What is the boundary of the Local Church?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

There is a difference between correcting someone's doctrine and defining what that doctrine should be. There is no case of two or three gathering together to determine what a doctrine or practice should be. The example I provided was in regards to defining what the doctrine or practice should be concerning the Gentiles and the law of Moses.

You keep changing. First a group of 2 or 3 cannot make important decisions. This is clearly not true as they can bind something on Earth and heaven. Examples of Paul doing this are given in the NT. Then you changed this to a group of two or three cannot decide doctrinal issues. Again, not true as there are numerous examples in the NT of key doctrinal issues like the path to salvation and the fellowship of the church being decided between Paul and Apollos, Paul and Peter, and Paul and Mark. Now you are saying that key doctrinal issues cannot be "defined". Once again a baseless claim since all of our doctrinal issues are defined in the writings of Paul, Peter, John and the various apostles.

You are hanging your entire thesis on the fact that there was a council meeting in Acts 15. What does this have to do with the boundary of the church? What does this have to do with "proving" that a church (gathering of the called out ones) cannot be 2 or 3 but must have a certain minimum number greater than this which you have not ever provided.

The person who has never answered this question is you. Where is the Scriptural basis to say that 2 or 3 is somehow categorically different in function from a group of 100?

Originally Posted by Evangelical

This practice of consulting the church in the early church period continued with the development of the canon and the doctrine of the Trinity. In fact, that these important matters were not decided by "two or three" is strong proof against your argument.

Yes, the practices of the Roman Emperors and the Roman Catholic Church were quite different from what was laid out in Matthew 18. That is not "proof against my argument" but rather proof that Christianity has deviated from the NT. Thank you for bringing that up.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I find this "entire Earth" argument to be a weak one. Jesus's statement about binding and loosing was concerning the apostolic authority given to the disciples. Practically and logically, the place to seek such authority is in the local churches where the apostles resided, and not in a "global church" which was beyond many people's reach.

Wow! Wow! Wow! A great demonstration of the corrosive effect of WL's doctrine. Jesus Christ, Lord of Heaven and Earth, resides in each believer. He is the authority. He is the one we seek, not some wannabe apostle.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Also today, it is not practical or logical to seek higher authority in a church which is not local to us. But some may due to denominationalism. This may occur in denominations (for example, a Roman Catholic person travelling to Rome to consult the Pope).

There is nothing, whatsoever, in Matthew 18 that supports the need to "seek higher authority" other than Jesus. You meet together in the name of Jesus. You bind and loose in that name. There is no authority in the name of Witness Lee or Watchman Nee, you have been greatly deceived. There was no authority in the name of Peter, Paul proved that.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You keep changing. First a group of 2 or 3 cannot make important decisions. This is clearly not true as they can bind something on Earth and heaven. Examples of Paul doing this are given in the NT. Then you changed this to a group of two or three cannot decide doctrinal issues. Again, not true as there are numerous examples in the NT of key doctrinal issues like the path to salvation and the fellowship of the church being decided between Paul and Apollos, Paul and Peter, and Paul and Mark. Now you are saying that key doctrinal issues cannot be "defined". Once again a baseless claim since all of our doctrinal issues are defined in the writings of Paul, Peter, John and the various apostles.

It depends who those two or three are. Paul, Peter and John, for example.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

There is nothing, whatsoever, in Matthew 18 that supports the need to "seek higher authority" other than Jesus. You meet together in the name of Jesus. You bind and loose in that name. There is no authority in the name of Witness Lee or Watchman Nee, you have been greatly deceived. There was no authority in the name of Peter, Paul proved that.

The apostles were given authority to bind and loose. This was reflected in the early church by their practice.

Even the fact that the new testament canon and the Trinity were not decided by gatherings of two or three but those with authority in the church, disproves your doctrine.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It depends who those two or three are. Paul, Peter and John, for example.

Can you please explain further? What determines if the two or three are according to the Lord's word in Matthew 18.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It depends who those two or three are. Paul, Peter and John, for example.

Did you mean to say that this promise to bind and loose is not given to all Christians but only to a select few?

If that is what you meant to say, can you illuminate us as to what decides which few this promise applies to?

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Did you mean to say that this promise to bind and loose is not given to all Christians but only to a select few?

If that is what you meant to say, can you illuminate us as to what decides which few this promise applies to?

What determines if two or three meet in Christs name? If the pope and two cardinals meet are they not meeting in the name of catholicism?
It also depends on the matter. It is illogical to think that just any two or three can excommunicate someone for example. Unless those two or three are leaders.

Why are the three apostles you referred to included in the bible and scripture is not made up of any two or three believers? The fact that the writings of Fred and Ted are not in the bible strongly disproves the idea that any two or three believers are sufficient and that who they are does not matter.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What determines if two or three meet in Christs name? If the pope and two cardinals meet are they not meeting in the name of catholicism?
It also depends on the matter. It is illogical to think that just any two or three can excommunicate someone for example. Unless those two or three are leaders.

Why are the three apostles you referred to included in the bible and scripture is not made up of any two or three believers? The fact that the writings of Fred and Ted are not in the bible strongly disproves the idea that any two or three believers are sufficient and that who they are does not matter.

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

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

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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

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

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

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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

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

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The fact that the writings of Fred and Ted are not in the bible strongly disproves the idea that any two or three believers are sufficient and that who they are does not matter.

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

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

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

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

[ZNPaaneah]

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

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