. Candid fellowship with one another can remove these emotional "mountains." Healthy married couples learn this regularly.

Members & lurkers, those who haven't caught on my primary purpose on this forum is not the orthodoxy, but the orthopraxy of the local churches.
Quite often whether it's perceived or actual offenses, part of the emotional mountains that exist is "I don't want to hear about it" or so and so "has to get right with the brothers".
If we're scriptural Matthew 18 should be a way for there to be candid fellowship in resolving issues.

TLFisher

03-01-2018, 01:07 PM

4. There was no mercy. This forum is very much like those saints described in Matt 18. They saw their fellow servant who had been shown mercy by His Lord go out and abuse his fellow servants, so we were offended by this and came and told the Lord. Mercy is very clearly the boundary. No one enters this city without the Lord showing them mercy, and likewise no one stays in the city unless they will likewise show others mercy.

Mercy and grace tend to go hand in hand. In the local churches these is not that environment. Not when I was a child there and certainly not as an adult. It's not something that is taught to the young people.
Opinion I've held is there would be far less attrition in the local churches if there was mercy and grace. When there is an absence of mercy and grace, one doesn't feel welcome if you have contrasting point of view.

Steel

03-02-2018, 12:25 PM

Brother Steel, unfortunately it is only the heartless and the bullies who speak this way. This is how they "wash their hands" of any responsibility.

Actually... By my very passionate consideration of the things people are speaking on threads like these, I know that I am neither "...heartless..." or a bully. . . . And I have in no way "...washed..." my hands of any responsibility to you or anyone else I encounter her, or anywhere else... As the Lord leads.

Ohio... Since beginning to participate on the forums of this website I have had its members in my heart, and brought you all before the Lord on many occassions. . . . And when I encounter erroneous speaking such as in your above quoted speaking... I am simply encouraged even more to bring the person speaking this error before the Lord.

And bringing a person or matter before the Lord is the best way to exercise my caring of the responsibilty I have towards this person or matter… Which, BTW... Is exactly what I was exhorting you to do regarding any interaction with me.

Always... Always... Bring all things we encounter... Before the Lord. . . . And perhaps you shouldn't think to assume that I am insincere with my speaking.

Either you learned these bad habits within the LC, or you joined them because of similarity.

And what would be your excuse for your own poor speaking?

See, Ohio... It seems that, for you... All that you are able to do is try and find a way to twist what someone says into something that allows you to speak in a negative way toward all things you deem as being "...within the LC...".

Thankfully though, we can know from scripture that... "The prayer of a righteous man avails much in its working."

While I was inside the LC fold, all of the offenses flowed "down hill" in their well established hierarchy.

Well... Thankfully... I don't see myself as being "...inside the LC fold..."... I know that I am in Christ Jesus... And that He is in me… And in these two realities is the enjoyment of being in His fold.

But perhaps, your thinking you were "...inside the LC fold..." was the error the Lord had to bring you out of... And is the error the Lord is still bringing you out of.

Members had no recourse but to "take it before the Lord," because if one opened his mouth, it only got worse for him.

My brother... Scripture tells us that the Lord "...opened His mouth..."... Regardless of the consequences... And did so because He trusted who He was/is in the Father, and trusted the leading of the Spirit.

And scripture also tells us that we should have the mind of Christ (Phil. 2:5)... Do you believe what scripture tells us?

Having left the LC structures, I then realized that I have a voice on behalf of others.

Yeh... No... Only the Lord has a voice on behalf of others... And He doesn't speak the error I've seen you speak on these threads.

Steel

03-02-2018, 12:42 PM

But it is completely different in Matt 18, the onus on an offense is on those that stumble the little ones, not on the little ones for being "in their mind".

So the Lord Jesus was responsible for stumbling all those who scripture tells us were offended by Him as He lived out His 32+ years on this earth?

Surely not, right?

When you speak truth/reality/life and doing so causes the person hearing/reading it to become offended... What then... Should truth/reality/life not be spoken... Because of the opportunity doing so gives to others to become offended in themselves?

Matthew 18:6... "And whoever stumbles one of these little ones who believe into Me, it is more profitable for him that a great millstone be hung around his neck and he be drowned in the open sea."

What is the above scripture verse telling us?

First... The context is those who the Lord has called to Himself... Meaning, those coming to Him as little children (humble, having no malice/poor agenda towards others).

The Lord then adds this... "Truly I say to you, Unless you turn and become like little children, you shall by no means enter into the kingdom of the heavens."

Above we have a caveat to the initial context... And then the Lord continues... "And whoever receives one such little child because of My name, receives Me;..."

And there it is... Is the one who claims to be offended by the speaking of another... Doing so as "...such a little child...", or are they doing so in the vanity of the natural human adulthood.

Speaking truth/reality/life won't stumble a "...child..." who has come to the Lord... But speaking truth/reality/life will certainly cause the one who is in the vanity of the natural human adulthood to become offended.

ZNPaaneah

03-02-2018, 12:52 PM

So the Lord Jesus was responsible for stumbling all those who scripture tells us were offended by Him as He lived out His 32+ years on this earth?

Surely not, right?

Surely. Did you read Matt 18? There is no reference in that chapter to those who were offended by the Lord's speaking. Obviously there are different situations. If you are having trouble distinguishing between the two then bring up the verse that is giving you trouble.

When you speak truth/reality/life and doing so causes the person hearing/reading it to become offended... What then... Should truth/reality/life not be spoken... Because of the opportunity doing so gives to others to become offended in themselves?

Obviously not part of the context of Matt 18. But let's suppose we did have a new one offended by something that was spoken in the meeting. They should go privately to the one who spoke and talk to them. But since they are a new one, a "little brother" then it may be they will simply be stumbled and leave. In that case you should seek them out to fellowship. In either case we should now be having a discussion with this saint about the offense. It may be they were offended by the truth. Perhaps if we "speak the truth in love" that will restore the situation. Perhaps even after the fellowship they are still offended. In that case they should take one or two more that they do respect, explain to them their offense and perhaps those two or three can explain it to this one. Ohio referred to this as one of the safeguards from this chapter.

Your conclusion that truth should not be spoken lest we offend is not a balanced interpretation of scripture but rather taking a word in Matt 18 out of context, applying it to a completely different context. I think this is what Peter referred to as those who twist what the scripture says.

ZNPaaneah

03-02-2018, 01:09 PM

Steel has referred to this verse concerning not offending the "little one" in Matt 18:

Matt 15 Then there come to Jesus from Jerusalem Pharisees and scribes, saying, 2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread. 3 And he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? 4 For God said, Honor thy father and thy mother: and, He that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death. 5 But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, That wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is given to God; 6 he shall not honor his father. And ye have made void the word of God because of your tradition. 7 Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying,

8 This people honoreth me with their lips;
But their heart is far from me.
9 But in vain do they worship me,
Teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men.

It provides a powerful contrast. In Matt 18 we are told to become like little children otherwise we cannot enter the kingdom. In Matt 15 we have Scribes and Pharisees creating "traditions of the elders" and making these laws that you are not permitted to transgress. This is not to "become as a little child" but rather to become as a tyrant or despot.

In both chapters it talks about these ones being offended. Why were the Pharisees offended? Because the Lord exposed their hypocrisy in short circuiting the ten commandments so that they could collect more money.

Steel

03-02-2018, 01:21 PM

It provides a powerful contrast. In Matt 18 we are told to become like little children otherwise we cannot enter the kingdom. In Matt 15 we have Scribes and Pharisees creating "traditions of the elders" and making these laws that you are not permitted to transgress. This is not to "become as a little child" but rather to become as a tyrant or despot.

Sure... Which all humans are, to one degree or another, in our fallen natural man... Which, BTW, God chose in His infinte wisdom to leave us with.

Do you not know that all that separates any of us from becoming "...as a tyrant or despot..." is God's grace... And that includes you, ZNPaaneah.

The question is... Knowing that you being is as a result of God's grace... What does scripture tell us regarding how this grace is expressed in your daily living and being... Towards yourself, and towards others?

In both chapters it talks about these ones being offended. Why were the Pharisees offended? Because the Lord exposed their hypocrisy in short circuiting the ten commandments so that they could collect more money.

No, ZNPaaneah... The Pharisees were offended because they were without Christ.

As is the reason Peter, anyone else in scripture became offended.

Steel

03-02-2018, 01:34 PM

Surely. Did you read Matt 18? There is no reference in that chapter to those who were offended by the Lord's speaking. Obviously there are different situations. If you are having trouble distinguishing between the two then bring up the verse that is giving you trouble.

So are you saying that the Lord caused others to become offended?... That the Lord was the cause of their becoming offended?

