What is the boundary of the Local Church?

[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.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

I will be happy to address questions you might have, but I would first like you to answer the question I asked.

Did you mean to say that the promise the Lord made to bind and loose is not given to any two or three believers, because that is what you did say, and these questions support the contention that this is what you meant to say?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I will be happy to address questions you might have, but I would first like you to answer the question I asked.

Did you mean to say that the promise the Lord made to bind and loose is not given to any two or three believers, because that is what you did say, and these questions support the contention that this is what you meant to say?

I cannot see how it can apply to any two or three, logically. Because then me and two brothers could excommunicate you if we wanted to couldn't we, and you can't do anything about it. It doesn't matter if we are not in the same local church, and doesn't matter who we are (God is not a respecter of persons). But you probably won't be worried if it was me excommunicating you. But if I was the apostle Paul and my two brothers were James and John you might be worried.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I cannot see how it can apply to any two or three, logically. Because then me and two brothers could excommunicate you if we wanted to couldn't we, and you can't do anything about it. It doesn't matter if we are not in the same local church, and doesn't matter who we are (God is not a respecter of persons). But you probably won't be worried if it was me excommunicating you. But if I was the apostle Paul and my two brothers were James and John you might be worried.

If you and two brothers excommunicated me because "you wanted to" would indicate that you were not gathered together in the name of Jesus.

Being gathered together into the name of Jesus indicates both the person and work of Jesus, not in some empty claim, but in reality. The fact that this decision is later ratified by the "kingdom of Heaven" is a verification of the fact that they were meeting together in the name of Jesus.

At the time of Jesus resurrection Peter, James and John were "just any two or three". They were unlearned fisherman, and were despised by the ruling elites. When Luther nailed his letter to the door of the church it was really a "David vs Goliath" moment.

When Paul rebuked Peter Paul was a nobody in the church compared to Peter.

My concern about you, Peter, Paul, or anyone else "excommunicating me" is if they were speaking the truth and that truth were a valid reason for excommunication.

When Jesus says that this offending brother "might refuse to listen" this indicates arrogance and is quite typical in people who think they are better than others. Witness Lee was an example of someone who refused to listen to others. When He tells us to be careful not to despise the little brother this also is an indication that there is a temptation to stratify the church. In these two places Matt 18 hits on the clergy laity system and rebukes it. There is no place for a "clergy" class that is above the common laity. When you say you cannot see how it can apply to the "common" brothers (the laity) you are saying you can't see how the church can function without a "clergy-laity". Just one more example of the church being a mystery (an organism, not an organization).

[ZNPaaneah]

So it is exciting to see that the "Clergy-Laity" system is also addressed in Matthew 18.

The key issues are:


1. Do not despise any saint in the church, regardless of how they may appear. (This is also covered in James). False prophets will come into the fold to stumble those that they can stumble. You need to "cut them off". Therefore the weakest saints among you are like the "canary in the coal mine". You will realize that a false prophet is among you when they are stumbled. Likewise, a true church will seek out the lost sheep. The second indication of a false prophet is a number of "lost sheep" that you are forbidden from seeking out. To prohibit saints from seeking out the lost sheep is to deny the Lord, the Great Shepherd of the Sheep.

2. Do not act arrogantly. Any person in the church can be offended by any other person. We need to listen to one another. Recently in the trial of the Gymnast doctor convicted of sexual abuse it came out that a girl aged 17 accused him of sexual abuse 14 years ago and she was dismissed. They didn't listen to her and only now 14 years later they apologized and begged her forgiveness.

3. Meet in the name of Jesus. This is the person and work of Jesus. WL's condemnation of denominational names is a valid point, but it is the flea versus the camel. The reality of "meeting in the name of Jesus" is that what you bind on Earth is bound in heaven, what you loose on Earth is loosed in heaven, your prayers are answered and the presence of Jesus is with you.

