What is the boundary of the Local Church?

[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.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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.


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.


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.

I can easily show that telling important matters to "two or three" is insufficient and for this reason "two or three" are not "the church".

Matt 18:15 "If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. [ the context here is clearly about resolution of disputes]

Matt 18:16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' [here is mention of two and three witnesses. Matt 18:20 is connected to this verse].

Matt 18:17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. [here it says if the two or three will not listen, THEN tell it to THE CHURCH. Clearly, the two or three and "the church" are different entities. ]

By comparing verse 16 with verse 17 we can see that verse 16, the two or three, are not a church, and that two or three are insufficient to resolve all matters. The church is obviously the higher, final authority than two or three gathered together. For this reason, two or three gathered together are not a church.

Seems to me that the bible does not teach your idea of "two or three + Jesus" being sufficient.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I can easily show that telling important matters to "two or three" is insufficient and for this reason "two or three" are not "the church".

Matt 18:15 "If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. [ the context here is clearly about resolution of disputes]

Matt 18:16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.' [here is mention of two and three witnesses. Matt 18:20 is connected to this verse].

Matt 18:17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector. [here it says if the two or three will not listen, THEN tell it to THE CHURCH. Clearly, the two or three and "the church" are different entities. ]

By comparing verse 16 with verse 17 we can see that verse 16, the two or three, are not a church, and that two or three are insufficient to resolve all matters. The church is obviously the higher, final authority than two or three gathered together. For this reason, two or three gathered together are not a church.

Seems to me that the bible does not teach your idea of "two or three + Jesus" being sufficient.

Yes, I agree that the gathering of "two or three" is considered separately from the term "the church". However, it is very clear that "binding" this person via the church is not for a single city but rather for the entire Earth. So this term "church" does not refer to the "local church" with the jurisdiction of a city as defined by WL and company, but rather refers to the universal assembly of all believers on the Earth.

Second, you described this group of 2 or three as a rabble -- that was to despise them even though Jesus specifically warned against that. You have tried to avoid this in the further posts, but have not apologized.

Third, you say that they are "unable to decide important matters" yet it is very clear from Matt 18 that two or three are able to bind on the entire Earth and what they bind on Earth is also bound in Heaven. You have not provided any evidence at all to say that these are not important matters.

So, to conclude -- what you view as evidence two or three not representing the assembly in a city is not supported in Matt 18. The term church in that chapter clearly has the sphere of the entire earth, not of a single city. What you view as evidence that two or three cannot decide important matters is completely and utterly repudiated by the very chapter you are referencing. Finally, your initial post despised this group of two or three even though this chapter specifically warned you against doing just that. You have not apologized for this, instead you have tried to ignore that and cover it up.

[ZNPaaneah]

To summarize:

1. Excommunication is not "quarantine". As it has been shown in other threads this term is equivocation from WL and LSM because they fear being sued for slander. However, there is no mention of a quarantine in Matt 18 (the word refers to a short period of observation of a person not showing symptoms of disease yet who was exposed to a contagious disease. The purpose is to stop the spread of the disease. The practice of "quarantine" by LSM is simply a lie. They do not observe those who are quarantined. It is not for a short period of time. The thought is not that they have not exhibited symptoms but rather they have been judged contagious by the elders. There is no visitation or attempt to bring this sheep back into the flock.) What takes place is what Paul did in 1Cor where he stated evidence as to why the brother should be excommunicated and he was very clear as to the sin. It was public with the evidence clearly stated. Then in 2Cor there was the forgiveness and restoration of this brother.
2. Evangelical has argued that "two or three are incapable of making important decisions" yet 1Cor shows Paul making the decision to excommunicate the brother based on what he had heard from two or three. This comment by Evangelical shows that he despises these small groups even though Matt 18 specifically warns against despising them.
3. Evangelical has argued that two or three cannot be "the church" since they then must "tell it to the church". However, this "church" cannot be the "local church" as taught by WL and LSM because their authority is limited to the boundary of a city whereas the binding of this brother is over the whole earth. This forum is a very good example of "telling it to the church". All of the Christians on Earth. This forum is a gathering of Christians from dozens, maybe even hundreds of localities over this earth.
4. WL and company would have you believe that it is the boundary of a city that makes a church authentic. However, in Matthew 18 it is the binding of a brother on Earth and him being bound in Heaven that proves a church is authentic. For example, if I say "I am one with all Christians in this city" then I "quarantine" brother Titus Chu because he published Christian materials outside of LSM and no Christians in this city are one with that decision am I really one with them? Saying that you are one with them is not proof that you are. So, yes, when Paul excommunicated a brother all Christians were one with him, so his claim to be one with the Christians in the city was true. It isn't the claim that makes it true, it is the truth of the claim that makes it true.

