What is the boundary of the Local Church?

[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?

[ZNPaaneah]

There is a reason I have focused on the Lord's words in Matthew. This section is the "vision" of the church, even the "blue print" of the church as given to us by Jesus.

Acts is not the blue print, it is not the vision, it is the "case law". For example many feel that the decision for Paul to go and make sacrifices to appease the Jews, a decision pushed on him by James was an error. Acts shows us the issues they faced and how they addressed them. But it is derivative of the vision in Matthew and in many cases we see the bias and religious influence on those in the early church.

The Epistles give much greater detail than you see in Matthew. So if you want to examine the details of some question it is hard to find it in Matthew, but if you want a bird's eye view, the Lord's word in Matthew is clearly the best starting point.

Finally, we should appreciate that the letters to the churches in Revelation are a direct continuation of this portion in Matthew. These are the only two places in scripture that are directly attributed to the Lord Jesus in discussing the church.

This is why I feel that using a meeting in Acts 15 to pronounce overarching doctrinal rules concerning the church that contradict Matthew 18 is a very poor approach that is either ignorant or deceptive.

Matthew 16 the Lord says "I will build my assembly". In Matthew 18 He says "wherever two or three are gathered". I think it is perfectly acceptable to interpret a meeting of two or three as the "building block" that He will use to build His assembly. By doing this He eliminates the person who wants to claim that they, praying their closet, are a building block of the church. This is also in line with Paul's word about "not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together".

This is simple and straightforward.

The kink in the chain comes when you accept concepts like "seeking the authority in the church" as though it were different from the Lord Jesus. Accepting the doctrine of "Apostle's having an authority that is separate from the Lord Jesus or separate from other Christians".

Evangelical represents the LC dogma that Matthew 18 presents the authority of the church and how dealing with sin goes up the chain of command in a local church. But if you look at the chapter carefully you don't see the same thing. Two or three are sufficient to bind or loose, in context this refers to judging a brother and even excommunicating him from the fellowship as Paul did. "Telling it to the church" is informative, there is no indication that the church then rules on the case. There is no indication that these two or three need the authority of an elder or Apostle, rather they need to gather "in the name of Jesus".

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Two or three are sufficient to bind or loose, in context this refers to judging a brother and even excommunicating him from the fellowship as Paul did. "Telling it to the church" is informative, there is no indication that the church then rules on the case. There is no indication that these two or three need the authority of an elder or Apostle, rather they need to gather "in the name of Jesus".

ZNP is wrong about this, that telling the church is informative, because the verse says

"if he neglect to hear the church", indicating that the church has something to say. And if the church has something to say about it, then it is clearly not just informative.

I can easily show that ZNP is wrong on this matter by presenting some scholarly resources. ZNP stresses the importance of the two or three but then ignores the matter of the church in the next verse, saying that telling the church is merely informative.

Here, Barne's says that bringing it to the church was a kind of trial:

Barne's notes on Matt 18:17 says:
Tell it to the church - See the notes at Matthew 16:18. The church may here mean the whole assembly of believers, or it may mean those who are authorized to try such cases - the representatives of the church, or these who act for the church. In the Jewish synagogue there was a bench of elders before whom trials of this kind were brought. It was to be brought to the church in order that he might be admonished, entreated, and, if possible, reformed. This was, and is always to be, the first business in disciplining an offending brother.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges says similar:
tell it unto the church] The word “church” (Grk. ekklesia) is found only here and ch. Matthew 16:18 in the Gospels. In the former passage the reference to the Christian Church is undoubted. Here either (1) the assembly or congregation of the Jewish synagogue, or rather, (2) the ruling body of the synagogue (collegium presbyterorum, Schleusner) is meant. This must have been the sense of the word to those who were listening to Christ. But what was spoken of the Jewish Church was naturally soon applied to the Christian Church.

Geneva Study Bible says similar:
(i) He speaks not of just any policy, but of an ecclesiastical assembly, for he speaks afterward of the power of loosing and binding, which belonged to the Church, and he has regard for the order used in those days, at which time the elders had the judgment of Church matters in their hands, Joh 9:22 12:4216:2, and used casting out of the synagogue for a punishment, as we do now by excommunication.

