What is the boundary of the Local Church?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The one the Lord is building. Based on the context it is built up with those who follow the Lord to the cross.
That is hysterical. You cling to WL's mantra like some kind of magic formula. Everything we have discussed in these chapters is very practical.
What an ugly, slanderous thing to say. Please refer me to the offensive post, otherwise cease with your slander. You are truly twice the son of Gehenna that WL was. Is it Biblical? If so show us your scriptural basis.
How does this contradict anything that I have said? Once again, please refer to the offensive post otherwise cease from your slander.

You have denied a simple fact of the bible that two or three are not "the church" as I have shown in the scripture I posted. You have been unable to explain why Jesus tells us to tell "the church" if telling two or three does not help. Clearly they are not the same thing. Not being able to see such simple facts proves to me that you are not qualified to lecture me about the church.

Your belief about Christ's presence in the midst of two or three can be taken to its illogical conclusion to say "God is with me, therefore I am a church". You have confused the matter of meeting in His name with the local church.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You have denied a simple fact of the bible that two or three are not "the church" as I have shown in the scripture I posted. You have been unable to explain why Jesus tells us to tell "the church" if telling two or three does not help. Clearly they are not the same thing. Not being able to see such simple facts proves to me that you are not qualified to lecture me about the church.

I have responded to this repeatedly (Posts #74, 76, 77, 86, 89, and 93)

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Your belief about Christ's presence in the midst of two or three can be taken to its illogical conclusion to say "God is with me, therefore I am a church". You have confused the matter of meeting in His name with the local church.

The expression "tell it to the church" has the jurisdiction of the entire Earth. We know this because Jesus tells the "two or three" that what they bind on Earth will be what has been bound in Heaven and what they loose on Earth will be what is loosed in heaven.

Therefore this term "the church" refers to the universal group of Christians on this planet. It is not limited to a single city.

Second, Aron pointed out (Post #78) that "tell it to the church" does not mean "inquire of the church". You insinuated that 2 or 3 cannot make a decision, but that is obviously false. Paul was only 2 or 3 when (Paul plus the one or two brothers that relayed the information what was going on in Corinth) when he "told it to the church". He didn't "inquire", he told them to cast that brother out. The church did not make the decision, they carried out the decision that was made.

Now you might claim that Paul "told it to the church" referring to the local church in Corinth. However, this telling was public (in his letter published for all Christians to read) and we are to understand that had that brother tried going to another city the declaration of Paul would have still applied.

You said that some council in Acts over doctrinal issues among brothers from many different localities was "proof" that two or three cannot decide doctrinal issues. That also is a claim that has no Biblical support. When Paul took Apollos apart to declare the way more clearly to him that was a doctrinal issue being decided by two or three. So we have two or three deciding an issue in Acts, we have Peter coming back from baptizing gentiles in a meeting that can be assumed to be a little larger, and we have the meeting with Paul which was larger still. We have different situations and different sized meetings but in every case they are deciding doctrinal issues. You also have the meeting where Paul decides Mark cannot go with them, how many were in that meeting? You have the meeting where Paul rebukes Peter recorded in Galatians, how many in that meeting?

If there were ten people in one meeting it doesn't prove you can't have five. If there were twenty, it doesn't prove you can't have ten. The only proof is the Lord's word that "wherever two or three are gathered He is in the midst."

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I have responded to this repeatedly (Posts #74, 76, 77, 86, 89, and 93)

The expression "tell it to the church" has the jurisdiction of the entire Earth. We know this because Jesus tells the "two or three" that what they bind on Earth will be what has been bound in Heaven and what they loose on Earth will be what is loosed in heaven.

Therefore this term "the church" refers to the universal group of Christians on this planet. It is not limited to a single city.

Second, Aron pointed out (Post #78) that "tell it to the church" does not mean "inquire of the church". You insinuated that 2 or 3 cannot make a decision, but that is obviously false. Paul was only 2 or 3 when (Paul plus the one or two brothers that relayed the information what was going on in Corinth) when he "told it to the church". He didn't "inquire", he told them to cast that brother out. The church did not make the decision, they carried out the decision that was made.