So then let's test this out: Phillip Lee was excommunicated by the Anaheim elders due to repeated evidence of sexual molestation while acting as President of the Living Stream Ministry. As a result all of these elders were forced to resign. New puppet elders were installed by Phillip Lee's dad. These elders then wrote an apology letter to Phillip Lee. There was no public confession or repentance by Phillip Lee, nor was there any suggestion that he had been forgiven of his sins, rather it was the puppet elders who repented and asked forgiveness. Why? Ed Marks said he signed this letter "because it made Witness Lee happy". Do you think all of the Christians in Anaheim CA would be "one" with this?

These puppet elders "loosed" Phillip Lee. Do you think this decision was honored in heaven?

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

These puppet elders "loosed" Phillip Lee. Do you think this decision was honored in heaven?

Suppose two or three make a decision. Jesus said, "When two or three are in agreement, it is done." To "tell it to the church" in this context is the dissemination of the fait accompli and not an appeal to a higher level. Of course the offender can still repent, here. But that is a decision of the offender and not the church.

Suppose every time two or three wanted to bind or loose, they had to convene every believer in that city? If it were the first-century church in Antioch that may be practical. But 21st-century Detroit?

"Oh that's for the proper one-city church and proper elders, chosen by the apostle." But what happens when Today's Paul becomes Drunken Noah? When John Ingalls tried getting two or three, Witness Lee said it was a conspiracy. When John So tried to go alone, Witness Lee said, "We are too much misunderstanding here" and dismissed him.

The Living Stream Ministry/Lord's Recovery/Local Church is a guanxi network in spiritual garb. Look at the cases of Bill Mallon, Max Rappoport, Titus Chi, Dong Yu Lan, Jane Anderson: who gets reconciled or restored in this system? Once you've violated the web of the Supreme Master there is no adjudication. "Two or three" have no power against him.

Now, this actually works quite well when the Supreme Master is Jesus Christ. The two or three are in his name. They have his presence, and his spirit, and his authority. Jesus is the New Moses (Acts 3:22), the Deputy God. We are commanded to hear him. If you do not, you will be cut off from the people (Acts 3:23).

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

When John Ingalls tried getting two or three, Witness Lee said it was a conspiracy.

When John So tried to go alone, Witness Lee said, "We are too much misunderstanding here" and dismissed him.

The Living Stream Ministry/Lord's Recovery/Local Church is a guanxi network in spiritual garb.

This simply confirms how unprincipled they really are, yet shrouded with a guise of "spiritual principles" to deceive even the elect.

Kind of like how Paul's command not to sue your brothers in I Cor 6 gets distorted into "appealing to Caesar."

The plain words of scripture can never be understood by laity, and must always must be "properly interpreted" by LSM.

Funny how the nuns in Catholic school always told us the same thing.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes, I agree that the gathering of "two or three" is considered separately from the term "the church". However, it is very clear that "binding" this person via the church is not for a single city but rather for the entire Earth. So this term "church" does not refer to the "local church" with the jurisdiction of a city as defined by WL and company, but rather refers to the universal assembly of all believers on the Earth.

Second, you described this group of 2 or three as a rabble -- that was to despise them even though Jesus specifically warned against that. You have tried to avoid this in the further posts, but have not apologized.

Third, you say that they are "unable to decide important matters" yet it is very clear from Matt 18 that two or three are able to bind on the entire Earth and what they bind on Earth is also bound in Heaven. You have not provided any evidence at all to say that these are not important matters.

So, to conclude -- what you view as evidence two or three not representing the assembly in a city is not supported in Matt 18. The term church in that chapter clearly has the sphere of the entire earth, not of a single city. What you view as evidence that two or three cannot decide important matters is completely and utterly repudiated by the very chapter you are referencing. Finally, your initial post despised this group of two or three even though this chapter specifically warned you against doing just that. You have not apologized for this, instead you have tried to ignore that and cover it up.