And I didn't speak about the Lord causing anyone to be offended in reference to the scripture from Matthew... But in reference to what you said that I quoted above my reference to the Lord causing anyone to be offended.

Go back and read it again... And if you are having trouble understanding my point let me know and I will try and explain it some more to you.

Obviously not part of the context of Matt 18. But let's suppose we did have a new one offended by something that was spoken in the meeting. They should go privately to the one who spoke and talk to them. But since they are a new one, a "little brother" then it may be they will simply be stumbled and leave. In that case you should seek them out to fellowship.

But how would you know to seek them out if they didn't tell you they were offended?

Two weekends ago I spoke something in a meeting that caused an older member to become offended. I didn't know, but as my wife and I were getting into our car to leave this brother was walking by and I said "Amen brother" and he just scowled at me... So I pressed... And said even louder, "Amen brother."

He continued walking as if he didn't hear me but then stopped and turn around and came back to me. He looked at me and said in an offended way that I had caused confusion because after he had spoken telling a young one that he had brought that consecration only requires saying "Lord Jesus", I then got up and said "I will tell you what consecration is... It is knowing God, and knowing who God is in our lives."

My speaking this had offended him because he thought it would confuse the young person he had brought to the meetings.

I just said "Amen brother, the Lord knows" and left it at that.

I fully believe that the Lord is able to work out all things ZNPaaneah, if we simply trust in Him to do so.

In either case we should now be having a discussion with this saint about the offense. It may be they were offended by the truth. Perhaps if we "speak the truth in love" that will restore the situation. Perhaps even after the fellowship they are still offended. In that case they should take one or two more that they do respect, explain to them their offense and perhaps those two or three can explain it to this one. Ohio referred to this as one of the safeguards from this chapter.

Okay.

Your conclusion that truth should not be spoken lest we offend is not a balanced interpretation of scripture but rather taking a word in Matt 18 out of context, applying it to a completely different context. I think this is what Peter referred to as those who twist what the scripture says.

Things is... I didn't conclude that... I simply put it forward as a contrast to what I fully believe we should at all times do... Which is speak the truth in love... Just as scripture tells us to do.

leastofthese

03-02-2018, 05:58 PM

Two weekends ago I spoke something in a meeting that caused an older member to become offended. I didn't know, but as my wife and I were getting into our car to leave this brother was walking by and I said "Amen brother" and he just scowled at me... So I pressed... And said even louder, "Amen brother."

He continued walking as if he didn't hear me but then stopped and turn around and came back to me. He looked at me and said in an offended way that I had caused confusion because after he had spoken telling a young one that he had brought that consecration only requires saying "Lord Jesus", I then got up and said "I will tell you what consecration is... It is knowing God, and knowing who God is in our lives."

That story is so sad Steel, although I must say not surprising in the least. Anyone who has spent time in the LSM churches know that that is what happens if you don't stick to the script of Witness Lee.

In the churches of Lee, Lee will be preached.

ZNPaaneah

03-03-2018, 03:29 AM

So are you saying that the Lord caused others to become offended?... That the Lord was the cause of their becoming offended?

I suppose there are different interpretations, but the way I read this passage in Matthew 15, when you proclaim that Jesus is Lord it is going to step on the toes of those that had presumed they were Lord, whether they be religious dictators, political ones, etc.

But how would you know to seek them out if they didn't tell you they were offended?

Hence the analogy of seeking a lost sheep. They don't tell you they are leaving, you simply realize they are not there and now go looking for them.

Steel

03-03-2018, 02:52 PM

That story is so sad Steel,...

No my brother... It's not sad... Rejoice... And again I say rejoice.

Was it sad that Isaiah, upon the Lord shining on him from His throne (Isaiah 6), saw his own poor condition?

Or was it a wonderful expression of the grace pof God unto Isaiah's salvation?

If you are familiar with the next few scripture verses you will know it is the second.

...although I must say not surprising in the least.

Who cares what you think... Care for what the Lord thinks.

Anyone who has spent time in the LSM churches know that that is what happens if you don't stick to the script of Witness Lee.

If you were wise you would spend no time considering "...what happens if you don't stick to the script of Witness Lee..."... And all your time considering what happens if you don't stick to the Lord's script.

In the churches of Lee, Lee will be preached.

Until he isn't... Which will be according to God's will... Right... Isn't that what scripture tells us... That it is God who is in control of all things.

Steel

03-03-2018, 02:55 PM

I suppose there are different interpretations, but the way I read this passage in Matthew 15, when you proclaim that Jesus is Lord it is going to step on the toes of those that had presumed they were Lord, whether they be religious dictators, political ones, etc.

There's only one truth that scripture reveals.

But yes... When truth is spoken the vain feelings of natural man are hurt.

But as I said... Speaking truth is not the cause of this hurt... The cause of this hurt is man's vanity.

Hence the analogy of seeking a lost sheep. They don't tell you they are leaving, you simply realize they are not there and now go looking for them.

Really... "...you simply realize..."

So we have no need of the Lord's shining to reveal a problem then?

Cal

03-05-2018, 02:36 PM

However, if someone absolutely insists that the works of power, signs, miracles, etc. are the proof of apostleship, then by the same standard believers must prove they are believers by signs such as casting out demons, speaking with new tongues, picking up serpents, drinking deadly things without harm and laying hands on the sick, for they too, using that same logic, are the signs that follow a bonafide believer.

Hi Drake,

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate it. But, unfortunately, I think the above is not a compelling argument. The Bible never says that believers have to prove their validity as believers to each other. It also never tells us to test whether believers are true believers, and in fact seems to discourage such a course (parable of the wheat and the weeds, Matt 13:24-30).

However, the Bible does give us the ground to test those who claim they are apostles (Rev 2:2), and as you said, Paul felt to prove his apostleship.

There is a big difference between claiming to be a follower of Christ and claiming to be an Apostle of Christ. Apostles in the mold of Paul, Peter, John and Timothy had a special commission and authority. They bridged the gap between Christ on earth and the establishment of the New Testament Scriptures as God's unique authority on earth. They were the original "Living Bible."

It's easy to see why people claiming such authority in the latter days are problematic. How do we know they are what they claim? What if there is disagreement? This can cause deep, intractable schisms with reasons to believe either way. Such situations are exceedingly problematic. We have to look no further than LCM history for this concern to be validated.

It seems your argument is working against itself a bit, too. Paul proved his apostleship by performing miracles. This shows that God gave him the power to produce such proof. Why didn't he give it to Lee?

Witness Lee, the present Blendeds, and Titus Chu for that matter, are welcome to produce proof of Apostleship. Until they do, as far as I'm concerned they have no authority from God to order churches around. They might have good ministry. They might be good teachers. But without further proof, that's where it ends.

(Obviously, it is too late for Lee to produce proof of Apostleship. So as far as he is concerned, the case is closed.)

Evangelical

03-05-2018, 02:51 PM

Hi Drake,

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate it. But, unfortunately, I think the above is not a compelling argument. The Bible never says that believers have to prove their validity as believers to each other. It also never tells us to test whether believers are true believers, and in fact seems to discourage such a course (parable of the wheat and the weeds, Matt 13:24-30).

However, the Bible does give us the ground to test those who claim they are apostles (Rev 2:22), and as you said, Paul felt to prove his apostleship.

There is a big difference between claiming to be a Christ follower and claiming to be an Apostle of Christ. Apostles in the mold of Paul, Peter, John and Timothy had a special commission and authority. They bridged the gap between Christ on earth and the establishment of the New Testament Scriptures as God's unique authority on earth. They were the original "Living Bible."

It's easy to see why people claiming such authority in the latter days are a problem. How do we know they are what they claim? What if there is disagreement? This can cause deep, intractable schisms with reasons to believe either way. Such a situation is exceedingly problematic. We have to look no further than the LCM history for this concern to be validated.

It's seems your argument is working against itself a bit, too. Paul proved his apostleship by performing miracles. This shows that God gave him the power to produce such proof. Why didn't he give it to Lee?

Witness Lee and the present Blendeds are welcome to produce proof of Apostleship. Until they do, as far as I'm concerned they have no authority from God to order churches around. They might have good ministry. They might be good teachers. But without further proof, that's where it ends.

If miracles are the sign of an apostle then the problem is that the bible does not record every apostle working a miracle. There are about 25 apostles mentioned in the NT:

http://bmarkanderson.com/how-many-apostles-in-the-new-testament-12-or-25/

On the other hand, perhaps those who work miracles today are apostles - Benny Hinn etc.

This idea that apostles must work miracles is equivalent to the idea that you cannot have the Spirit unless you speak in tongues.

