What is the boundary of the Local Church?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

3. Faith. When they come down from the mountain we see the father of an epileptic asking Jesus to heal his son because the disciples “could not cure him”. A third error we make is in thinking the church, more powerful than Hades, able to bind and loose anyone on earth, is filled with great men of faith. God loves mercy. What pleases God is to see a sinner saved, repent, and lifted up. The church is composed of those with little faith. Philadelphia only had “a little strength”. This is a boundary that cannot be crossed but that Witness Lee crossed frequently when he claimed that there was no one in Christianity with anything of value. His reference to “poor, poor Christianity” is an example of his insulting behavior to those with little faith.

2 And he called to him a little child, and set him in the midst of them, 3 and said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye turn, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven.

I love this verse. Witness Lee would have you believe that the MOTA is “the greatest in the kingdom of heaven”. It is a vey natural thought. The human concept is that the church, the ones who bind on earth and it is bound in heaven, they loose on earth and it is loosed in heaven, that these ones are mighty in faith. It was a shock to the disciples when they “could not” cast out the demon from the epileptic boy. But what did Jesus say — “you need the vision from the MOTA”? No. He said you need to pray and fast, and then here He says “become as little children”. When my son was four we took him to learn to play the violin. He had no idea how tough the journey would be, he was just four. But now, ten years later, he is quite good.

Do you want to heal the sick? Do you want to cast out demons? Do you want to be in a church where what they bind on earth is bound in heaven, what they loose on earth is loosed in heaven? The church where anything they ask it will be done for them of the Father in heaven? Do you want to be in a church where Jesus is in the midst, turning poor, weak, baby Christians and transforming them into mighty men of faith? That is the church that is greatest in the kingdom.

This is the attitude that every new believer has, they want to experience the things promised in the Bible. But then someone comes and teaches a different gospel. Teach them to follow a different Christ, a dumb idol.

6 but whoso shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble, it is profitable for him that a great millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depth of the sea.

[Evangelical]

Corinth was a local church.
Ephesus was a local church.
Where did one stop and one end? If you answer that, you answer the question about what is the boundary.

If you own property you probably know where your property starts and ends, but you can't figure out where the start and end of a local church is?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Corinth was a local church.
Ephesus was a local church.
Where did one stop and one end? If you answer that, you answer the question about what is the boundary.

Have you ever used Google Earth? Look up Corinth sometime. There it still is, same as when Paul wrote the Local Church there. Same physical boundaries. So why isn't the current Christian fellowship there one of your hypothetical local churches? Because it's not affiliated with the ministry of the age, and not subject to God's humble bondslave? Because they don't have a standing order with LSM? When did the Local Church in Corinth stop being local? They've always had the Faith, and the city boundaries.

No, if the people within the boundaries of the city of Corinth would only recognize Witness Lee as today's Paul, and today's Moses, as God's Oracle and (final) MOTA, they'd be a legitimate and genuine and proper local church.

Bob: "Hey Joe, did you hear they're taking the ground in Corinth?"

Joe: "No, incredible! A lampstand in Corinth! The same city that Paul wrote to!"

B: "Yep. Same one."

J: "Awesome. Hey, when did Corinth lose it's lampstand, anyway?"

B: "Um, I dunno. I think they got degraded somehow."

J: "Yeah, that's right. They affiliated with the Great Harlot the EOC."

B: "Yeah, the Harlot. O wait - wasn't that the RCC?"

J: "Well, nevermind. It wasn't affiliated with the LSM. That's what matters."

B: "Right. If it's not affiliated with anyone, it's the dreaded 'free group'; you know God hates them."

J: "And if it's affiliated with anyone else, then it's a denomination, or the Harlot."

B: "Right. First, one city per church. Second, proper and genuine affiliation with the ministry of the age."

J: "The simple way to remember is: when we do it, it's proper and genuine. When others do it, not so good."

B: "Yes, that's easy to remember."

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Corinth was a local church.
Ephesus was a local church.
Where did one stop and one end? If you answer that, you answer the question about what is the boundary.

If you own property you probably know where your property starts and ends, but you can't figure out where the start and end of a local church is?

How many churches are there? 1 or ten thousand?

