What is the boundary of the Local Church?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

OK, got it, according to Evangelical you need to have 4 people to be a church. It may be completely unscriptural conclusion, but at least to Evangelical it is a logical conclusion. This may not illuminate the word, but it does shed light on the inner workings of Evangelicals mind.

Your post has completely ignored what I have written and what my understanding is. You asked me what it meant to "meet in the name of Jesus" -- to answer that I used the picture of the New Jerusalem and pointed out that if two or three inside of the walls of the NJ were to meet they would be one with all that are within those walls. As a result what they bound on Earth would be bound in heaven as the NJ is the representative of the kingdom of Heaven.

My view is not unscriptural because I based it on the fact that Jesus said to tell the church if telling two or three was insufficient. It is rather, logic based on scripture.

Actually I did not say 4. I said more than 3. The scripturally correct number I believe is 12. This is the number of apostles Christ chose, and as the foundation stones of His Church they are the minimum number. Just as Israel would not have existed with less than 12 tribes, the church would not have existed with less than 12 apostles, so 12 must be the minimum number.

I believe you implied this when you wrote previously "If we understand the wall to be the fellowship of the apostles". Have you not considered that the fellowship of the apostles is the fellowship of 12 people and within this fellowship all of our doctrine is defined and is the "spiritual Breastplate of Judgement" as you wrote. I believe this fact destroys your "two or three" argument completely because it is the fellowship of 12 people not two or three.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Actually I did not say 4. I said more than 3. The scriptural correct number I believe is 12. This is the number of apostles Christ chose, and as the foundation stones of His Church they are the minimum number. Just as Israel would not have existed with less than 12 tribes, the church would not have existed with less than 12 apostles, so 12 must be the minimum number.

I believe you implied this when you wrote previously "If we understand the wall to be the fellowship of the apostles".

So you are going to build a crucial doctrine based on a type or allegorical reference?

If you can do that then I can argue that the boundary of the city is

21:16 And the city lieth foursquare, and the length thereof is as great as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs: the length and the breadth and the height thereof are equal.

Forget the whole "boundary of the city" doctrine of WL, the "true" boundary of the church is a square that is approximately 375 miles on each side. Wow! Who knew? (Also, please note the elders have jurisdiction over the air space as well)

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So you are going to build a crucial doctrine based on a type or allegorical reference?

If you can do that then I can argue that the boundary of the city is

21:16 And the city lieth foursquare, and the length thereof is as great as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs: the length and the breadth and the height thereof are equal.

Forget the whole "boundary of the city" doctrine of WL, the "true" boundary of the church is a square that is approximately 375 miles on each side. Wow! Who knew? (Also, please note the elders have jurisdiction over the air space as well)

Those dimensions would be the boundary of the future church wouldn't they ?

So the scripture in Revelation gives a clear physical boundary of the church in the new age and yet you deny the physical boundaries of the church in this present age (being the dwellings of each city).

You have put forward the idea of the fellowship of the apostles but apparently you have forgotten that they (who have defined our doctrine by providing us with scripture) are comprised of a total of 12 individuals not two or three. This only reinforces my claim that two or three are insufficient to establish (important) doctrine.

I cannot see how you can continue to claim that two or three can define doctrine when all the evidence is against it - both scriptural (the 12 apostles) and historical (the councils of Nicaea etc).

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Those dimensions would be the boundary of the future church wouldn't they ?

So the scripture in Revelation gives a clear physical boundary of the church in the new age and yet you deny the physical boundaries of the church in this present age (being the dwellings of each city).

You have put forward the idea of the fellowship of the apostles but apparently you have forgotten that they (who have defined our doctrine by providing us with scripture) are comprised of a total of 12 individuals not two or three. This only reinforces my claim that two or three are insufficient to establish (important) doctrine.

I cannot see how you can continue to claim that two or three can define doctrine when all the evidence is against it - both scriptural (the 12 apostles) and historical (the councils of Nicaea etc).

You are using a picture of this future reality and making it the black and white rule for a current church meeting. This is a major error.

1. The doctrine must be based on the black and white word, such as that in Matthew 16-18.

2. Allegories like the NJ in Revelation can be used to add depth and clarity to a doctrine but not to create it. There is a very direct connection between the Breastplate of Judgement in the OT and the Wall in the NT. This connection has been commented on by many Bible expositors including Witness Lee.

To say that the church must be "bound" by the fellowship of the apostles is based on the black and white word of the NT. I am not using the allegory to make the doctrine, merely to make it easier to visualize the doctrine.

But when you say you must have "12" to be a church you have pulled this number out of the absurdity of your "logical mind" and then justified it with this allegory. Your method of Bible exposition is completely flawed.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You are using a picture of this future reality and making it the black and white rule for a current church meeting. This is a major error.

I interpret you saying that the heavenly reality (as described in Revelation) should not be used as a blueprint for the church today. If the church on earth is but a shadow of its future reality why should it not try to resemble that future reality?