Cal

03-05-2018, 03:05 PM

If miracles are the sign of an apostle then the problem is that the bible does not record every apostle working a miracle. There are about 25 apostles mentioned in the NT:

http://bmarkanderson.com/how-many-apostles-in-the-new-testament-12-or-25/

On the other hand, perhaps those who work miracles today are apostles - Benny Hinn etc.

This idea that apostles must work miracles is equivalent to the idea that you cannot have the Spirit unless you speak in tongues.

No, because Paul himself said in 2 Cor 12:12 that the proof of an Apostle was to be able to work miracles.

But he said that not all believers speak in tongues (1 Cor 12:30).

The Church is not obligated to view a person as an apostle unless he can work miracles. That is the clear meaning of 2 Cor 12:12.

As for Hinn, there is a difference between the things he does and the things Paul was able to do. It's the difference between bending spoons and bringing someone back to life.

Evangelical

03-05-2018, 03:20 PM

No, because Paul himself said in 2 Cor 12:12 that the proof of an Apostle was to be able to work miracles.

But he said that not all believers speak in tongues (1 Cor 12:30).

The Church is not obligated to view a person as an apostle unless he can work miracles. That is the clear meaning of 2 Cor 12:12.

As for Hinn, there is a difference between the things he does and the things Paul was able to do. It's the difference between bending spoons and bringing someone back to life.

That was the proof of his apostleship but not to be taken as a rule for all time and all apostles.

There were more apostles than Paul (at least 20 of them) and no documentation that they all worked miracles - the bible is silent.

Also consider that the reformers Luther and Calvin did not work miracles and in fact may have faked them on occasion (Calvin).

This is generally why protestants do not ask for miracles for proof - if Luther or Calvin worked miracles it would certainly make it easier to prove the Reformation was God's doing. Miracles and signs were always the doings of the Catholics rather than the protestants.

Realise that the tactics you are using to say that Lee was not an apostle is the same that Catholics use against the Reformation.

Cal

03-05-2018, 05:20 PM

That was the proof of his apostleship but not to be taken as a rule for all time and all apostles.

Paul said that miracles were the sign of a true apostle, not just of his apostleship.

There were more apostles than Paul (at least 20 of them) and no documentation that they all worked miracles - the bible is silent.

The Bible also doesn't document every believer receiving Jesus. But it says if you are a believer you have received Jesus. Therefore we can know all true believers have received Jesus.

The Bible DOES say the sign of a true Apostle is the ability to work miracles. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to assume all true Apostles can work miracles. Why else would Paul say they were the sign of a "true apostle?"

Also consider that the reformers Luther and Calvin did not work miracles and in fact may have faked them on occasion (Calvin).

This is generally why protestants do not ask for miracles for proof - if Luther or Calvin worked miracles it would certainly make it easier to prove the Reformation was God's doing.

If they could not work miracles., Luther and Calvin weren't Apostles either.

Further, Luther and Calvin did not have to be Apostles for the Reformation to be God's doing.

Your whole line of argumentation about the Reformation doesn't work.

Face it, 2 Cor 12:12 was not on your radar screen. You have no way to argue around it effectively. Without another verse that negates it, you have no case.

Evangelical

03-05-2018, 05:28 PM

Then the bible should record ALL of the apostles as working miracles.

It doesn't.

Cal

03-05-2018, 07:27 PM

Then the bible should record ALL of the apostles as working miracles.

It doesn't.

That is a very weak argument.

If Apostles are not supposed to be ABLE to work miracles then the Bible would have never recorded that this ability is the "proof of a true Apostle." (2 Cor 12:12)

Note, I did not say I knew all Apostles worked miracles. I said they should be ABLE to work miracles, so when tested by a church they could prove it (Rev 2:2). How else could they be tested?

You can claim Lee was an Apostle all you want. You can believe it if you want. But you have no ground to expect anyone else to believe it, nor do you have ground to hold anyone in less esteem for not believing it.

Expecting people to revere any latter day person as an Apostle is divisive.

Cal

03-05-2018, 07:47 PM

Okay, suppose I'm in the lead in a local church and some Blended brother comes along and says our church has to start doing things differently.

So I ask him, "What are your credentials for giving me orders?"

And he replies, "I'm an Apostle." (Note: This could be Lee or Benson or Menuro or Titus Chu or anyone else.)

So I say, in light of Rev 2:2, "Prove it."

What proof can he give? That he worked with Nee or Lee? That he knows "God's economy" inside out? That he's on the payroll at LSM? That he has the force of the movement behind him so he can make life difficult for me if I don't comply?

Just what is the proof of such a claim?

Let's face it. In the LCM it's all about agreed-upon conventions mixed with intimidation. But those conventions are not Biblical. They are all dependent upon accepting a logical construct that is really a house of cards built on shifting sand.

As I said, the only way an extra-local person can command a local church is when that local church has accepted that convention voluntarily. There is no authority from God that directly authorizes such a thing to which the church must submit.

LCMers exist in a state of befuddlement and false assumptions, and that by design. That's the only reason they allow people like the Blendeds to order them around.

If they don't have the self-respect to push back, they deserve what they get.

Evangelical

03-05-2018, 08:33 PM

That is a very weak argument.

If Apostles are not supposed to be ABLE to work miracles then the Bible would have never recorded that this ability is the "proof of a true Apostle." (2 Cor 12:12)

Note, I did not say I knew all Apostles worked miracles. I said they should be ABLE to work miracles, so when tested by a church they could prove it (Rev 2:2). How else could they be tested?

You can claim Lee was an Apostle all you want. You can believe it if you want. But you have no ground to expect anyone else to believe it, nor do you have ground to hold anyone in less esteem for not believing it.

Expecting people to revere any latter day person as an Apostle is divisive.

What sort of miracles are we talking about here, that Paul for example, could have produced on demand to prove he was an apostle. The old coin behind the ear trick? egg in a bottle? I believe Witness Lee could have worked miracles if he wanted to.

There are other metrics we could use. For example, Witness Lee produced hundreds of churches, and Paul by my count produced about 20. It's a miracle in itself to produce so many churches in different countries.

ZNPaaneah

03-05-2018, 08:37 PM

Okay, suppose I'm in the lead in a local church and some Blended brother comes along and says our church has to start doing things differently.

So I ask him, "What are your credentials for giving me orders?"

And he replies, "I'm an Apostle." (Note: This could be Lee or Benson or Menuro or Titus Chu or anyone else.)

So I say, in light of Rev 2:2, "Prove it."

12“The signs of a true apostle were performed among you with all perseverance, by signs and wonders and miracles.”

1. with all perseverance — The “false apostles” were hirelings who cared nothing for the sheep— at the first sign of trouble they would quickly abandon the truth. We saw this repeatedly with WL. Max, Sister’s rebellion, JI, etc. Every time there was trouble WL was willing to throw anyone and everyone to the wolves.

2. Signs and wonders — the miracles were a testimony from God so that the church could conclude that Paul’s gospel was true.

3. Financial independence — Paul ends the section with “forgive me this wrong”. By the time false apostles, false brethren, and divisive brethren had finished with Paul his financial independence was turned into a scandal. How absurd is this? The false apostles make merchandise of the saints, so much so that not having a financial motive is made out to be “scandalous”!

Obviously the NT gives us the tools to "prove" who is and who is not an apostle.

Cal

03-05-2018, 09:07 PM

What sort of miracles are we talking about here, that Paul for example, could have produced on demand to prove he was an apostle. The old coin behind the ear trick? egg in a bottle? I believe Witness Lee could have worked miracles if he wanted to.

There are other metrics we could use. For example, Witness Lee produced hundreds of churches, and Paul by my count produced about 20. It's a miracle in itself to produce so many churches in different countries.

Clearly Paul was talking about extraordinary acts of the supernatural, which is why he used three different words to describe them: signs, wonders and miracles (mighty deeds). He could have been including his church planting work in this as well, but he clearly was including other things as well. To conclude he wasn't including signs of supernatural power seems unreasonable.

At any rate, 2 Cor 12:12 severely weakens the claim of Apostleship by anyone who cannot work "wonders." Could it be that this was exactly what God wanted to achieve? Could it be that God did not want latter day men going around claiming to have the authority of an Apostle? Could it be he didn't want believers to grant anyone such authority without real proof?

Again, what is the benefit, at this late date in Church history, of claiming someone is an Apostle? All such claims seem to do is divide. They force people to choose sides, which is completely unnecessary. Paul himself did not wish that people would pick him to the exclusion of others, even when he was skeptical of those others' credentials. All he asked was that people at least listen to him some. That's all any of us can ask.