If saints from Corinth and Ephesus met together at Sardis what is that? Suppose two people live in the same house. But because of one brothers job he goes to the church in Corinth and the other Ephesus so that they can make it to work on time after the meeting. What happened to city boundaries?

The real question is what makes the church the Body of Christ? It is that Jesus is in their midst. It doesn't matter what you call yourself or what the boundary lines of the city are. If Jesus is in your midst then you are the Body and if not you aren't.

What makes the church the house of God? It is that Jesus is in your midst. It doesn't matter what you call yourself or what the boundary lines of the city are. If Jesus is in your midst then you are the house of God and if not you aren't.

What makes the church the warrior of God that can bind and loose? It is that Jesus is in your midst. It doesn't matter what you call yourself or what the boundary lines of the city are. If Jesus is in your midst then you are the warrior and if not you aren't.

All of your definitions of taking the table and one eldership are contrived. There is nothing in the NT that prohibits two or three from taking the table. Also your eldership is under the authority of Jesus who is Lord. That is what gives you one leadership. If they are not under Jesus you aren't the church regardless of what self proclaimed prophet laid hands on them.

The bottom line is this -- these verses in Matthew are the first mention of the church, and in these verses the Lord lays out key principles. He does not define the church based on the name or city boundaries. He defines it as the place that can bind on earth and it will be bound in heaven, can loose on earth and it will be loosed in heaven, that whatever they ask it will be done for them by the Father. He also makes it clear that anyone who meets those criteria, even two or three, can receive these promises.

What promises are given to those that name themselves "the church in _____?" Nothing. What promises are given in Matthew 16-18 -- several great promises.

[ZNPaaneah]

Matthew 18 continues:

7 Woe unto the world because of occasions of stumbling! for it must needs be that the occasions come; but woe to that man through whom the occasion cometh!

Why? Why must there be occasions of stumbling? Witness Lee was necessary. David Koresh was necessary. Why? Because we are being trained in this age to rule with Christ as kings.

8 And if thy hand or thy foot causeth thee to stumble, cut it off, and cast it from thee: it is good for thee to enter into life maimed or halt, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into the eternal fire. 9 And if thine eye causeth thee to stumble, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is good for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into the hell of fire.

The church is where we learn to deal with all of these negative things. This is what it means to bind and loose. All those lawyers in all those lawsuits didn't know how to bind Witness Lee. The FBI fumbled with Waco. This is not the age for Christians to be "stumbling" others, which would have happened if Peter told them that Jesus doesn't pay the tribute. This is the time for us to be trained in cutting off the occasion of stumbling. This is the church that the gates of Hades shall not prevail against.

This is a boundary that cannot be crossed. We cannot stumble others. We have to be very strict with ourselves, with our hands and feet and eyes. This is why Jesus rebuked Peter "get behind me Satan", this is why they were rebuked on the mount of transfiguration, this is why Peter was rebuked when he said his master pays tribute. The Lord's word was like antibiotic, killing the germs so quickly we hardly even realized they were germs. But after being in the LRC we see how these germs can become gangrene. If Peter can rebuke Jesus what's next? Maybe Micah? James? Proverbs? The Psalms? If you are going to build tabernacles to Moses and Elijah, what's next? Peter? Paul? An infinite number of MOTA's?

I really like what the Lord says here "if your foot caught thee to stumble". This reminds me of Adam blaming Eve who blamed the serpent. Yes, perhaps the foot "caused thee to stumble" but you still have a responsibility as well. Cut it off. No one wants to be maimed, or halt or lose an eye. But we need to be aware of when that is the best option. At some point they realized they were better off cutting off PL. I believe that when the puppet elders apologized and brought him back, they brought a curse upon the LRC. It became spreading gangrene.

This is completely contrary to the world. In the world we sacrifice a few "little children" for "the greater good". RG and BP can justify what they did for "the sake of the vision", etc. But here, in the kingdom, it is the opposite. If you are calculating the "profitability" it is more profitable for one who would stumble one of these little ones to have mill stone around their neck and be cast into the sea instead.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is not the age for Christians to be "stumbling" others, which would have happened if Peter told them that Jesus doesn't pay the tribute. This is the time for us to be trained in cutting off the occasion of stumbling. This is the church that the gates of Hades shall not prevail against.

