What is the boundary of the Local Church?

[Drake]

ZNP>”In my interpretation I do not have anything other than what is already clearly taught in the Bible.”

No, you are not presenting what is clearly taught in the Bible. When you say that when Peter spoke against the Lords going to the cross because he only wanted to save his own skin alive, retain profit, his dreams, and that his was “a pathetic attempt to save his life”.... that is not clearly taught in the Bible.

ZNP>”You on the other hand have a bizarre teaching that human love and relationships are a hinderance to the Lord's work and even worse are "Satanic".

Human love and relationships can be a hindrance to the Lords work... Matthew 10:37-38

“Anyone who loves his father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me; and anyone who does not take up his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me...”

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP>”In my interpretation I do not have anything other than what is already clearly taught in the Bible.”

No, you are not presenting what is clearly taught in the Bible. When you say that when Peter spoke against the Lords going to the cross because he only wanted to save his own skin alive, retain profit, His dreams, and that his was “a pathetic attempt to save his life”.... that is not clearly taught in the Bible.

Where is the post that you keep referencing about "pathetic attempt to save his life". I quoted post #21 in detail where I made it clear that the reason Peter rebuked Jesus was because "he was minding the things of men". That is what the Bible says. Nothing added. I then explain what "minding the things of men" is by quoting Jesus explanation. Minding the things of men = 1. Self centered 2. Save your own life 3. Personal profit and 4. Gain the whole world.

The only "teaching" I am giving is to equate Jesus explanation as an explanation of what "minding the things of men is". Regardless, no one can say it is my teaching to say that Peter was minding the the things of men, nor can anyone claim it is my teaching to equate "deny yourself", "take up your cross and follow me" with the four things Jesus referred to. That is why I am saying I am not adding anything. I am simply connecting the two. If you prefer to read the Bible as though they are all a bunch of non sequitors and unrelated comments, that is your prerogative.

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP>”You on the other hand have a bizarre teaching that human love and relationships are a hinderance to the Lord's work and even worse are "Satanic".

Human love and relationships can be a hindereance to the Lords work... Matthew 10:37-38

“Anyone who loves his father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me; and anyone who does not take up his cross and follow Me is not worthy of Me...”

Drake

Many things can be a hinderance, doesn't make them Satanic.

The context of Matt 10:37-38 is this:

Matt 10:21 And brother shall deliver up brother to death, and the father his child: and children shall rise up against parents, and cause them to be put to death. 22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved. 23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee into the next: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone through the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.

You put a completely new spin on the term "loving someone to death".

In Matthew 10 we don't need a bizarre interpretation to conclude that your family members are trying to hinder your walk with the Lord. It is obvious. The point of the Lord's word is "don't be surprised if this happens".

This has nothing to do with Peter.

[Drake]

ZNP>"Where is the post that you keep referencing about "pathetic attempt to save his life"."

I gave that to you.. see Post #31.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP>"Where is the post that you keep referencing about "pathetic attempt to save his life"."

I gave that to you.. see Post #31.

Peter saw himself as the right hand man to Jesus who was about to set up His kingdom on Earth. 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.

The context of "save his life" is soul life. 1. Right hand man to Jesus

I define Peter losing his life as "losing his dreams, his profit" it is a referral to "losing his soul life".

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Peter saw himself as the right hand man to Jesus who was about to set up His kingdom on Earth. 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.

The context of "save his life" is soul life. 1. Right hand man to Jesus

I define Peter losing his life as "losing his dreams, his profit" it is a referral to "losing his soul life".

Okay... you are entitled to change your mind.

".. a pathetic attempt to save his life" does not convey the idea of merely losing his soul life.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Okay... you are entitled to change your mind.

".. a pathetic attempt to save his life" does not convey the idea of merely losing his soul life.

Drake

It may not have been clear to you what I meant, but when you asked my later post was very clear. I have not changed my mind, I have clarified what is meant since you made it clear you didn't understand.

Now if you would be so kind as to do the same and make it clear what you are teaching.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Now if you would be so kind as to do the same and make it clear what you are teaching.

ZNP,

I have and you addressed it. What can I clarify that has not already been stated?

Thanks
Drake

[Drake]

ZNP>"In Matthew 10 we don't need a bizarre interpretation to conclude that your family members are trying to hinder your walk with the Lord. It is obvious. The point of the Lord's word is "don't be surprised if this happens".

This has nothing to do with Peter."

Come on now, brother.

You said "You on the other hand have a bizarre teaching that human love and relationships are a hinderance to the Lord's work and even worse are "Satanic".