Lee, however, expected people to tune out everyone by him and those he approved of. That was nothing short of megalomania. The rotten fruit of it is there for anyone who has eyes to see.

If someone comes along who can do the things Paul did, like practically rise from the dead, I might be persuaded that he is a true Apostle. Until then, I'll remain unconvinced.

Drake

03-05-2018, 10:34 PM

Igzy>”Just what is the proof of such a claim? ”

Igzy,

Paul said in this chapter and the next 13:3 that his apostleship was authenticated by Christ speaking through Paul in weakness and simultaneously speaking to the Corinthians in power. That was the proof of Paul’s apostleship that they didn’t recognize, not the miracles they asked for.

One must examine Pauls whole explanation. He is saying that their insistence on miracles as proof of apostleship was wrong headed forcing him to become foolish. What was foolish? The insistence of performance of miracles ias proof of his apostleship.

Drake

Steel

03-06-2018, 03:22 AM

If someone comes along who can do the things Paul did, like practically rise from the dead, I might be persuaded that he is a true Apostle. Until then, I'll remain unconvinced.

Let's leave Witness Lee and the LSM for a moment...

C.S. Lewis called the incarnation “the Grand Miracle.” He wrote: “The central miracle asserted by Christians is the Incarnation…. Every other miracle prepares for this, or exhibits this, or results from this…. It was the central event in the history of the Earth—the very thing that the whole story has been about” (Miracles, chapter 14).

And why did God work this "...Grand Miracle..."?

For the purpose of being able to work His greatest miracle... That of His transformation of fallen humanity, to that of uplifted humanity (Ephesians 2).

And uplifted humanity has no need of seeing outward miracles... Because we see God... And are one with God... And even express God.

The Israelites saw many of God's miracles and still did not believe Him.

Jesus' disciples saw many miracles and still did not believe Him.

And yet, Igzy thinks that if he could only see a miracle he would be able to accept something about the person who worked the miracle... But in saying this, has only exposed little or no regard for the greatest of all miracles that is within every born again believer in Christ Jesus.

This is the folly that someone holds to when they no longer are holding to the God that saved them... But instead are holding to their assumed knowledge of this God.

This is the truth that scripture reveals to us...

We can know the truth about anyone and anything by simply abiding in our regenerated spirit... Where God Himself abides one with us, and we one with Him.

ZNPaaneah

03-06-2018, 08:38 AM

Let's leave Witness Lee and the LSM for a moment...

C.S. Lewis called the incarnation “the Grand Miracle.” He wrote: “The central miracle asserted by Christians is the Incarnation…. Every other miracle prepares for this, or exhibits this, or results from this…. It was the central event in the history of the Earth—the very thing that the whole story has been about” (Miracles, chapter 14).

And why did God work this "...Grand Miracle..."?

For the purpose of being able to work His greatest miracle... That of His transformation of fallen humanity, to that of uplifted humanity (Ephesians 2).

I agree. To me the biggest miracle is giving men a new heart.

And uplifted humanity has no need of seeing outward miracles... Because we see God... And are one with God... And even express God.

The Israelites saw many of God's miracles and still did not believe Him.

Jesus' disciples saw many miracles and still did not believe Him.

And yet, Igzy thinks that if he could only see a miracle he would be able to accept something about the person who worked the miracle... But in saying this, has only exposed little or no regard for the greatest of all miracles that is within every born again believer in Christ Jesus.

I don't think that is a fair representation of Igzy's position.

This is the folly that someone holds to when they no longer are holding to the God that saved them... But instead are holding to their assumed knowledge of this God.

This is the truth that scripture reveals to us...

We can know the truth about anyone and anything by simply abiding in our regenerated spirit... Where God Himself abides one with us, and we one with Him.

I think the folly here is creating a phony position for Igzy which he did not present.

The topic is "the boundary of the church". You can argue that the "boundary" in a figure is the wall of the NJ which is built on the 12 foundations of the 12 apostles. Therefore, in a figure these 12 apostles are very important in understanding the boundary of the church.

Igzy has stated that he believes "The Apostles" refer to the 12 who fit the criteria he has cited from the NT. He is ambivalent towards whether or not we still have apostles with a small letter a, but when you are referring to "The 12" who were instrumental in turning the age and also giving us the NT, then it is a very specific group.

What history has proven to be folly is to pretend there has not been any contentious debate over what constitutes the "fellowship of the apostles" and what doesn't.

Drake

03-06-2018, 08:47 AM

Igzy has stated that he believes "The Apostles" refer to the 12 who fit the criteria he has cited from the NT. He is ambivalent towards whether or not we still have apostles with a small letter a, but when you are referring to "The 12" who were instrumental in turning the age and also giving us the NT, then it is a very specific group..

ZNP,

The 12 are special but so are the Apostle Paul and all the little “a” apostles. If we only had the writings of the 12 for the NT there would be a pretty big difference from what we have today. God gave them as gifts to the Body for its building up.

1 Corinthians 1 “For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;”

Clearly this debate started a very long time ago.

Drake

Ohio

03-06-2018, 09:32 AM

And yet, Igzy thinks that if he could only see a miracle he would be able to accept something about the person who worked the miracle... But in saying this, has only exposed little or no regard for the greatest of all miracles that is within every born again believer in Christ Jesus.

This is the folly that someone holds to when they no longer are holding to the God that saved them... But instead are holding to their assumed knowledge of this God.

This is the truth that scripture reveals to us...

We can know the truth about anyone and anything by simply abiding in our regenerated spirit... Where God Himself abides one with us, and we one with Him.
Signs and wonders were a divine endorsement upon the initial apostles. Their many sufferings for God and the Gospel were also a proof of their apostleship. We also can know the apostles by their fruit. Besides these, there are many other tests in scripture regarding the life and character of ministers.

These evidences provided the Ephesians and all the early church with the ability to test those who claim to be apostles, and expose the false ones.

But as Steel has informed us, supposedly "We can know the truth about anyone and anything by simply abiding in our regenerated spirit." I would place a huge question mark on this because it precludes the fact that many believers in the N.T. and in church history have been deceived by false teachers, and because it is contrary to scriptural evidence.

I John 2.27 does teach us that "we have an anointing which teaches us concerning all things in order for us to abide in Him." But this individual anointing does not guarantee that we can know and test all ministers, and has proven to be untrustworthy and far too subjective on a personal level. Rather scriptures inform us there is "safety in a multitude of counselors."

Regarding the unspoken subject of our discussion here, W. Lee has failed the test of apostleship. Admittedly he was a gifted minister, but his many exclusive teachings have been rejected by renowned men of God in the body of Christ. His character and behavior have been exposed by many members who knew him within the LC's as contrary to the upright standards of the N.T.

Cal

03-06-2018, 10:29 AM

I agree. To me the biggest miracle is giving men a new heart.

I don't think that is a fair representation of Igzy's position.

Thank you, Z. I agree with you.

There are different kinds of miracles. Surely being born again is a miracle. Being able to live in righteousness, joy and peace with other believers is a miracle.

But the "wonders" Paul spoke of are ones which identify the person doing them as an "Apostle." If helping people become born again or facilitating an environment of righteous, joyful and peaceful fellowship are those kinds of miracles then we are all apostles. If you want to go there, then fine. But that puts us all on the same level as you expect us to view Witness Lee. So that's a wash.

Paul was clearly talking about wondrous works that set him and other true Apostles apart from average believers.

Think about what it was like back then. There was no New Testament. All the believers had was the Holy Spirit and the leadership of special men who had been with Jesus. A lot of people were going around claiming to be Apostles. How could the Church differentiate the true from the false?

The Bible seems to show us two ways: (1) True Apostles had a close association with the physical Jesus or with someone who had such an association, (2) True Apostles had special spiritual empowerment which could manifest in highly unusual supernatural phenomenon.

In short, there was no question who was an Apostle if you knew what to look for.

Now Lee comes along. All of a sudden we are supposed to start looking at him like he is a Paul? Really? Just like that? Why? And what's the point, anyway? That is, other than to try to control people?

And there should be no surprise that it all added up to exactly what happened. A small faction of "true believers" decided without real proof and for everyone else that Lee was an Apostle. This marginalized them, and they responded in classy fashion by saying everyone else is "blind," "worldly," yada, yada.

And that's what's always going to happen in that kind of situation.

Again, what's the point of claiming Lee is an Apostle but to try to force everyone else into following him? Why can't you just treat him like other teachers are treated these days? Listen to them if you feel to. If you hear God speaking to you through a teacher, be thankful.

Why do you have to try to belittle everyone who sees things a little differently? Seems a lot like pride to me.