This is a boundary that cannot be crossed. We cannot stumble others. We have to be very strict with ourselves, with our hands and feet and eyes. This is why Jesus rebuked Peter "get behind me Satan", this is why they were rebuked on the mount of transfiguration, this is why Peter was rebuked when he said his master pays tribute. The Lord's word was like antibiotic, killing the germs so quickly we hardly even realized they were germs. But after being in the LRC we see how these germs can become gangrene. If Peter can rebuke Jesus what's next? Maybe Micah? James? Proverbs? The Psalms? If you are going to build tabernacles to Moses and Elijah, what's next? Peter? Paul? An infinite number of MOTA's?

I really like what the Lord says here "if your foot caught thee to stumble". This reminds me of Adam blaming Eve who blamed the serpent. Yes, perhaps the foot "caused thee to stumble" but you still have a responsibility as well. Cut it off. No one wants to be maimed, or halt or lose an eye. But we need to be aware of when that is the best option. At some point they realized they were better off cutting off PL. I believe that when the puppet elders apologized and brought him back, they brought a curse upon the LRC. It became spreading gangrene.

This is completely contrary to the world. In the world we sacrifice a few "little children" for "the greater good". RG and BP can justify what they did for "the sake of the vision", etc. But here, in the kingdom, it is the opposite. If you are calculating the "profitability" it is more profitable for one who would stumble one of these little ones to have mill stone around their neck and be cast into the sea instead.

I think this is a good, cautionary word. Surely we needed such warnings, way back when! And we still need them, today.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

What promises are given to those that name themselves "the church in _____?" Nothing. What promises are given in Matthew 16-18 -- several great promises.

Nothing?

What about the promises (and warnings) to various "the church in....." are given in Revelation.

e.g. "To the angel of the church in Sardis write...."


If boundaries are not localities.. why does each locality have an angel, and why does each one have a lampstand?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

If boundaries are not localities.. why does each locality have an angel, and why does each one have a lampstand?

Time and space is a boundary for creation. The church in Sardis represents the believers who are limited by both time and space. In that time and in that space they had the circumstances described and needed the word from the Lord that was given.

However, these letters could not be prophetic and could not represent the church through the ages if the church were limited by time and space. If the church is limited by time and space then the letter written to Sardis 2,000 years ago has nothing to do with me today. If that is true then Witness Lee's messages are false.

Most Christians, myself and Witness Lee included, do not agree with that. We see the letter to believers 2,000 years ago living in Sardis to apply to us today. I don't live in Sardis, and yet I can see the same circumstances in churches today. The truth in that letter for the church is not bound by the city boundary of Sardis. The letter to the church "in Sardis" is not limited to believers living or meeting in Sardis. Therefore Sardis cannot simply refer to the boundary of a city 2,000 years ago but rather to a circumstance that the Body of Christ must pass through.

So then why do they have a messenger?

10 See that ye despise not one of these little ones: for I say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven

All the believers have angels. Matthew 18 makes it clear and in that chapter the promises are to two or three that meet in the name of the Lord.

What about the lamp stands?

12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And having turned I saw seven golden candlesticks; 13 and in the midst of the candlesticks one like unto a son of man,

compare this with Matt 18

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

Now compare this with the full context of Revelation 1

9 I John, your brother and partaker with you in the tribulation and kingdom and patience which are in Jesus, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God and the testimony of Jesus. 10 I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and I heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet 11 saying, What thou seest, write in a book and send it to the seven churches: unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamum, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. 12 And I turned to see the voice that spake with me. And having turned I saw seven golden candlesticks; 13 and in the midst of the candlesticks one like unto a son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about at the breasts with a golden girdle.

John is in Patmos, but He is in Spirit, and Jesus was in his midst and was in the midst of the 7 golden lamp stands. If the city boundary is a boundary and it represents Sardis, or Ephesus, etc. how could John be there? In Spirit the church is not bound by time or space.

Matthew 18 says "wherever" -- proving that the Spirit is not bound by any spacial boundary. It can be "wherever".

