What is the boundary of the Local Church?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is the kind of disingenuous argument which LSMers long to make, which is why it is so hard to believe anything they say.

He continues to argue "common sense". But if we use common sense it is obvious that all of the Christians in a large city will not ever all meet together in a single meeting. The largest possible venues would be stadiums that hold a tiny fraction of the total number of Christians in that city. Also, a meeting in a stadium with 100,000 does not resemble the meetings described in Icor 14.

Therefore I think it is common sense that one church in one city cannot refer to one meeting, one meeting hall, or even the same few elders. When I was in Houston they had 4 or even 5 elders for 200. Odessa had 3 elders for less than 100. NY had 3 elders and 2 full time workers for a little more than 200. How many elders would you need if instead of 200 you had 200,000? You might need 5,000. NYC probably has at least 2 million Christians, so you could need 50,000 elders.

Oneness of the Body of Christ is crucial, and there is no doubt that Paul saw one church in one city. But common sense would dictate that this oneness cannot be due to one set of elders, or one meeting hall, or one common gathering on a periodic basis. The oneness is the fellowship of the Apostles. The oneness is that all of these meetings are meeting "in the name of Jesus".

All of the other gimmicks -- elders appointed by WL, city boundary, etc. These are the trappings of a franchise. LSM the publisher has turned the kingdom of God into a franchise. In this sense LSM would be Jezebel, sitting as a Queen that has no business ruling in Israel.

No doubt Evangelical will twist these words as he always does to have me say whatever his straw man is. I don't dispute that these gatherings need elders. Larger churches need an office, elders, deacons, and a variety of leaders in order to run. But that is not what makes us one, nor is it what makes us a "gathering of the called out ones", nor is it what causes our prayers to be answered or what makes us one with the Lord on the throne. These ones were not crucified for us, we are not baptized into their names, and they will not be sitting in judgement when we appear before the Lord.

[Ohio]

I once read something about early city/towns that they were defined by "walking distance." That of course was very practical. Today's cities bear no relation to the cities in the Bible. It is totally disingenous to connect the two with such legalistic ecclesiastical demands. It's like demanding that every minister be a fisherman, a farmer, a tax cllector, or a tentmaker because the early disciples were.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

NY had 3 elders and 2 full time workers for a little more than 200. How many elders would you need if instead of 200 you had 200,000? You might need 5,000. NYC probably has at least 2 million Christians, so you could need 50,000 elders.

These kinds of legalistic ecclesiastical demands are what destroys the church. Think about the massive hierarchy that would develop in NYC or any huge city by today's standards.

Think about LSM's overlay on NYC:

• One MOTA at the top
• Blended workers submitting to the MOTA
• NYC elders submitting to the workers and the MOTA
• Borough sub-elders submitting to the NYC elders, the workers and the MOTA
• District leaders submitting to the borough sub-elders, the NYC elders, the workers, and the MOTA
• Neighborhood leaders submitting to the district leaders, the sub-elders, the NYC elders, the workers and the MOTA
• District deacons submitting the neighborhood leaders, to district leaders, the sub-elders, the NYC elders, the workers and the MOTA
• The serving saints submitting to the district deacons, the neighborhood leaders, to district leaders, the sub-elders, the NYC elders, the workers and the MOTA

This is exactly how the RCC hierarchy got established. Supposedly this was all established to keep the oneness and to guard against heresy.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

These kinds of legalistic ecclesiastical demands are what destroys the church.

The "gates of Hades". We have a promise that they won't prevail.

[Evangelical]

Let's consider the facts. A look at the biblehub commentaries will show that ZNP's interpretation of key bible passages is not well supported. Anyone can take a look for themselves:

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/18-17.htm

One example is the Geneva study bible:

(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.