Which church?

Your ideas about the church are only ideological because there is no practical local church called "the church" in which a person may go to to air their disputes in the situation of denominations today.

You have propagated a lie on this forum that two or three are a church. The scripture I have posted prove this is not the case, that if two or three (not a church) cannot resolve the matter then "tell the church" (note, it does not say, "tell your favorite denomination").

It is simply logical to say that the matters which the church can resolve are greater than those that two or three can resolve. This is both logical and common sense. Note how the bible orders it by importance - resolve the dispute with the individual (try to fix it ourselves), if not, tell two or three (maybe our friends or family), if not , tell the church. This is equivalent to going to higher and higher authorities to resolve the matter. This is no different to the federal court system having different levels. The most important problems are resolved at the highest level.

For example, "important matters" such as doctrinal disputes cannot be resolved by only two or three. According to the Bible, these were resolved by the church not by two or three.

Here is an example:

Acts 15:6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question.

Acts 15:7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.

Acts 15:12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened

I only need one example to disprove your claims that two or three can represent the whole city, and Acts 15 provides this.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Which church?

The one the Lord is building. Based on the context it is built up with those who follow the Lord to the cross.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Your ideas about the church are only ideological because there is no practical local church called "the church" in which a person may go to to air their disputes in the situation of denominations today.

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You have propagated a lie on this forum that two or three are a church. The scripture I have posted prove this is not the case, that if two or three (not a church) cannot resolve the matter then "tell the church" (note, it does not say, "tell your favorite denomination").

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.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It is simply logical to say that the matters which the church can resolve are greater than those that two or three can resolve. This is both logical and common sense. Note how the bible orders it by importance - resolve the dispute with the individual (try to fix it ourselves), if not, tell two or three (maybe our friends or family), if not , tell the church. This is equivalent to going to higher and higher authorities to resolve the matter. This is no different to the federal court system having different levels. The most important problems are resolved at the highest level.

Is it Biblical? If so show us your scriptural basis.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

For example, "important matters" such as doctrinal disputes cannot be resolved by only two or three. According to the Bible, these were resolved by the church not by two or three.

Here is an example:

Acts 15:6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question.

Acts 15:7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: "Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.

Acts 15:12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened

I only need one example to disprove your claims that two or three can represent the whole city, and Acts 15 provides this.

How does this contradict anything that I have said? Once again, please refer to the offensive post otherwise cease from your slander.

[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.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Which church?

Your ideas about the church are only ideological because there is no practical local church called "the church" in which a person may go to to air their disputes in the situation of denominations today.

You have propagated a lie on this forum that two or three are a church. The scripture I have posted prove this is not the case, that if two or three (not a church) cannot resolve the matter then "tell the church" (note, it does not say, "tell your favorite denomination").

Evangelical, we all know what your favorite denomination is, and who your favorite minister is.

Since it is a "lie" to consider "two or three in the Lord's name" to be a "church," then tell us what is the minimum number? Wasn't Nee's first Lord's Table with only him and three sisters? Was that a "church?" Is four then the minimum?

What about fifty people, and none of them is in the Lord's name, but rather all are in the name of Lee? Is that a church?

How about in Crete, when Paul left Titus there to appoint elders? Were they a church before elders were appointed?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Evangelical, we all know what your favorite denomination is, and who your favorite minister is.

Since it is a "lie" to consider "two or three in the Lord's name" to be a "church," then tell us what is the minimum number? Wasn't Nee's first Lord's Table with only him and three sisters? Was that a "church?" Is four then the minimum?

What about fifty people, and none of them is in the Lord's name, but rather all are in the name of Lee? Is that a church?

How about in Crete, when Paul left Titus there to appoint elders? Were they a church before elders were appointed?

Evangelical, these are all legitimate questions for you. Why no response?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Which church?

Your ideas about the church are only ideological because there is no practical local church called "the church" in which a person may go to to air their disputes in the situation of denominations today..

Practical? The Grand Poohbah installs admittedly "unspiritual" son as head of his publishing house, saying it's his private business an he can do what he wants. Complaints from various parties fall on deaf ears. The "two or three" are void in this system.