Now you might claim that Paul "told it to the church" referring to the local church in Corinth. However, this telling was public (in his letter published for all Christians to read) and we are to understand that had that brother tried going to another city the declaration of Paul would have still applied.

You said that some council in Acts over doctrinal issues among brothers from many different localities was "proof" that two or three cannot decide doctrinal issues. That also is a claim that has no Biblical support. When Paul took Apollos apart to declare the way more clearly to him that was a doctrinal issue being decided by two or three. So we have two or three deciding an issue in Acts, we have Peter coming back from baptizing gentiles in a meeting that can be assumed to be a little larger, and we have the meeting with Paul which was larger still. We have different situations and different sized meetings but in every case they are deciding doctrinal issues. You also have the meeting where Paul decides Mark cannot go with them, how many were in that meeting? You have the meeting where Paul rebukes Peter recorded in Galatians, how many in that meeting?

If there were ten people in one meeting it doesn't prove you can't have five. If there were twenty, it doesn't prove you can't have ten. The only proof is the Lord's word that "wherever two or three are gathered He is in the midst."

There is a difference between correcting someone's doctrine and defining what that doctrine should be. There is no case of two or three gathering together to determine what a doctrine or practice should be. The example I provided was in regards to defining what the doctrine or practice should be concerning the Gentiles and the law of Moses.

This practice of consulting the church in the early church period continued with the development of the canon and the doctrine of the Trinity. In fact, that these important matters were not decided by "two or three" is strong proof against your argument.

I find this "entire Earth" argument to be a weak one. Jesus's statement about binding and loosing was concerning the apostolic authority given to the disciples. Practically and logically, the place to seek such authority is in the local churches where the apostles resided, and not in a "global church" which was beyond many people's reach.

Also today, it is not practical or logical to seek higher authority in a church which is not local to us. But some may due to denominationalism. This may occur in denominations (for example, a Roman Catholic person travelling to Rome to consult the Pope).

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

today, it is not practical or logical to seek higher authority in a church which is not local to us.

In practice, the Local Church franchises continually seek higher authority from HQ in Anaheim. Not to do so is deemed rebellious. In my LC group the lead elder tried to hold a regional conference based on one of WL's books. He was told, "Re-speak the most recent of the Seven Feasts". Two brothers came from Anaheim, to monitor compliance.

And it's logical to see the LC as based on the wholesale rejection and despising of every form of religious expression save what is being currently promoted by HQ.

Suppose there is an unaffiliated local expression of collective Christian testimony in San Marcos. Continual gatherings, shepherding, exhorting, outreach. Openness to all the faith, oneness with all, yet slavish to none. Various ministries functioning. But no LSM materials, as they've heard of Timothy and Philip Lee, and believe that Witness Lee has been disqualified as elder, much less apostle, by Paul's writings.

Suppose LSM-affiliated believers find such a church in that city. There's your practical expression. Do they recognize it? No, they despise it. Some pretext is found to reject it as . . . "Christianity"

To repeat, the LSM-affiliated LC is based on neither their righteousness nor God's mercy, but on the blanket condemnation of all Christian expression save their own. Which isn't a very Christian expression, if you ask me.

[aron]

The Acts 15 conference in Jerusalem was for the seeing, agreeing upon, and dissemination of what had been established by two or three outside Jerusalem, on earth as in heaven, that gentile believers were not to be held to Jewish practices. And it wasn't established by Paul the MOTA, because as Witness Lee noted, James spoke last.

"This is the LORD'S doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes". ~Psa 22

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is a difference between correcting someone's doctrine and defining what that doctrine should be. There is no case of two or three gathering together to determine what a doctrine or practice should be. The example I provided was in regards to defining what the doctrine or practice should be concerning the Gentiles and the law of Moses.

You keep changing. First a group of 2 or 3 cannot make important decisions. This is clearly not true as they can bind something on Earth and heaven. Examples of Paul doing this are given in the NT. Then you changed this to a group of two or three cannot decide doctrinal issues. Again, not true as there are numerous examples in the NT of key doctrinal issues like the path to salvation and the fellowship of the church being decided between Paul and Apollos, Paul and Peter, and Paul and Mark. Now you are saying that key doctrinal issues cannot be "defined". Once again a baseless claim since all of our doctrinal issues are defined in the writings of Paul, Peter, John and the various apostles.