Revelation 2 and 3 give seven "wherevers". These are not simply locations in time and space, they also represent specific circumstances. This confirms that it is "wherever".

Correct me if I am wrong, but is Revelation 2-3 the next portion, after Matthew 18, where Jesus talks about the church? Should we consider it a continuation of Matthew 16-18?

[ZNPaaneah]

To the angel of the church in Ephesus write:
These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, he that walketh in the midst of the seven golden [a]candlesticks:

Compare this with Matt 18 where the Lord says “wherever two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst”. If Jesus is walking in the midst of the seven lamp stands then the requirement to be a lamp stand is to meet in the name of Jesus. This is a concluding word to the previous three chapters. If Peter rebukes Jesus, then really Peter is the authority and you are meeting in Peter’s name. If they build tabernacles to Moses and Elijah as well as Jesus then you are meeting in all three names. If they are a “healing church” you are meeting in the name of the gifted healer. If they are paying tribute to local authorities (State church) then you are meeting in their name.

Now if you aren’t doing any of that but you are causing little ones to stumble then you are a false brother, on the surface you appear to be in the name of Jesus but inwardly you are a ravenous wolf. You will know this by the attitude towards the “lost sheep”. If the attitude is to avoid and stay away from a “Lost sheep” then you know they have institutionalized the stumbling of small brothers. If they are leaving the 99 (the meeting) to seek and find the lost sheep then you know that inwardly they are truly meeting in the name of Jesus.

You will also know this by how they reconcile offenses. If any brother or sister regardless of who they are, is treated according to Matt 18 then you know they are meeting in the name of Jesus. On the other hand, if a “brother” is found guilty of gross offenses, is dealt with according to Matt 18 and as a result the elders responsible are relieved of their duty, puppets are installed who then apologize to this offensive brother, then you know their use of the name of Jesus is vain and a deceit.

Only once those requirements have been met does the Lord give the promise concerning binding, loosing, answered prayer and His presence.

2*I know thy works, and thy toil and [b]patience, and that thou canst not bear evil men, and didst try them that call themselves apostles, and they are not, and didst find them false; 3*and thou hast [c]patience and didst bear for my name’s sake, and hast not grown weary. 4*But I have this against thee, that thou didst leave thy first love. 5*Remember therefore whence thou art fallen, and repent and do the first works; or else I come to thee, and will move thy [d]candlestick out of its place, except thou repent. 6*But this thou hast, that thou hatest the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate. 7*He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches. To him that overcometh, to him will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the [e]Paradise of God.

But then this letter expands on this. They did all this yet left their first love, Jesus. Our first love is the redeemer who died for us, sinners, so that we could be saved. The Final boundary given in Matt 18 is forgiveness. As the Lord forgave you, that is how you are to forgive others.

And this is how Matt 18 concludes:

21*Then came Peter and said to him, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? until seven times? 22*Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times; but, Until [m]seventy times seven. 23*Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, who would make a reckoning with his [n]servants. 24*And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, that owed him ten thousand This talent was probably worth about £200, or $1000.talents. 25*But forasmuch as he had not wherewith to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. 26*The [p]servant therefore fell down and [q]worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. 27*And the lord of that [r]servant, being moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the [s]debt. 28*But that [t]servant went out, and found one of his fellow-servants, who owed him a hundred [u]shillings: and he laid hold on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay what thou owest. 29*So his fellow-servant fell down and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee. 30*And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay that which was due. 31*So when his fellow-servants saw what was done, they were exceeding sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done. 32*Then his lord called him unto him, and saith to him, Thou wicked [v]servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou besoughtest me: 33*shouldest not thou also have had mercy on thy fellow-servant, even as I had mercy on thee? 34*And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due. 35*So shall also my heavenly Father do unto you, if ye forgive not every one his brother from your hearts.

[Drake]

ZNP>”You are correct that this is an interpretation. It is based on these verses:

21 From that time began Jesus to show unto his disciples, that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up.

This is what was said that prompted Peter to rebuke Jesus.”

Yes, but the Lord explained that He would be raised up the third day in that same instance. So, if Peters motives were all about profit, saving his own skin, and self serving interests as you claim he would have been comforted and assured by the promise of the Lord’s resurrection.