Cal

03-06-2018, 10:51 AM

Lee was supposed to be a game changer. Into the world inundated with "fallen Christianity," the story goes, this lone little man was raised up by God to right the ship of the kingdom. So, much like Jesus and the Apostles, Lee was to change the age. But why should have anyone believed such claims?

For that matter, why should have anyone believed the claims of Jesus and the Apostles? Religion was established. Judaism was the faith of the day and had been for centuries. Into that situation, these Johnny-Come-Latelys appear and start telling everyone everything is being done wrong, that the old order is being thrown out, a new day has begun, and that they are just the ones to tell everyone how to go about it.

Now, why should have anyone believed them? What was the sign of the authority they claimed to possess? Simple. They could work miracles that only God could empower them to do. That was the evidence that they had the authority to redefine things. To authorize such major changes, they had to have something more than just their word and character, and that's why God gave them supernatural power. Even Jesus needed this to prove himself.

Lee didn't have that. So why should anyone believe his grandiose claims? In fact, I would argue that without such validation we are foolish to do so.

ZNPaaneah

03-06-2018, 12:28 PM

ZNP,

The 12 are special but so are the Apostle Paul and all the little “a” apostles. If we only had the writings of the 12 for the NT there would be a pretty big difference from what we have today. God gave them as gifts to the Body for its building up.

1 Corinthians 1 “For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: 23But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;”

Clearly this debate started a very long time ago.

Drake
We both agree that to resolve this issue we need to look at the NT. You have repeatedly used scripture to defend your position. Therefore we both agree that the fellowship of the Apostles is the boundary of the church.

So unless you are also claiming that there have been new revelations in scripture that are outside of the fellowship of the apostles, brought in by little a apostles, we are not disagreeing about anything.

I agree with the teaching that we still have the gift of apostles to this day, but I also agree with Igzy that you have to distinguish those from the first 12. I do not believe that scripture is still being written (except of course for the concept that the book of Acts is not finished). I also agree with Igzy that someone who is an apostle would not use such a gift as a way of boasting or exercising authority over others. There are some very troubling quotes of Witness Lee that come across as boasting and using his "position" as "the apostle" to exercise authority over others.

Finally, there is good reason why the "Jews require a sign". Their history is full of God doing signs and wonders as a testimony that it was God who was leading them. Joseph was brought to his position as the right hand man to Pharaoh due to God's signs and wonders. Moses led them out of slavery with signs and wonders. Joshua led them into the good land with signs and wonders. Therefore, if the same God is now leading them onward it makes sense He would testify of this with signs and wonders. Christ crucified is a sign and wonder, but it is also a stumbling block to the Jews. It is wisdom and power, but to the Greeks it "appears" to be foolish and weak. I think Paul's point is that this is similar to those who rejected Jesus because "can anything good come out of Nazareth". Superficially He was from Nazareth, had they only dug a little deeper and learned he was born in Bethlehem, his genealogy, the prophecies at his birth, and the other events.

Ohio

03-06-2018, 01:13 PM

The Bible seems to show us two ways: (1) True Apostles had a close association with the physical Jesus or with someone who had such an association, (2) True Apostles had special spiritual empowerment which could manifest in highly unusual supernatural phenomenon.

In short, there was no question who was an Apostle if you knew what to look for.

And let's make it clear why this was so important. Many so-called "apostles" came from "headquarters" in Jerusalem, like those who came to Antioch "from James" (see Galatians 2.11-15) who brought "another gospel" to the Gentile churches. These ones were so persuasive and deceptive that even Peter (Cephas) and Barnabas were fooled, at least temporarily. That's why Paul called these ones "false apostles, deceitful workers, fashioning themselves into apostles of Christ, and no wonder because Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light." (II Cor. 11.13-14)

Today, we have the New Testament and the entirety of church history to educate us, and still the children of God are fooled by those coming to them and, in effect, rewriting scriptures with another gospel. In the Recovery these days, we have men in charge of a publishing house, called something pseudo-spiritual like "Blended Brothers," who can send their people out to LC's with mandates foreign to scripture, and based on the writings of W. Lee. Yes, another gospel!

These ones have thus become no different than the "super apostles" which Paul confronted during his ministry. Their authority is not from God, neither do they have the evidence of apostleship, yet they exercised a false "deputy authority" over workers, elders, deacons, and saints throughout the Midwest. They sued elders, stole meeting halls, and divided LC's, bringing their deluded followers into bondage, making a show of them in the flesh. (Gal 2.5; 6.12)

Evangelical

03-06-2018, 02:28 PM

What is being discussed about apostles and miracles is not unlike a problem the Reformation faced. The Catholic church was rife with miracles and signs and wonders, which apparently confirmed their authenticity, yet Luther and Calvin had to stand upon God's Word alone.

For this reason it is interesting that some are using the "signs and wonders" argument to argue against Witness Lee being an apostle. This is similar to how the Catholics argue against Luther and Calvin for not working any miracles, thus "God does not approve or endorse the Reformation".

While the apostle Paul clearly worked miracles and this was used in some way to confirm his status as an apostle, let us consider that:

- there is no indication that all the apostles worked miracles (e.g. Apollos etc, and any of the other lesser known apostles, there were about 20 that we know of).

- the ability to work miracles is stated in the Bible as a gift separate to and less than the gift of apostleship:

1 Corinthians 12:18:

And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues.

It is possible that Paul and other apostles had the gift of miracles as well, but based on 1 Cor 12:18 it must be possible to have only the gift of an apostle and not of miracles, since miracles is listed as a separate gift. It is also possible to work miracles but not have the gift of apostleship.

Notice that the gift of tongues is also in this list - perhaps Paul spoke in tongues the most as he said "I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than you all.", but this does not mean that ALL the apostles had the ability to speak in tongues:

1 Cor 12:30 (NLT)
Do we all have the gift of healing? Do we all have the ability to speak in unknown languages? Do we all have the ability to interpret unknown languages? Of course not!

Based on 1 Cor 12:30 and 1 Cor 12:18 we may infer that not every apostle could work miracles.

Cal

03-06-2018, 02:37 PM

I don't think the special Apostles were limited to the 12. But I think they ended after the first generation of believers passed to their rewards and the Canon of the New Testament was finished (not officially canonized, but known and accepted essentially by the Church). If John truly outlived all the other early Apostles, then I think he was the last one.

But this doesn't mean I think the gift of apostleship, i.e. being a sent one, doesn't exist. But these people generally are church planters, not those who run ministries or predominately release teachings. Rick Warren, Joyce Meyer, John Piper, etc. are teachers and sometimes pastors. But I wouldn't call them apostles.

If you read about the question of Apostleship, the predominate question is "do they exist anymore." I think that makes it pretty clear that they don't. It seems if they did then the Church, at least most of the Church, would have no trouble recognizing them. We recognize teachers, pastors and general gifts of leadership. So why wouldn't we recognize an Apostle?

I think the only answer can be that there are really not any, save in a very generic sense.

Cal

03-06-2018, 02:41 PM

Evangelical/Drake/Steel,

How did the church in Ephesus test those who claimed to be Apostles but were not?

What was the defining characteristic of the men whom Paul said were false Apostles?

If Paul and the Ephesians could discern who was an Apostle and who wasn't, can we? If so, how?

ZNPaaneah

03-06-2018, 03:41 PM

If you read about the question of Apostleship, the predominate question is "do they exist anymore." I think that makes it pretty clear that they don't. It seems if they did then the Church, at least most of the Church, would have no trouble recognizing them. We recognize teachers, pastors and general gifts of leadership. So why wouldn't we recognize an Apostle?

I think the only answer can be that there are really not any, save in a very generic sense.

Yes, by this criteria I think the two witnesses at the end of the age would clearly be recognized as apostles. In my understanding the working of signs and wonders are something that is wholly of God's choice. I also suppose it is indicative of God showing mercy on those who are weak in faith.

Drake

03-06-2018, 11:20 PM

Drake

03-06-2018, 11:46 PM

Ohio

03-07-2018, 03:37 AM

ZNPaaneah

03-07-2018, 06:34 AM

ZNP>”Therefore we both agree that the fellowship of the Apostles is the boundary of the church.”

ZNP,

That is not the most complete way to express it. Rather, they are the foundation according to Revelation 21 and something is built on top of it. “Boundary” does not convey that thought very well.

Drake

The boundary of a city according to Witness Lee's theology is a critical component to the "boundary of the church". I started that thread to examine this. Since the wall surrounding the NJ can be considered "the boundary" of the NJ I am referring to it that way, not because it conveys the thought very well but because it is analogous to Witness Lee's point.

ZNPaaneah

03-07-2018, 06:46 AM

ZNP>”There are some very troubling quotes of Witness Lee that come across as boasting and using his "position" as "the apostle" to exercise authority over others.”