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

1. The doctrine must be based on the black and white word, such as that in Matthew 16-18.

2. Allegories like the NJ in Revelation can be used to add depth and clarity to a doctrine but not to create it. There is a very direct connection between the Breastplate of Judgement in the OT and the Wall in the NT. This connection has been commented on by many Bible expositors including Witness Lee.

To say that the church must be "bound" by the fellowship of the apostles is based on the black and white word of the NT. I am not using the allegory to make the doctrine, merely to make it easier to visualize the doctrine.

But when you say you must have "12" to be a church you have pulled this number out of the absurdity of your "logical mind" and then justified it with this allegory. Your method of Bible exposition is completely flawed.

I believe my method is sound. You have hinged your doctrine on a passage regarding "two or three" which is taken out of context (context being, resolving disputes in the church, not defining the size of a church).

To define the size of a church according to the Bible we should look to the church itself:

God chose to start the church and establish the foundation of doctrine on the word and witness of 12 people, not two or three. Many more than 12 in fact, but at least 12. The importance of 12 was also seen by the disciples filling the position of Judas Iscariot.

Just as the nation of Israel would not exist with less than 12 tribes, the church would not exist with less than 12 pillars (the apostles). In the context of the church the number 12 is more significant than the number 2 or 3.

Historically speaking, all major doctrine in the church has been decided by 12 people or more. This includes the matter of Gentiles vs Jews and extends until the time of the councils of Nicaea etc. So far you have been unable to point to any time in history when major doctrine was determined or defined by only two or three people and not a larger council or gathering.

Unfortunately you have no strong biblical or historical precedent for the importance of two or three, other than the singular verses you have pulled out of their context to arrive at a view of today's church which does not even match the future reality described in Revelation.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I interpret you saying that the heavenly reality (as described in Revelation) should not be used as a blueprint for the church today. If the church on earth is but a shadow of its future reality why should it not try to resemble that future reality?

What I said is you should not build doctrines from types and shadows and allegories. Those should be used to help you visualize the truth.

However, this is a fair question. If the NJ were a full grown, fully matured, completion of the church then surely the church in this age should carry a resemblance.

For example, if the NJ were a full grown oak tree and a local church was a sapling we should still be able to identify the two from the leaves. The leaves of both will be identical.

The works of the church in this age should match the work of the NJ. According to the picture the leaves of the tree in the NJ are for "the healing of the nations". However, if we discuss the works of the LRC versus other Christian gatherings that would leave the focus of this thread. There are other threads on this forum that have discussed the works of the LRC and whether or not "they are for the healing of the nations".

The question I would have is if there is anything that would prohibit two or three from doing that work? Watchman Nee began with 4, Hudson Taylor had less than that.

[ZNPaaneah]

Abbott: Two or three cannot be a Church
Costello: How many do you need?
Abbott: More than two or three?
Costello: So then you need 4?
Abbott: No, I said "more"?
Costello: How many?
Abbott: 12. You see it is common sense. The verse in Matt 18 about two or three, the context in this portion [the only two chapters in the gospels where Jesus talks about the church] is about dealing with sin. No, it has to be 12 because there were 12 apostles.
Costello: Oh, so the context in Matt 18 concerning the church is the reason that two or three cannot be a church, but the context about 12 apostles which has nothing to do with the church, that is OK?
Abbott: Yes its common sense. Besides think about the Nicene Creed, that was decided by more than two or three, and the council in Acts 15, that was more than 2 or 3.

This may seem like a comedy routine but as funny as Evangelical is, the point is that saying the verse "wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst" is referring to the church obliterates Witness Lee's doctrine of dirt.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Historically speaking, all major doctrine in the church has been decided by 12 people or more. This includes the matter of Gentiles vs Jews and extends until the time of the councils of Nicaea etc.

Evangelical, what qualifications do you place on these 12?

Do they really all have to be apostles or missionaries?

Can we count children? What age qualifies them? What if some don't care for LSM? What if some can't read? What if some don't show up often?

Here is where 2 or 3 CAN be the church. They are gathered in His name! This is not a human organization as you propose, but a spiritual gathering. Perhaps no one even knows them. Who cares if they have a meeting hall and are listed in the "Directory" of LSM LC's?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Actually I did not say 4. I said more than 3. The scriptural correct number I believe is 12. This is the number of apostles Christ chose, and as the foundation stones of His Church they are the minimum number. Just as Israel would not have existed with less than 12 tribes, the church would not have existed with less than 12 apostles, so 12 must be the minimum number.

I believe you implied this when you wrote previously "If we understand the wall to be the fellowship of the apostles".

The fellowship of the apostles is the fellowship of 12 people. Not 2 or 3. This fact destroys your "two or three" argument completely.

So you flip-flopped on me already. Upped the ante to 12. I'll call you.

Somebody now needs to edit Nee's books at LSM.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

So you flip-flopped on me already. Upped the ante to 12. I'll call you.

Somebody now needs to edit Nee's books at LSM.