ZNP, I think you are reading into the scripture a private interpretation.

Seems from the account that Peter loved the Lord and was reacting to the thought of His, the Lord’s, suffering. Even Peter’s love for the Lord needed to be subjected to the cross. The Lord was referring to losing the soul-life (psuche) not the bios life.

Drake

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

How many churches are there? 1 or ten thousand?

It is an exercise in semantics. And for the LRC, an exercise in equivocation.

The term "church" has many aspects and is not a singular thing. It is the body of Christ, and in that since is singular universally. But it also refers to each assembly of believers who are part of that body. Those are the extremes of meaning. But that leaves a lot of ground in between (the so-called undistributed middle).

In the middle is any subgroup of those who make up the body of Christ. It is not even necessary that they be a regular part of any assembly (though that is strongly advised against). In that middle ground, it would be correct to refer to either church (singular) or churches (plural) within any particular defined space. There is "church" in any city, state/province, country, or continent because the body of Christ is there. There are also "churches" in any of those to the extent that there are multiple assemblies to be found.

There is nothing in scripture that puts a boundary on anything. It is appropriate to refer to the church in Dallas, meaning the body of Christ (the totality of believers) that are in that city. It is also appropriate to refer to churches in Dallas, meaning the various assemblies that meet there, including the one that uses the name "Church in Dallas."

The LRC insists that there is a prescriptive boundary of an assembly and that this boundary coincides with that of the city in which it is found. But if that is prescriptively true, then there is a problem when those who live in other cities nearby travel across city boundaries to meet in the alleged city-wide church in another city. For example, those in Garland, Mesquite, Richardson, Plano, Addison, Farmers Branch, Carrollton, etc., do not have an LSM-branded "local church" in their city, so they travel to Dallas. (It is possible that some of those travel to Irving. Also, I am a little behind on where there are LSM churches here so Richardson or Plano might have their own now.)

In doing so, they negate the much-heralded "unity" with respect to the much larger number of Christians in each of those cities (relative to the number that travel to Dallas) and meet outside of the boundary of their city.

But the truth is that cities have political boundaries. They change over time. Larger cities often absorb smaller cities to improve services within those smaller communities. And none of this is relevant to the makeup of the assemblies that meet to learn about and worship Christ.

I realize that I am not addressing the various points that ZNP has raised, though those are points that the LSM/LRC raises in asserting their faux superiority of position.

But there is no requirement of following anyone, even a so-called MOTA. Paul lamented that so many in Asia had "left me." And by the time of the writing of Revelation, there were some serious problems in some of the cities in Asia Minor. Yet they were still churches. Their lampstands were not removed. Christians still met to learn about and worship Christ. First Nee, then Lee, and now those from the LSM (like those from James) seek to dismiss all who do not follow their way. They tell tales of successions of MOTAs (genealogies) and insist that their faithful pay for standing orders for old materials recycled in new books, reminiscent of sending money for prayer cloths prayed over by radio evangelist (huckster) X.

If it were just about doctrines, I would not become as incensed. But it is also about the enslaving of the minds and pocketbooks of otherwise excellent Christians.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

It is an exercise in semantics. And for the LRC, an exercise in equivocation.

The term "church" has many aspects and is not a singular thing. It is the body of Christ, and in that since is singular universally. But it also refers to each assembly of believers who are part of that body. Those are the extremes of meaning. But that leaves a lot of ground in between (the so-called undistributed middle).

In the middle is any subgroup of those who make up the body of Christ. It is not even necessary that they be a regular part of any assembly (though that is strongly advised against). In that middle ground, it would be correct to refer to either church (singular) or churches (plural) within any particular defined space. There is "church" in any city, state/province, country, or continent because the body of Christ is there. There are also "churches" in any of those to the extent that there are multiple assemblies to be found.

There is nothing in scripture that puts a boundary on anything. It is appropriate to refer to the church in Dallas, meaning the body of Christ (the totality of believers) that are in that city. It is also appropriate to refer to churches in Dallas, meaning the various assemblies that meet there, including the one that uses the name "Church in Dallas."