ZNP,

Please provide the quote by Witness Lee in context so we can assess it for ourselves.

Thanks
Drake

I had hesitated since it could be viewed by some to be "repetitive" (I think you complained of this once). But you are right, for those who have not read the other threads on this forum it would help to provide some quotes.

1. Boasting -- I personally heard Witness Lee repeatedly talk about poor Christianity and how there were not any books of spiritual value being written today, only his. However, I was aware of saints in Houston and Irving that had extensive collections of Christian books not published by LSM (I discovered this when I helped them move). However, they were far too intimidated to reference them or quote them in meetings even though Houston and Irving were where quoting footnotes as a "testimony" had become all the rage. These saints were so intimidated they actually apologized to us as we moved their books and asked that we not mention they owned them.

I have also read similar testimonies from other brothers like John Ingalls and other elders who testified what it was like behind closed doors. Their testimonies were consistent with what I had seen and came across as boasting and arrogant.

I was also present when Witness Lee boasted about all the new terms he had coined.

2. Controlling -- I guess the best example of this was the loyalty pledge that Ray Graver and Benson Phillips strong armed the elders into signing. To my understanding of the NT this is something strongly forbidden in the book of James ("But above all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by the heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath: but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay; that ye fall not under judgment." James 5:2). In my understanding the burden of James is to counteract the cultic influences like the Judaizers that he had been ensnared with.

I don't have any first hand experiences of this behavior except my observations of the "Perfecting Training" which appeared to me to be Witness Lee pulling some leading elder up onto the platform to berate him under the guise of "perfecting". Since I was brand new to the LRC I decided to simply agree that I didn't understand. 40 years later I feel I do understand. He was holding people up to public ridicule and shame with the pretense of "perfecting" as a way to control others. Abuse of power.

Drake

03-07-2018, 07:40 AM

Drake

03-07-2018, 07:46 AM

The boundary of a city according to Witness Lee's theology is a critical component to the "boundary of the church". I started that thread to examine this. Since the wall surrounding the NJ can be considered "the boundary" of the NJ I am referring to it that way, not because it conveys the thought very well but because it is analogous to Witness Lee's point.

Actually it is not. The boundry of a city is lateral and temporary. The foundations of a city are something to be built upon vertically and are permanent.

It’s fine for you to see it the way you do, but I never have heard Bros Nee or Lee refer to the foundations of the New Jerusalem as a boundry. If you have then provide the reference and assuming you are accurate I will concede the point.

Otherwise, you are conflating boundry of a local church with foundations of the New Jerusalem.

Drake

ZNPaaneah

03-07-2018, 08:03 AM

Actually it is not. The boundry of a city is lateral and temporary. The foundations of a city are something to be built upon vertically and are permanent.

It’s fine for you to see it the way you do, but I never have heard Bros Nee or Lee refer to the foundations of the New Jerusalem as a boundry. If you have then provide the reference and assuming you are accurate I will concede the point.

Otherwise, you are conflating boundry of a local church with foundations of the New Jerusalem.

Drake

If you would prefer to view these 12 foundations as foundations of the city then the "fellowship of the apostles" would be akin to the foundation of the city which must be on "the proper ground". Since this foundation runs to the wall it would indicate that the fellowship of the apostles fully covers the "proper ground".

ZNPaaneah

03-07-2018, 08:17 AM

ZNP,

Please provide the reference from Witness Lees speaking for these quotes below..

.... using his “position” as “the apostle” the exercise authority over others.

Since you “quoted” then you must be referring to a quote from Witness Lee, so where did he say that so we can read it for ourselves?

If it is just your opinion you are entitled to it but when you quote as a reference you are saying you have source material.

Drake

A "quote of Witness Lee" includes quotes from John Ingalls and other elders about Witness Lee. I have no interest in quoting them again, they have been referenced numerous times on this forum from JI book Speaking the Truth in Love, and there are writings of other elders that are equally applicable.

There is a quote that I read from Witness Lee in which he thanked the elders for signing the Loyalty Pledge. That pledge is the clearest example of using your position to exercise authority over others. That letter of thanks indicates WL was fully approving of this action and that it was performed with his approval. The letter is published by LSM in one of the elders trainings and has also been fully referenced on this forum.

I have also shared my first hand experience of listening to Witness Lee's "Perfecting Training" messages. Therefore my sources are John Ingalls, my own witness, writings from other elders, and an LSM publication of one of Witness Lee's Elder trainings.

I am not interested in doing anymore than that unless LSM sues me for libel. Perhaps Indiana, Terry or Ohio are interested.

But I find your request disingenuous. You have chastised me for providing too many references concerning Ed Marks, and you have chastised me for being repetitive. It seems fulfilling this latest request of yours would be foolish.

Also, I would like to point out to many who may not be aware of the inner workings of LSM, I was involved in the editing of WL's spoken messages into written messages and am well aware of how thoroughly and completely they were edited to remove many of the the things we heard him say repeatedly. Therefore if you want to get the most accurate and precise quotes of these errors of his you have to actually listen to the messages and not just read the written word. This was the mistake that previous lawsuits have made. They should have poured over the videotapes, but they didn't have the budget.

Steel

03-07-2018, 08:43 AM

As I read the comments on this thread I mourn the ignorance being spoken.

Who does scripture tells us is the foundation of all creation?

God Himself, that's who.

And is it normal to build a foundation on top of a foundation? . . . Of course not.

Here is some excellent speaking on the matter of the reality of our foundation... And try not to dismiss the testimony that comes at the end... As it speaks about how God's ways often do not look like what we think God's ways should look like...

http://web.prtel.com/kcpage/Jesus%20the%20only%20True%20Foundation%203.htm

Cal

03-07-2018, 09:33 AM

ZNP,

Please provide the reference from Witness Lees speaking for these quotes below..

.... using his “position” as “the apostle” the exercise authority over others.

Since you “quoted” then you must be referring to a quote from Witness Lee, so where did he say that so we can read it for ourselves?

If it is just your opinion you are entitled to it but when you quote as a reference you are saying you have source material.

Drake

Drake,

No offense, but this seems like willful ignorance. The Recovery manifestly operates under the presumption that Lee's speaking is the final word of an Apostle.

Just read http://afaithfulword.org, which was created to put down the Midwest US "rebellion." It is nothing but "Brother Lee said this and Brother Lee said that." By Lee's word the Blendeds judged and executed the Midwest churches which only wanted to have the freedom to shepherd their members as they felt the Lord was leading them. They should have called it "thefinalword.org," that is, Lee's, according to the interpretation of the Blendeds.

Lee implied his apostleship and MOTA status again and again. I heard him do it myself. But he was also coy about it, saying just enough to get the message across while retaining plausible deniability. The Blendeds definitely got the message. What do you think gives them the boldness to be such bullies? Of course it didn't make it plainly into print--they were cleverer than that. But the idea and attitude is the very glue that holds the movement together, at least in the US. If you are in Britain or something, maybe it's a little different. But you ought to know enough about the movement you are in to know better.

It's a little weird that we have LCMers here defending the existence of latter day Apostles, yet denying that the Recovery believed that Lee's presumed Apostleship gave him authority over churches.

What's the point of defending the existence of latter day Apostles if not to defend that Lee was one?
What's the point of being an Apostle if not to have authority over churches?
:confused5:

Ohio

03-07-2018, 09:54 AM

Also, I would like to point out to many who may not be aware of the inner workings of LSM, I was involved in the editing of WL's spoken messages into written messages and am well aware of how thoroughly and completely they were edited to remove many of the the things we heard him say repeatedly. Therefore if you want to get the most accurate and precise quotes of these errors of his you have to actually listen to the messages and not just read the written word. This was the mistake that previous lawsuits have made. They should have poured over the videotapes, but they didn't have the budget.

They should have also talked to former members.

ZNPaaneah

03-08-2018, 05:49 AM

As I read the comments on this thread I mourn the ignorance being spoken.

Who does scripture tells us is the foundation of all creation?

God Himself, that's who.

How is that different from the stated position that meeting in the name of Jesus and having the presence of Jesus in the meeting is the key criteria of a church meeting?

Drake

03-08-2018, 06:12 AM

If you would prefer to view these 12 foundations as foundations of the city then the "fellowship of the apostles" would be akin to the foundation of the city which must be on "the proper ground". Since this foundation runs to the wall it would indicate that the fellowship of the apostles fully covers the "proper ground".

That is more logical of an explanation. A glaring exception is that the apostle Paul was not one of the 12. So you would need to adjust the explanation to include the apostle Paul’s writings in the proper ground. Or if you prefer, we could agree that the apostle Paul’s writings were for the building on top of the foundation.