The Local Church is a guanxi network. It is a Christian personality cult, dominated by the oriental culture

[ZNPaaneah]

In Post #84 Evangelical raises a question that is fundamental to these three chapters in Matthew: "Which church?"

The implication based on the context is that he sees multiple churches, denominations, free groups, non denominational, and in his logic there can only be "one true church".

We need to examine this. When we looked at the seven churches in Revelation (this is the Lord's continuation from Matt 16-18). In every single case the Lord treats them as a "church" though Laodicea has been condemned and he is calling for those still there to leave. You might think that Ephesus sin of "leaving their first love" would condemn them, a warning was issued, but they are still a legitimate church. You might think that Balaam would disqualify one, or Jezebel, or stained robes. But in every case the Lord is speaking to them and working with them.

Imagine how arrogant it is that you think your one little gimmick with your name somehow disqualifies all other christian assemblies from having the Lord's ear. This is what it means to "despise" them. Once again, Matt 18 warns us not to despise these little brothers because they do have the ear of God the Father in heaven.

There is no verse in the NT that provides a solid basis for Evangelical's claim to the "city church with no name" being the only one that Matt 18 is talking about. What is abundantly clear and spelled out in Black and White is that Matt 18 is referring to any and all gatherings in the name of Jesus, even if it is as small as two or three. How blind do you have to be to argue that Matt 18 cannot be referring to meetings of 2 or 3 (even though the Lord makes it crystal clear that He is talking about that) because there was a meeting in Acts that had more than 3?!

This is why I tune out whenever Evangelical says "it is logical".

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

Practical? The Grand Poohbah installs admittedly "unspiritual" son as head of his publishing house, saying it's his private business an he can do what he wants. Complaints from various parties fall on deaf ears. The "two or three" are void in this system.

The Local Church is a guanxi network. It is a Christian personality cult, dominated by the oriental culture

Why is it they can sideswipe every spiritual requirement for those serving in His church by claiming to be a work, or a ministry, or only a publisher, etc.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Which church?

Your ideas about the church are only ideological because there is no practical local church called "the church" in which a person may go to to air their disputes in the situation of denominations today.

You have propagated a lie on this forum that two or three are a church. The scripture I have posted prove this is not the case, that if two or three (not a church) cannot resolve the matter then "tell the church" (note, it does not say, "tell your favorite denomination").

Therefore is the church likened to a certain king who would make a reckoning with his servants. Some saints were brought to him from Christianity and they owed him Ten Million dollars each. Since they had nothing with which to pay, the Lord commanded them to be sold, along with their wives and children and all they owned. But these saints fell down and worshipped the Lord, repenting for their errors made in Christianity, they asked the Lord to have patience with them and they would start afresh and build the church that would repay the Lord. So the Lord was moved with compassion and forgave those saints their debt and they went and started the Local Church in the US. But the leader of that group, Witness Lee, then went out and found some of his fellow Christians that owed him $20. He railed against them. He called them satanic and dead. Those meeting in denominations he condemned because they were incorrectly denominated. Those in non denominational churches he condemned because that is not the right way. He condemned those in free groups and small groups. He even sued them and was abusive towards many. So some who witnessed this were very sorry and they came and told the Lord all that was done. They wrote it down on the internet so that the church could see. Then the Lord called unto these saints and said to them, “thou wicked servants, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou besoughtest me: shouldest not thou also have had mercy on thy fellow servant, even as I had mercy on thee?

This is my understanding of the fundamental error. This is the church in Ephesus "leaving their first love". This path of being merciless to other Christians includes Balaam, Jezebel, stained robes, and ultimately a poor, wretched, blind condition. This is where the LRC went wrong, all the other errors could have been corrected, but once we took this path we would get further and further away from the Lord.

[ZNPaaneah]

So, if you have followed this thread we have come to the heart of the "boundary" of the church. This boundary is the wall that keeps out false prophets like Balaam who teaches scam artists how to stumble the little brothers so that you can build your kingdom. This boundary keeps out the little perches that are built into this distorted kingdom for Jezebel to come in and abuse the saints. The boundary is mercy.

When we bought into WL's merciless attack on all Christians other than himself we opened the door for the merciless attack of Balaam and Jezebel. Mercy is the protection that you are in "the one true church" and the lack of it cannot be covered over with all kinds of distorted "ground of the church" doctrines. The ground that we stand on is the "mercy seat".