The LRC insists that there is a prescriptive boundary of an assembly and that this boundary coincides with that of the city in which it is found. But if that is prescriptively true, then there is a problem when those who live in other cities nearby travel across city boundaries to meet in the alleged city-wide church in another city. For example, those in Garland, Mesquite, Richardson, Plano, Addison, Farmers Branch, Carrollton, etc., do not have an LSM-branded "local church" in their city, so they travel to Dallas. (It is possible that some of those travel to Irving. Also, I am a little behind on where there are LSM churches here so Richardson or Plano might have their own now.)

In doing so, they negate the much-heralded "unity" with respect to the much larger number of Christians in each of those cities (relative to the number that travel to Dallas) and meet outside of the boundary of their city.

But the truth is that cities have political boundaries. They change over time. Larger cities often absorb smaller cities to improve services within those smaller communities. And none of this is relevant to the makeup of the assemblies that meet to learn about and worship Christ.

A boundary refers to a limit of the sphere of activity. Matthew 18 gives a very specific "limit to the sphere of activity" of the church.

18 Verily I say unto you, What things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The sphere is the Earth. Cities are "political creations", with "ephemeral boundaries". But the Earth is God's creation with boundaries that He created. I agree that with the LRC it is an exercise in equivocation, but I don't agree that it is an exercise in semantics. Matt 18 refers to the church dealing with sin as a government and as a court would do. Both governments and courts have clearly defined spheres of influence.

Our sphere on Earth is clearly submissive to the Heaven. But if we are properly under the headship of Christ then what we bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven.

[Evangelical]

No boundaries = lawlessness.

Whether the church was seen to be a top-down hierarchy or a plurality of elders, it should be obvious that the bible teaches structure and order in the church.

Not a rabble of groups of 2-3 believers who take it upon themselves to decide important matters.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

No boundaries = lawlessness.

This is true. God divided the light from the darkness, He divided the land from the sea. The word of God divides soul from Spirit. The cross of Christ divides nominal Christians from the genuine ones.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Whether the church was seen to be a top-down hierarchy or a plurality of elders, it should be obvious that the bible teaches structure and order in the church.

Don't give us this either or spineless drivel. The church is a top down hierarchy with Jesus as Lord. The structure is that every single member is attached directly to the head, just as every member of your body is attached directly to the head. Elders are simply the sheep that the shepherd has put a bell on. They are not the "chief shepherd", merely the sheep that follow the shepherd closely.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Not a rabble of groups of 2-3 believers who take it upon themselves to decide important matters.

A wonderful opinion without any Biblical basis. How is it that Jesus can say that if two or three agree it will be done for them, even if it includes binding on earth and it being bound in heaven or loosing on earth and it be loosed in heaven and yet you have the audacity to say that those decisions "are not important matters"? How is it that you despise these little gatherings when Jesus is in their midst?

10 See that ye despise not one of these little ones: for I say unto you, that in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father who is in heaven.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Corinth was a local church.
Ephesus was a local church.
Where did one stop and one end? If you answer that, you answer the question about what is the boundary.

If you own property you probably know where your property starts and ends, but you can't figure out where the start and end of a local church is?

LSM has been in so many lawsuits over property and property lines, that they think the church must have definite boundary lines too.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Corinth was a local church.
Ephesus was a local church.
Where did one stop and one end? If you answer that, you answer the question about what is the boundary.

If you own property you probably know where your property starts and ends, but you can't figure out where the start and end of a local church is?

The "property" was purchased by Jesus on the cross and is owned by Him. He can certainly identify where it begins and ends. It is an item of the faith that we are the redeemed of the Lord. Nowhere is it taught in the NT that the Lord redeemed a particular city up to the boundary of that city. If a church meets in Houston, and then due to floods is forced to move to college station we simply refer to them now as "the church in college station". The boundary of the city or the condition of the city has nothing to do with their status as a church, only with the how to write them a letter. The city lines of Houston were not some boundary that the church was not permitted to cross.

In theory it works in practice, but in practice it doesn't. Many of the saints who met in "the Church in Houston" lived in Deer Park. Many of the saints who met in the Church in Odessa lived in Midland. Many of the saints in the church in NYC lived in cities in Long Island. In practice the boundary of any local church includes all those who subscribe to Witness Lee's teachings and are close enough to come and meet regularly, regardless of city boundaries.