Drake

Drake

03-08-2018, 06:22 AM

Igzy>”It's a little weird that we have LCMers here defending the existence of latter day Apostles, yet denying that the Recovery believed that Lee's presumed Apostleship gave him authority over church”

Igzy,

I don’t believe I ever said that modern day apostles do not have authority according to the function of their gift in the ministry.

I just don’t except it the way you define it or frame the whole matter.

Drake

ZNPaaneah

03-08-2018, 06:50 AM

That is more logical of an explanation. A glaring exception is that the apostle Paul was not one of the 12. So you would need to adjust the explanation to include the apostle Paul’s writings in the proper ground. Or if you prefer, we could agree that the apostle Paul’s writings were for the building on top of the foundation.

Drake

Paul's writing was certainly an accepted part of the "fellowship of the apostles" with Peter's blessing.

ZNPaaneah

03-08-2018, 06:52 AM

Drake

03-08-2018, 08:13 AM

Paul's writing was certainly an accepted part of the "fellowship of the apostles" with Peter's blessing.

You make ‘blessing” sound like approval.

Drake

Drake

03-08-2018, 08:19 AM

Can you be more specific as to how a "modern day" apostle differs from the 12?

No because it is a false comparison.

We are discussing at the moment the existence of NT apostles and their being given as gifts by the Lord Himself in His ascension and their function. Clearly the 12 are distinct from Paul and all the other apostles Evangelical mentioned.

Thanks
Drake

ZNPaaneah

03-08-2018, 08:25 AM

You make ‘blessing” sound like approval.

Drake

What word would you prefer to describe Peter's reference to Paul's writings in his epistle?

ZNPaaneah

03-08-2018, 08:26 AM

No because it is a false comparison.

We are discussing at the moment the existence of NT apostles and their being given as gifts by the Lord Himself in His ascension and their function. Clearly the 12 are distinct from Paul and all the other apostles Evangelical mentioned.

Thanks
Drake

Do you agree that the NT is complete? That the "fellowship of the Apostle's" that we are to keep is already complete?

Drake

03-08-2018, 08:57 AM

What word would you prefer to describe Peter's reference to Paul's writings in his epistle?

Recognition and affection.

Drake

03-08-2018, 08:59 AM

Do you agree that the NT is complete? That the "fellowship of the Apostle's" that we are to keep is already complete?

Of course the NT is complete. What a question!

Ohio

03-08-2018, 10:01 AM

Of course the NT is complete. What a question!
Yet, LSM had grand announcements declaring that the "interpreted word" was NOT complete until Lee published his set of commentaries.

TLFisher

03-08-2018, 12:31 PM

Do you agree that the NT is complete? That the "fellowship of the Apostle's" that we are to keep is already complete?
What is the actual meaning when one utilizes the phrase "fellowship of the Apostle's"?
To any Christian if you said "fellowship of the Apostles" one would transparently refer to NT scripture.
In LC circles the phrase would tend to be more opaque than it would be transparent. What causes the phrase to be opaque is it could be used as what NT scripture says or as LSM's interpretation of NT scripture.

ZNPaaneah

03-08-2018, 12:41 PM

Recognition and affection.

He didn't merely recognize Paul, he recommended Paul.

ZNPaaneah

03-08-2018, 12:45 PM

Of course the NT is complete. What a question!

That is where you, Igzy and I all agree.

Since the NT is complete and we are to "keep the fellowship of the apostles" it puts the fellowship of the apostles above any present day apostle, as a result an apostle might have the authority to raise up churches and appoint elders, but if he steps outside of the bounds of the fellowship of the apostles his authority is trumped by the NT.

If we all agree with that then I think the three of us are all in agreement on the crucial points. From my understanding Igzy is happy to consider anything else a matter of semantics and for myself I still consider that the Lord gives apostles applies today.

ZNPaaneah

03-08-2018, 12:46 PM

What is the actual meaning when one utilizes the phrase "fellowship of the Apostle's"?
To any Christian if you said "fellowship of the Apostles" one would transparently refer to NT scripture.
In LC circles the phrase would tend to be more opaque than it would be transparent. What causes the phrase to be opaque is it could be used as what NT scripture says or as LSM's interpretation of NT scripture.

I mean the NT.

Cal

03-08-2018, 03:46 PM

I just don’t except it the way you define it or frame the whole matter.

I didn't accept you to expect it. ;)

Thus far, however, I haven't heard a compelling argument to believe that if someone claims to an Apostle these days I'm just supposed to let him come in and order my church around. That seems a recipe for disaster. Think for example of... the LCM movement!

I need evidence of Apostleship. Lee didn't have it. At best he was an ambitious teacher. He wasn't a true Apostle. If he was, he was the most scandal-ridden one in history!

Drake

03-08-2018, 08:32 PM

I didn't accept you to expect it. ;)

Thus far, however, I haven't heard a compelling argument to believe that if someone claims to an Apostle these days I'm just supposed to let him come in and order my church around. That seems a recipe for disaster. Think for example of... the LCM movement!

I need evidence of Apostleship. Lee didn't have it. At best he was an ambitious teacher. He wasn't a true Apostle. If he was, he was the most scandal-ridden one in history!

Igzy,

I would defer to Pauls argument in 2 Corinthians chapters 12 and 13. It is His speaking in us through the apostle.

Drake

Drake

03-08-2018, 08:40 PM

That is where you, Igzy and I all agree.

Since the NT is complete and we are to "keep the fellowship of the apostles" it puts the fellowship of the apostles above any present day apostle, as a result an apostle might have the authority to raise up churches and appoint elders, but if he steps outside of the bounds of the fellowship of the apostles his authority is trumped by the NT.

If we all agree with that then I think the three of us are all in agreement on the crucial points. From my understanding Igzy is happy to consider anything else a matter of semantics and for myself I still consider that the Lord gives apostles applies today.

ZNP,

It is possible that we agree on more than is apparent not just here in this note but elsewhere. However, I have learned to wait until I hear the whole argument because more often than not what sounds like agreement is quickly followed by Brother bashing at which point I realize I cannot agree with that even if I might agree on some points. It’s like you might agree with some points about racial bias, want to lend some support......then someone smashes a window, grabs a flat screen, and you regret having any sympathy at that point. A greater principle kicks in.

Drake

Drake

03-08-2018, 08:47 PM

I didn't accept you to expect it. ;)

I know, spellcheck is my worst enema!

:D

Drake

03-08-2018, 08:49 PM

He didn't merely recognize Paul, he recommended Paul.

Okay. But he didn’t authorize Paul.

Drake

ZNPaaneah

03-09-2018, 06:00 AM

ZNP,

It is possible that we agree on more than is apparent not just here in this note but elsewhere. However, I have learned to wait until I hear the whole argument because more often than not what sounds like agreement is quickly followed by Brother bashing at which point I realize I cannot agree with that even if I might agree on some points.Drake

A complete overview of the argument --

Inherent in the "Ground of the Church" doctrine is that there is a proper ground on which the church is built and stands and that once the church is careless in not being on that proper ground they have lost their standing. The analogy is what happens if you build your house on the property line.

This proper ground is emphasized and reiterated several times in the OT. The temple can only be built on a very particular ground. The same ground where Abraham offered up Isaac in a figure and the same ground purchased by David as a peace offering for his sin in numbering the people contrary to the express command of God.

The Temple is stated clearly in the NT to be a type of the church. The church is very clearly described as a building from the very first. Therefore this principle of the church needing to be on the proper ground applies.

Up to this point I fully agree with WL and WN's teaching.

So then, what is the ground on which the church is to be built? Where is the line that we cannot cross without being equated to that person who build their house on the property line?

I find the approach of WN and WL to this critical question highly objectionable. You lay the groundwork from the OT and matters of righteousness that this is an essential item of the faith, an item once for all delivered to the saints in the fellowship of the apostles, and then provide an inferential teaching rather than one that is spelled out in black and white.

Whether or not you agree with inferring from two verses in separate parts of the NT that "appointing elders in every church" and "appointing elders in every city" applies to this doctrine, to me that is wholly unsatisfactory. I am not willing to condemn 99.99% of all Christian meetings based on this.

As a result this thread was started by me with the intention of examining what exactly is "the boundary of the Local Church"?

Evangelical has proposed several different criteria and I applaud him for doing that. He says there must be a minimum number, 12, for a meeting to be considered a church meeting. He provides a "logical" argument for that since there were 12 apostles. However, I find that argument without merit in the NT, or even in the ministry of WL who used Lazarus, Mary, Martha and Jesus as the model for the church. Evangelical suggested that you have to be able to have a Lord's table meeting to be a church. I agree with that, but find no compelling reason why a meeting of two or three could not have the Lord's table. Evangelical said that a meeting is not a church meeting until it has elders, but the verse he uses to support this position destroys it "appoint elders in every church". This shows the meetings were considered church meetings prior to having elders appointed.