Even John Piper upholds the authority of the church and its ability to rule:
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles...ep-of-leniency

In ZNP's world, only two or three need to gather together in the name of Jesus and can decide about anything, even without elders. Not only was this not practiced in the early church (unless those two or three were apostles, of course), but even today it is impractical, and leads to the situation of denominationalism.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

ZNP is wrong about this, that telling the church is informative, because the verse says "if he neglect to hear the church", indicating that the church has something to say. And if the church has something to say about it, then it is clearly not just informative.

You are correct. However, Aron is also correct. The two or three pass judgement. When they tell the church then this assembly also has the authority to check into it. For example, the Blendeds passed judgement on Titus Chu and then informed the church. However, we also have the ability to investigate this.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I can easily show that ZNP is wrong on this matter by presenting some scholarly resources. ZNP stresses the importance of the two or three but then ignores the matter of the church in the next verse, saying that telling the church is merely informative.
In ZNP's world, only two or three need to gather together in the name of Jesus and can decide about anything, even without elders. Not only was this not practiced in the early church (unless those two or three were apostles, of course), but even today it is impractical, and leads to the situation of denominationalism.

You can stop referring to this as "ZNP's world". I quoted Paul in 1Cor who practiced this, so you can call this Paul's world, or the NT.

I have already agreed that unlike the LC and LSM would have you believe the believers are not mindless automatons who must do whatever they are told. When the Blendeds wrote a letter excommunicating Titus Chu we all had the ability to read it and determine for ourselves the merit. Had they been in Christ according to Matthew 18 it would have stood up to all scrutiny and the what they bound on Earth would have been bound in Heaven. But as it was it was biased, unscriptural, and hypocritical. So they can tell us and we can reject it.

Just because two or three or in the case of the Blendeds sixty or seventy agree on anything it does not mean that what they bind will be bound unless they are gathering in the name (person and work) of Jesus Christ.

This forum has acted according to what you have quoted in examining the charges and deciding they lack merit. I doubt any "church" in the LC did the same.

[ZNPaaneah]

Evangelical has raised a very important point, and a point I am very glad that he made since I will now not need to debate him on it.

On the one hand in Matt 18 Jesus says that "two or three" can bind on Earth. On the other hand in Matt 18 Jesus says they need to "tell it to the church and if" definitely proving that the church has the authority to accept, reject or modify this judgement. How do we reconcile these two statements, both given by the Lord, both in the same chapter, both in the same context?

So then we missed something. Jesus said that "what they bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven". Since he also said the church will decide whether or not to bind them this equates the church with "the kingdom of the heaven".

Witness Lee taught that in Chapter 18 it is a chapter about the Local church. But this is not true. The two or three (two or three hundred?) represent the Local church that has authority over a certain portion of the Earth. Whereas "the church" refers to the body of believers in totality.

When the Blendeds excommunicated Titus Chu they had the authority to do that. However, their goal was not that these 60+ believers would no longer have contact with Titus but that all the believers would cut him off. So they sent out the letter to the "church" so that what they had bound would be bound in the kingdom of heaven.

Now it is perfectly acceptable for the "church" to read the letter, consider the letter, ask to hear verification, hear witnesses, hear from Titus, etc. This is the practice that has taken place on this forum. However, I never once saw this practiced in the Lord's Recovery Church. I saw a roommate who was excommunicated and we were simply told that the elders made this decision, if you asked questions you would be immediately viewed as negative, poisoned, and would also fall under suspicion. There was no review, no "telling it to the church". They simply told us their decision without the slightest thought that we needed to hear the evidence as well.

Likewise with Max. They had numerous messages where Witness Lee and Benson would tell the saints the decision. Accusations were made. But you could not in the slightest feel that it was a "fair trial" in which both sides were given an opportunity to speak and respond.

Sister's rebellion was the same thing.