[Drake]

ZNP>”When Jesus said He was going to be killed, that meant Peter was also going to lose his life, his dreams, his profit. Telling the Lord He would not go to the cross was not a true interpretation of scripture but a pathetic attempt to save his life.”

ZNP,

On what scriptural basis do you make these allegations about Peter’s motives and his action?

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP>”When Jesus said He was going to be killed, that meant Peter was also going to lose his life, his dreams, his profit. Telling the Lord He would not go to the cross was not a true interpretation of scripture but a pathetic attempt to save his life.”

ZNP,

On what scriptural basis do you make these allegations about Peter’s motives and his action?

Drake

You are correct that this is an interpretation. It is based on these verses:

21 From that time began Jesus to show unto his disciples, that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and the third day be raised up.

This is what was said that prompted Peter to rebuke Jesus.

22 And Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, [n]Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall never be unto thee. 23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art a stumbling-block unto me: for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men.

Here it is stated clearly but in vague terms that what prompted Peter is that he is minding the things of men.

24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man would come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. 25 For whosoever would save his life shall lose it: and whosoever shall lose his life for my sake shall find it. 26 For what shall a man be profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and forfeit his life? or what shall a man give in exchange for his life?

The context of "deny himself" is Peter's rebuke of Jesus due to his "minding the things of men". Therefore I am equating these two based on the term "Then said Jesus". Likewise with "save his life" and "what shall a man be profited if he shall gain the whole world".

So in my interpretation Jesus is explaining what He means by saying that Peter was "minding the things of men"

Minding the things of men = 1. Self centered 2. Save your own life 3. Personal profit and 4. Gain the whole world. Minding the things of men is not equal to be empathetic and sympathetic to Jesus suffering.

In context self centered this would refer to Peter seeing himself as the right hand man of Jesus in this kingdom He is setting up on Earth. "Save your own life" means that when Jesus dies, Peter's position dies with it. "Personal profit" refers to Peter being concerned about the losses he'll suffer when Jesus dies. "Gain the whole world" refers to Peter seeing himself on the throne alongside of Jesus. Jesus saying He is going to go and die messes that up and prompts Peter to respond.

However, if you read 1Peter you can see references to all of the gospel accounts, and you can get into his mind much more. The entire epistle to my understanding shows a man who failed in the first crucifixion and realizes he will be given a second chance and is completely focused on how to go to deny himself, take up his cross, and and follow the Lord.

In contrast to this 1 Peter begins:

3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy begat us again unto a living hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 unto an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, 5 who by the power of God are guarded through faith unto a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

According to the human concept when Jesus died, Peter's hope died with it. But when Jesus was resurrected, we were born again to a living hope. Our inheritance is incorruptible, whereas the human thought is that it would die with Jesus. Death did not defile it, nor did it fade away. I see this as a man who let the Lord's words sink deep into him, and his epistle is a response to the Lord's speaking to him throughout his entire life, not just during the gospels.

[Evangelical]

If a person doesn't understand local church boundaries how can they know the difference between the books of the bible? They might think the book of Corinthians was written to the Romans and the book of Acts was written to the Egyptians.

Every time a person reads the New Testament eg read the book of Corinthians then the book of Ephesians they are using local church boundaries whether they are aware of it or not.

Without boundaries we might say that the Romans had a problem with female preachers and the Corinthians had a problem with keeping the law. What does it matter as they are all Christians, "Jesus is the boundary"?

Everyone knows when you write a letter to someone you put their proper address. You can't just put the address as anything you want and hope it gets there. To say the bible or the early church does not have practical boundaries is like saying it doesn't matter what address I put on a letter.

To say "It doesn't matter what you call yourself or what the boundary lines of the city are. If Jesus is in your midst then you are the Body and if not you aren't."
is like saying a "letter either has a stamp or it doesn't", and "every letter has a stamp, so it doesn't matter what address you put".

While it is true that a letter must have a stamp, it is not very practical to put any address you like on the letter and think you can just because it is a letter with a stamp.