I also have proposed criteria from the NT: Matthew 18.

In brief, "wherever two or three are gathered together in My name, there am I in their midst".

I think there is a lot of meaning implied in the term "in My name" and that the context of Matthew 18 clarifies this. But at the same time there is a simplicity that is all inclusive and justifies rather than condemns.

This cannot simply be words since Jesus in this very same book has said that there will be many who said "Lord, lord" yet will be condemned. Matt 18 provides proofs and evidence that a meeting is truly "in the name of Jesus".

1. What they bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven
2. What they loose on Earth will be loosed in Heaven.

From the context "bound in Heaven" and "loosed in Heaven" refers to "tell it to the church" (the kingdom of heaven). As a result you can see that this gathering of 2 or 3 (bare minimum) is fully one with "the church", "the kingdom of Heaven" representing all believers.

3. Whatever they ask shall be done for them.

These three things are given as proof of the Lord's presence:

20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

TLFisher

03-09-2018, 12:52 PM

Inherent in the "Ground of the Church" doctrine is that there is a proper ground on which the church is built and stands and that once the church is careless in not being on that proper ground they have lost their standing. The analogy is what happens if you build your house on the property line.

This proper ground is emphasized and reiterated several times in the OT. The temple can only be built on a very particular ground. The same ground where Abraham offered up Isaac in a figure and the same ground purchased by David as a peace offering for his sin in numbering the people contrary to the express command of God.

The Temple is stated clearly in the NT to be a type of the church. The church is very clearly described as a building from the very first. Therefore this principle of the church needing to be on the proper ground applies.

Up to this point I fully agree with WL and WN's teaching.

So then, what is the ground on which the church is to be built? Where is the line that we cannot cross without being equated to that person who build their house on the property line?

I find the approach of WN and WL to this critical question highly objectionable. You lay the groundwork from the OT and matters of righteousness that this is an essential item of the faith, an item once for all delivered to the saints in the fellowship of the apostles, and then provide an inferential teaching rather than one that is spelled out in black and white.

Whether or not you agree with inferring from two verses in separate parts of the NT that "appointing elders in every church" and "appointing elders in every city" applies to this doctrine, to me that is wholly unsatisfactory. I am not willing to condemn 99.99% of all Christian meetings based on this.

As a result this thread was started by me with the intention of examining what exactly is "the boundary of the Local Church"?

It's not that simple of an issue to reconcile. Let's take "ground of the church" as an example. There are cases of multiple assemblies in any given cities that agree on ground of the church as Znp laid out above. However due to receiving different ministries, there could not be fellowship. I would ask then, what is the standing?
For those who agree on "ground of the church" doctrine, what is the standing in New York? What is the standing in Seattle?

Drake

03-10-2018, 07:13 AM

But are you now saying that Luke did not research and author all of these events, and did so without Paul's encouragement and approval?

Where did you get that idea from?

Of course Luke investigated the events that were handed down from eyewitness accounts and of course he wrote the gospel identified under his name. I’m sure Paul encouraged him too. I’m not really sure where you are going with this “approval” track... what is your point?

Drake

Drake

03-10-2018, 07:25 AM

ZNP>”So then, what is the ground on which the church is to be built? Where is the line that we cannot cross without being equated to that person who build their house on the property line?”

ZNP,

To use your analogy, (though you are conflating boundry and building I will go with it anyway for the moment only), the issue would not be building on a property line, as you describe, but building another structure on the same property. Every denomination, then, builds their own structure instead of all working to build the one.

Again, using your analogy, you could logically make a case that the Catholic Church stretches across property lines in the way it builds beginning at Rome and extending across the globe from there.

Drake

ZNPaaneah

03-11-2018, 05:21 PM

To use your analogy, (though you are conflating boundry and building I will go with it anyway for the moment only), the issue would not be building on a property line, as you describe, but building another structure on the same property. Every denomination, then, builds their own structure instead of all working to build the one.
It is not my analogy, it is based on WL's teaching concerning the ground of the church:

What are the actual grounds upon which so many of these so-called churches have laid Christ as their foundation? What is the ground of the Roman Catholic Church? Without a doubt, it is Rome. The Roman Catholic Church claiming Christ as its foundation is built upon the ground of Roman Catholicism. Upon what ground is the Presbyterian Church built? It is clear that their ground is a certain system of government called the presbytery. They have laid the foundation of Christ upon the ground of the presbytery. What about the Baptists? They with Christ as their foundation are built upon the ground of baptism, baptism by immersion. Then there are the Lutherans. They have laid their foundation upon the ground of Luther and his teachings. You see, all the “churches” claim the same foundation, which is Christ; but they all stand upon different grounds. It is the different grounds that create the problem for the unity of the church, not Christ as the foundation. (The Ground of the Church, Chapter 1, Section 1)

Cal

03-12-2018, 12:57 PM

This debate seems to me a lot like the one about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Now, I realize the intended result of the debate is to produce a principle that is more useful that the angels-on-a-pin answer. But its hopes of producing any answer are just as empty.

It is the exceedingly practical nature of the boundary-of-the-church question that makes it so problematic. In order for its "answer" to produce anything more than an I'm-right-everyone-else-is-wrong attitude, you have to convince most people to go along with it. And that is not going to happen--partly because admittedly some people are not interested in the idea, but also because many others will in good faith just not agree with your "solution."

You might as well try to define for everyone how church leaders should dress or what kind of music is appropriate or which Bible version to use. I'm sure there are numerous arguments concerning all those questions. The problem is none of them are airtight enough to reasonably expect anything close to everyone agreeing with them. And neither is any boundary of the church argument. If one was, the Church would have adopted it long ago.

So all you are left with is the attitude that you are right and everyone else is wrong, that no one is meeting properly but you; and that you are going to take your marbles, go home and eat worms. (Note: see the LCM).

It doesn't lead anywhere. It doesn't get anyone anywhere. In the meantime, you are supposed to meet somewhere and receive all believers as Christ did. So sooner or later you are going to have to stop banging the drum of your opinion and get on with that.

Further, assuming we could come up with an agreed-upon boundary of the church and over time we have all the churches established as they should be, what happens if the leadership of one or more of those churches goes bad? What do members under that leadership do? Do we wait for the apostle to come around and straighten everything out? What if he has gone bad? Then what? What does the Church do to reform when all the boundaries are already taken up with "valid" churches?

The LCM's answer is: Nothing. We just drift along and pretend there is no problem. That's the fate of the Church if you establish the tantalizing but elusive "boundary" of the church. As they say, be careful what you wish for...

It's clear to me God made the Church fluid enough to defy all our attempts to define its "boundaries" in a one-size-fits-all fashion. This is necessary to give the Church room to change and reform. Pinheads (sorry, couldn't resist the pun) can sit around debating such things until the the next millennium and it won't make any difference. You are not going to get anything approaching a practical consensus. You are just going to get more contention, more friction, more time wasted, and maybe some self-satisfaction about being "right."

Join a church. Worship and serve the Lord there and in your personal life. Get on with it.

ZNPaaneah

03-12-2018, 04:13 PM

Cal

03-13-2018, 09:10 AM

Also, it doesn't matter if "everyone agrees". The goal of the forum is to flesh out the arguments that LSM can make. You want someone with a vested interest in finding error.

That much I understand, as long as sensible people know it is like the old joke about economists, "If you laid all the economists in the world end-to-end they would never reach a conclusion."

So if you are talking theory, sure, talk to clarify opinions. But if you are talking about application then a doctrine like the local ground is useless without significant agreement. A person can argue all day that they are "right" about what constitutes a proper church, but it doesn't mean anything if they can't persuade enough people to agree with them to have any significant affect on things. The local ground doctrine will never be accepted by anything but a tiny minority. So, ultimately, it is useless.

Further it is detrimental. I am persuaded that God left the boundaries of the church purposely vague so that we would be less likely to define a legality which would inevitably limit change and reform. If the Catholics had gotten wind of one-church-one-city that's how they would have set it up. Oh, they would have had multiple buildings and congregations, but they would have just called them all part of the "church in.. ", and would have said that any unsanctioned meetings were "not on the proper ground of oneness" just like... you-know-who. In short, the elusive "boundary of the church," the acceptance of which some think would further God's purpose, would inevitably restrict it.

God always leaves a door open to reform. The local ground closes it. The LCM is proof.