4. All local meetings must be one with the "Kingdom of Heaven", the universal church. A true meeting of the Body of Christ has the authority to bind and loose on Earth and what they bind will be bound in heaven. This indicates that the universal church of all believers on this earth will Amen what they bind and loose. This can only take place if you are meeting in the name of Jesus and not in any other name or with any other agenda or bias.

5. There is no reference at all that only Elders, leaders or "Apostles" have the right to make a charge against someone that has offended them or sinned, or to listen to the charge, or to make a judgement. Any suggestion that this is the jurisdiction of a special clergy class of saints is the "clergy - laity" system and has no basis in Matthew 18.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

If you and two brothers excommunicated me because "you wanted to" would indicate that you were not gathered together in the name of Jesus.

Being gathered together into the name of Jesus indicates both the person and work of Jesus, not in some empty claim, but in reality. The fact that this decision is later ratified by the "kingdom of Heaven" is a verification of the fact that they were meeting together in the name of Jesus.

At the time of Jesus resurrection Peter, James and John were "just any two or three". They were unlearned fisherman, and were despised by the ruling elites. When Luther nailed his letter to the door of the church it was really a "David vs Goliath" moment.

When Paul rebuked Peter Paul was a nobody in the church compared to Peter.

My concern about you, Peter, Paul, or anyone else "excommunicating me" is if they were speaking the truth and that truth were a valid reason for excommunication.

When Jesus says that this offending brother "might refuse to listen" this indicates arrogance and is quite typical in people who think they are better than others. Witness Lee was an example of someone who refused to listen to others. When He tells us to be careful not to despise the little brother this also is an indication that there is a temptation to stratify the church. In these two places Matt 18 hits on the clergy laity system and rebukes it. There is no place for a "clergy" class that is above the common laity. When you say you cannot see how it can apply to the "common" brothers (the laity) you are saying you can't see how the church can function without a "clergy-laity". Just one more example of the church being a mystery (an organism, not an organization).

Being gathered in the person and name of Jesus is what the recovery is all about..unlike the denominations. So gatherings in the name of some denomination do not count.

Conversely the problem with your view is that if any two claimed to be gathered in the name of Jesus then you could easily deny that they are. If those two or three were significant people then you might take more notice.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I cannot see how it can apply to any two or three, logically. Because then me and two brothers could excommunicate you if we wanted to couldn't we, and you can't do anything about it. It doesn't matter if we are not in the same local church, and doesn't matter who we are (God is not a respecter of persons). But you probably won't be worried if it was me excommunicating you. But if I was the apostle Paul and my two brothers were James and John you might be worried.

Not any two or three brothers randomly. If you happen to be elders, you don't need input and you don't need to disclose any details to the locality. Your decision stands. If you happen to gather other fellow elders for fellowship, even if one dissents with the decision, it doesn't matter. The decision has been made.
Fellowship with the other responsible brothers is nothing more than getting a decision notarized.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Terry

Not any two or three brothers randomly. If you happen to be elders, you don't need input and you don't need to disclose any details to the locality. Your decision stands. If you happen to gather other fellow elders for fellowship, even if one dissents with the decision, it doesn't matter. The decision has been made.
Fellowship with the other responsible brothers is nothing more than getting a decision notarized.

It seems you agree with me that just any two is not always sufficient.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

So it turns out that God is a respecter of persons after all - we should have known that, with the Lee Rules.

-Submit to one another, unless you're Witness Lee, and you submit to no one.

-Out of the mouths of two or three witnesses it will be established, unless it's regarding Witness Lee or next of kin, then two or three witnesses is a conspiracy and a rebellion.

The fact of the Lee Rules strongly disproves the idea that God is not a respecter of persons. Who they are does indeed matter, it turns out.

[ZNPaaneah]

Yes, I do think being a respecter of persons is at the root of all the evil in the LRC.

"but if ye have respect of persons, ye commit sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors." James 2:9