These two examples from Matthew show that human love and relationships can hinder the Lord's work. You first said it was a" bizarre teaching" then you said "it is obvious". The Lord even used the same words as a remedy... "take up your cross".... true for our family relationships and true for Peter.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

These two examples from Matthew show that human love and relationships can hinder the Lord's work. You first said it was a" bizarre teaching" then you said "it is obvious". The Lord even used the same words as a remedy... "take up your cross".... true for our family relationships and true for Peter.

Drake

I think Post #255 by Boxjobox in the thread: How many people have heard of LSM/Lee/Recovery

Is a very strong confirmation of your position and ironically my position. This post, if you missed it, provides a list of family members of officers at LSM who get salaries and / or rent paid by LSM.

[ZNPaaneah]

8 Again, the devil taketh him unto an exceeding high mountain, and showeth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; 9 and he said unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. 10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

This is the first mention of "Satan" in the book of Matthew. This expression "Get thee hence, Satan" is very similar to the expression in Matthew 16 -- "Get behind me Satan".

This temptation to Jesus, is repeated with Peter. These are recorded in the NT because this is a common temptation to anyone in the church.

It is a valid concern that WL, WN, and the officers of LSM may have also been tempted with this same temptation. Daystar and other financial schemes of WL support those who have expressed concern about this. All of the children and relatives of the officers who receive rent or wages from LSM raise the concern that they have succumbed to this temptation.

Worshipping thy God only is the most significant boundary of the church.

So then, is the "Ground of the church" doctrine about worshipping thy God alone or is it about giving LSM a monopoly? Giving LSM a monopoly serves Satan. How can we discern?

1. If the purpose is to give LSM a monopoly then their would be stiff penalties to anyone who violated this. Titus Chu was excommunicated because he violated LSM's monopoly.

2. If the purpose is to give LSM a monopoly then this rule would trump the ground of the church doctrine. This is seen in multiple churches in a single city who embrace this doctrine. The one who receives LSM is the approved one, the others are vilified.

3. If they are truly worshipping and serving Satan this would trump the Bible. This is seen in the lawsuits that they conduct despite the Biblical prohibition.

This is what WL said concerning the temptation by Satan in Matthew 4:

Luke 4:6 says that the kingdoms of the world and their glory were delivered unto the Devil; hence, to whomever he wills he gives them. Before his fall,*Satan*as the archangel was appointed by God to be the ruler of the world (Ezek. 28:13-14). Thus, he is called the ruler of this world (John 12:31), holding all the kingdoms of this world and their glory in his hand. He presented all these to the newly anointed King as a temptation in order to secure worship. The heavenly King overcame this temptation, but the coming Antichrist will not (Rev. 13:2, 4).
This temptation involves the matter of ambition and promotion. Even among the saints, there is the desire to be a leader. This is the desire for worldly glory. Your eagerness to be a leader is your ambition. This is the glory of the world. Whenever you are tempted in this manner, you must realize that behind this temptation is the tempter seeking to gain your worship.*Satan*told the Lord Jesus that if He would worship him, he would give Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. Behind every ambition there is a hidden idol. If you are ambitious to have a position, a promotion, or a name, there is an idol behind that ambition. If you do not worship any idol, you will never fulfill your ambition. In order to have any part of the glory of the world, you must worship some idol. Without worshipping idols it is impossible to have a position. Whenever you are seeking a certain position, deep within you know that you are worshipping an idol. For this reason, the Apostle said that covetousness is idolatry (Col. 3:5). (Life-Study of Matthew,*Chapter 11, Section 5)

I would note that Satan is only referred to by Satan when it comes to the temptation about giving Jesus the world, and this is tied to the fact that Satan is the ruler of the world. If we connect this section with the other place in Matthew where Jesus says "get behind me Satan" then there is a very nice correlation between what WL teaches here and how I interpret Peter's temptation from Satan.

[ZNPaaneah]

The topic of "the boundary of the local church" is an important one, and it is one that the LRC and the ministry of WL stresses. But like anything else there is the "camel" and the "gnat".

If a church leader sees the church as an opportunity for themselves to build their kingdom, to make personal profit, to leave a financial inheritance to their kids, then this is "worshipping Satan" the "prince of this world". It is "minding the things of men" and results in them "serving Satan". That is to "swallow the camel".

On the other hand the name by which the church is listed in the phone book is a gnat.

Straining out the gnat is fine, but swallowing the camel, that is the thing that is completely intolerable.