So I thank Evangelical for pointing out the error in Witness Lee's church. This has also resolved the burning question of locality. The two or three (and that could be two or three hundred) refer to any and all possible localities whereas the "church" refers to the body of believers universally that represent "the kingdom of heaven". The oneness of the two is also indicated. If they are both one in the decision so that what is bound is also bound in the Church and what is loosed is also loosed in the universal church then this indicates the two are in oneness.

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Now it is perfectly acceptable for the "church" to read the letter, consider the letter, ask to hear verification, hear witnesses, hear from Titus, etc. This is the practice that has taken place on this forum. However, I never once saw this practiced in the Lord's Recovery Church. I saw a roommate who was excommunicated and we were simply told that the elders made this decision, if you asked questions you would be immediately viewed as negative, poisoned, and would also fall under suspicion. There was no review, no "telling it to the church". They simply told us their decision without the slightest thought that we needed to hear the evidence as well.

Likewise with Max. They had numerous messages where Witness Lee and Benson would tell the saints the decision. Accusations were made. But you could not in the slightest feel that it was a "fair trial" in which both sides were given an opportunity to speak and respond.

Sister's rebellion was the same thing.

So I thank Evangelical for pointing out the error in Witness Lee's church. This has also resolved the burning question of locality. The two or three (and that could be two or three hundred) refer to any and all possible localities whereas the "church" refers to the body of believers universally that represent "the kingdom of heaven". The oneness of the two is also indicated. If they are both one in the decision so that what is bound is also bound in the Church and what is loosed is also loosed in the universal church then this indicates the two are in oneness.

There are "two sides to a coin", but in the local church culture, only one side is to be heard or to be examined. In the local churches practice is different than what Matthew 18 would say. Expectation is you or I would "honor feeling of the brothers" and submit to their decision. For most brothers and sisters this is the protocol they follow. I know. Within last 10 years I had appealed to an elder and regardless of how he might have felt inside, verbally he had to "honor feeling of the brothers".
There's no examining why a brother/sister was put out in order to confirm the decision. Certainly the leaders don't their decisions scrutinized. Those that question the leaders motives may be put out as well.
When there's instances like your former roommate where there's no review, no telling it to the church. Or even instances as what Mario Sandoval and Steve Isitt experienced, there's no telling it to the church. Decisions are made without consideration. The tone comes across more like 3 John than it does Matthew 18.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So I thank Evangelical for pointing out the error in Witness Lee's church. This has also resolved the burning question of locality. The two or three (and that could be two or three hundred) refer to any and all possible localities whereas the "church" refers to the body of believers universally that represent "the kingdom of heaven". The oneness of the two is also indicated. If they are both one in the decision so that what is bound is also bound in the Church and what is loosed is also loosed in the universal church then this indicates the two are in oneness.

This has wide-ranging applications.

Matt 18 says that whenever 2 or 3 gather together in the Lord's name they can bind and loose, and what they bind and loose on Earth will be what has been bound and loosed in Heaven.

Matt 18 also says that if this offending brother refuses to listen to the two or three they are to "tell it to the church" referring to their judgement (binding or loosing).

It also says "and if" indicating that the church is not a mindless rubber stamp to these two or three but rather can view this carefully and make their own determination. The decision of the church is also referred to as "will be bound in heaven". The church is the kingdom of the heavens.

So let's consider the case where JI came to RG and BP about PL. Ray and Benson claimed that PL's profligacy as President of LSM was "a local matter". There is no basis at all for this claim in Matt 18. JI was well represented as a group of at least 2-3 meeting in the name of the Lord. He had the right to then tell Ray and Benson (two other leaders in the recovery who were very actively involved with LSM).

This is not a blanket rule. I can definitely see a basis for brothers in the initial phase of examining the offenses of a brother to recuse themselves for various reasons. But there is no basis to claim that something like this "is a local matter". There is also no basis for the church to refuse to hear these two. The only consideration is that the offending brother might take that route. What Ray and Benson did was to make themselves one with PL's sins.