What is the boundary of the Local Church?

[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).

[ZNPaaneah]

So it is exciting to see that the "Clergy-Laity" system is also addressed in Matthew 18.

The key issues are:


1. Do not despise any saint in the church, regardless of how they may appear. (This is also covered in James). False prophets will come into the fold to stumble those that they can stumble. You need to "cut them off". Therefore the weakest saints among you are like the "canary in the coal mine". You will realize that a false prophet is among you when they are stumbled. Likewise, a true church will seek out the lost sheep. The second indication of a false prophet is a number of "lost sheep" that you are forbidden from seeking out. To prohibit saints from seeking out the lost sheep is to deny the Lord, the Great Shepherd of the Sheep.

2. Do not act arrogantly. Any person in the church can be offended by any other person. We need to listen to one another. Recently in the trial of the Gymnast doctor convicted of sexual abuse it came out that a girl aged 17 accused him of sexual abuse 14 years ago and she was dismissed. They didn't listen to her and only now 14 years later they apologized and begged her forgiveness.

3. Meet in the name of Jesus. This is the person and work of Jesus. WL's condemnation of denominational names is a valid point, but it is the flea versus the camel. The reality of "meeting in the name of Jesus" is that what you bind on Earth is bound in heaven, what you loose on Earth is loosed in heaven, your prayers are answered and the presence of Jesus is with you.

4. All local meetings must be one with the "Kingdom of Heaven", the universal church. A true meeting of the Body of Christ has the authority to bind and loose on Earth and what they bind will be bound in heaven. This indicates that the universal church of all believers on this earth will Amen what they bind and loose. This can only take place if you are meeting in the name of Jesus and not in any other name or with any other agenda or bias.

5. There is no reference at all that only Elders, leaders or "Apostles" have the right to make a charge against someone that has offended them or sinned, or to listen to the charge, or to make a judgement. Any suggestion that this is the jurisdiction of a special clergy class of saints is the "clergy - laity" system and has no basis in Matthew 18.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

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).

Being gathered in the person and name of Jesus is what the recovery is all about..unlike the denominations. So gatherings in the name of some denomination do not count.

Conversely the problem with your view is that if any two claimed to be gathered in the name of Jesus then you could easily deny that they are. If those two or three were significant people then you might take more notice.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Being gathered in the person and name of Jesus is what the recovery is all about..unlike the denominations. So gatherings in the name of some denomination do not count.

This is very telling -- 'The LRC is right, unlike denominations.' This is not to "humble yourself as a little child" -- and the chapter begins with this, that if you don't you can't even enter into the kingdom.

I would agree with you that the LRC is all about "we do it right and everyone else does it wrong". It is that arrogance that I have repented of.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Conversely the problem with your view is that if any two claimed to be gathered in the name of Jesus then you could easily deny that they are. If those two or three were significant people then you might take more notice.

I have no idea what you are saying other than it appears to be highly offensive. What do you mean by "significant people"? In my own experience whenever I have been in a meeting with "significant people" I have not detected the presence of Jesus. Perhaps the presence of "significant people" makes it hard to detect the presence of Jesus in the same way as someone with overpowering BO makes it hard to detect anything else and you are forced to take notice of them.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is very telling -- 'The LRC is right, unlike denominations.' This is not to "humble yourself as a little child" -- and the chapter begins with this, that if you don't you can't even enter into the kingdom.

I would agree with you that the LRC is all about "we do it right and everyone else does it wrong". It is that arrogance that I have repented of.

For your two or three meeting in Jesus name to work, it must be outside of the denominations. By definition to meet under a denomination is to not meet in the name and person of Jesus.

Clearly you don't believe in your own teaching that ANY two or three can decide about anything, as you denied that myself and two others could meet in the name of Jesus and excommunicate you.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I have no idea what you are saying other than it appears to be highly offensive. What do you mean by "significant people"?

You mentioned three significant people in a previous post - Peter, James and John. Elders and apostles are also significant in the church.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

You mentioned three significant people in a previous post - Peter, James and John.

And I also pointed out that they were not significant people, they were unlearned fishermen. So when the elites saw them they did not consider them to be anything.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Clearly you don't believe in your own teaching as you denied that myself and two others could meet in the name of Jesus and excommunicate you.

In what post did I deny this? Your practice of making false statements about me is a form of lying. Stop this practice.

Quote the post in which I denied that you and two others meeting in the name of Jesus could excommunicate me, if you don't, you are a liar.

[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.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Terry

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.

It seems you agree with me that just any two is not always sufficient.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It seems you agree with me that just any two is not always sufficient.

Terry described the way excommunication is done in the LRC. If that is what you "agree with" then that is very different from what is prescribed in Matthew 18. Elders don't need input? They don't need to tell the church?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It seems you agree with me that just any two is not always sufficient.

Certainly not. You would need at the minimum disclosure and transparency. Without it will lead to rumors, questions, and ultimately division.
To be told "honor the feeling of the brothers" is not good enough for me. Let's have disclosure. Let's have transparency. When I was told about Titus Chu, Nigel Tomes, etc I said okay, where's the proof? Where's the supporting evidence to support a quarantine. It's not something I can support unconditionally, but conditionally.
If a brother or sister is not welcome for fellowship, tell the entire assembly an acceptable scriptural reason why their persons is not welcome. What gross sin was committed? What heresy were they speaking?
That's why not just any two or three is always sufficient.

[ZNPaaneah]

If a brother is involved in some sin, two or three go to him, and he listens to them it may not be necessary to involve anyone else. But, once you decide this sinning brother is not willing to listen to them, then at that point you do need transparency. You need to present the proof to the church of a gross sin. Two or three are certainly sufficient to do that in some cases, in others you may need 10 or 20 (how many have testified on this forum?). But it must be transparent, it must provide proof, and it must be supported by scripture. This is without a doubt the failing in the LRC. I saw more people excommunicated there than anywhere else, but rarely did I get to see the proof. I would say that Titus Chu was the only time I was given the evidence, but I felt it was not supported by scripture.

[TLFisher]

The two or three I've been referring to is when excommunication/quarantine/disfellowship occurs. The cases discussed on this forum, the issue is not sin but brothers who are not lining up with headquarters.