You are hanging your entire thesis on the fact that there was a council meeting in Acts 15. What does this have to do with the boundary of the church? What does this have to do with "proving" that a church (gathering of the called out ones) cannot be 2 or 3 but must have a certain minimum number greater than this which you have not ever provided.

The person who has never answered this question is you. Where is the Scriptural basis to say that 2 or 3 is somehow categorically different in function from a group of 100?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This practice of consulting the church in the early church period continued with the development of the canon and the doctrine of the Trinity. In fact, that these important matters were not decided by "two or three" is strong proof against your argument.

Yes, the practices of the Roman Emperors and the Roman Catholic Church were quite different from what was laid out in Matthew 18. That is not "proof against my argument" but rather proof that Christianity has deviated from the NT. Thank you for bringing that up.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I find this "entire Earth" argument to be a weak one. Jesus's statement about binding and loosing was concerning the apostolic authority given to the disciples. Practically and logically, the place to seek such authority is in the local churches where the apostles resided, and not in a "global church" which was beyond many people's reach.

Wow! Wow! Wow! A great demonstration of the corrosive effect of WL's doctrine. Jesus Christ, Lord of Heaven and Earth, resides in each believer. He is the authority. He is the one we seek, not some wannabe apostle.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Also today, it is not practical or logical to seek higher authority in a church which is not local to us. But some may due to denominationalism. This may occur in denominations (for example, a Roman Catholic person travelling to Rome to consult the Pope).

There is nothing, whatsoever, in Matthew 18 that supports the need to "seek higher authority" other than Jesus. You meet together in the name of Jesus. You bind and loose in that name. There is no authority in the name of Witness Lee or Watchman Nee, you have been greatly deceived. There was no authority in the name of Peter, Paul proved that.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You keep changing. First a group of 2 or 3 cannot make important decisions. This is clearly not true as they can bind something on Earth and heaven. Examples of Paul doing this are given in the NT. Then you changed this to a group of two or three cannot decide doctrinal issues. Again, not true as there are numerous examples in the NT of key doctrinal issues like the path to salvation and the fellowship of the church being decided between Paul and Apollos, Paul and Peter, and Paul and Mark. Now you are saying that key doctrinal issues cannot be "defined". Once again a baseless claim since all of our doctrinal issues are defined in the writings of Paul, Peter, John and the various apostles.

It depends who those two or three are. Paul, Peter and John, for example.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There is nothing, whatsoever, in Matthew 18 that supports the need to "seek higher authority" other than Jesus. You meet together in the name of Jesus. You bind and loose in that name. There is no authority in the name of Witness Lee or Watchman Nee, you have been greatly deceived. There was no authority in the name of Peter, Paul proved that.

The apostles were given authority to bind and loose. This was reflected in the early church by their practice.

Even the fact that the new testament canon and the Trinity were not decided by gatherings of two or three but those with authority in the church, disproves your doctrine.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It depends who those two or three are. Paul, Peter and John, for example.

Can you please explain further? What determines if the two or three are according to the Lord's word in Matthew 18.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It depends who those two or three are. Paul, Peter and John, for example.

Did you mean to say that this promise to bind and loose is not given to all Christians but only to a select few?

If that is what you meant to say, can you illuminate us as to what decides which few this promise applies to?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Did you mean to say that this promise to bind and loose is not given to all Christians but only to a select few?

If that is what you meant to say, can you illuminate us as to what decides which few this promise applies to?

What determines if two or three meet in Christs name? If the pope and two cardinals meet are they not meeting in the name of catholicism?
It also depends on the matter. It is illogical to think that just any two or three can excommunicate someone for example. Unless those two or three are leaders.

Why are the three apostles you referred to included in the bible and scripture is not made up of any two or three believers? The fact that the writings of Fred and Ted are not in the bible strongly disproves the idea that any two or three believers are sufficient and that who they are does not matter.