ZNP's views contradict the teachings of these learned Reformers, when he wrote previously:

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

Matthew Poole also disagrees with ZNP and explains how the church, and particularly those in authority has power to bind and loose:

By the church then must be meant those who had power to bind and loose. Now though at this time there was no particular church formed, yet there were some who had a power to bind and loose. Christ had given such a power to his apostles. These were the present church, and at this time in being. They were afterwards to constitute particular churches, to whom, (when constituted), in force of this precept, such offences were to be told.

Not only does ZNP's teaching contradict that of the Reformers and educated men, it dilutes the authority and power of the Church, elders and Apostles which Christ and the apostle Paul established.

[ZNPaaneah]

If a person owns a house on Earth he has the right to exercise authority over it on Earth. If two or three own a business, they have the right to exercise the authority over that business. There are billions of people on this earth and many of them have a jurisdiction over some part of the earth. When the Blendeds decided to sever the relationship with Titus they had the right.

If you are in the world you would make this decision official in a court of law. You can fire people, and evict people.

However, the church is the kingdom of the heaven. This is not referring to a single locality. If those who are doing the firing or evicting are doing it in the name of Jesus, and then they tell it to the church. What they have bound or loosed on Earth will be what has been bound or loosed in heaven.

None of your quotes disputes that. None of your quotes says that people don't have the right or jurisdiction to fire people from businesses they own or to evict people from buildings they own. Likewise, none of your quotes of me says that the two or three "bind in heaven". Instead, I say if you bind on Earth "in the name of Jesus" then tell it to the church, then what you have bound on Earth will be what has been bound in heaven.

I realize it is impossible for you to understand what I am saying, but I also understand that it is very simple for everyone else reading this thread to understand. So I appreciate your posts because they give me the opportunity to drive this point home.

The gates of Hades refer to the counsel of Hades, the machinations, the schemes, the contrivances, the schemes of the dead. The goal is to put God's people in subjection to them, to bury them. That is the point of WL's doctrine of dirt. You must be in subjection to the three or four elders appointed by him and that represent his interest. The church then is put in their place of supporting his ministry, rather than the ministry supporting the church. FTTT, standing orders, legal defense fund, etc. None of this is supported by Matt 18. I do not need WL's good housekeeping seal of approval to sanction the Lord's table. I do not need WL's blessing on my meeting. What I do need is the presence of the Lord.

[ZNPaaneah]

28 Take heed unto yourselves, and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit hath made you bishops, to feed the church of the Lord which he purchased with his own blood. 29 I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock; 30 and from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.

This is a major boundary -- No one in the church is to draw away disciples after them. In some cases the fault is not with the person, for example in Acts they tried to worship Paul at one point and he had to beg them not to do it. But if they "speak perverse things" with the motive of "drawing away disciples" that crosses the line and is thoroughly condemned.

Denying that Jesus is Lord is a perverse thing. Lord indicates the ultimate authority. When two or three meet in the name of the Lord they are under this ultimate authority. When WL's disciples teach that you need something "more" than this, they are saying that Jesus is not the ultimate authority, they are denying that Jesus is Lord. This is a perverse thing.

The non Biblical reference to WN and WL as "ministers of the Age", using a type of Christ (Moses) to refer to themselves, this is a perverse thing with the intention of drawing disciples after themselves.

3 But not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised: 4 and that because of the false brethren privily brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage: 5 to whom we gave place in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

Circumcision is very clearly outside of the wall of the fellowship of the apostles. Some may be circumcised, some aren't, some may have been prior to salvation, others can choose to after. But very clearly according to the fellowship of the apostles this has nothing to do with your standing in the church. Circumcision was an OT sign of the covenant between God and man. But Paul makes it clear this OT type is replaced by the reality of the cross of Christ. Our NT sign of a covenant with God is the cross of Christ. If the Judaizers could force gentile converts to be circumcised it would mean they would need something other than the cross of Christ, they would need something more. That would bring the gentile believers into bondage to these Judaizers.

[ZNPaaneah]

21:27and there shall in no wise enter into it anything unclean, or he that maketh an abomination and a lie: but only they that are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

I consider this verse to be utterly fascinating. Imagine a government where nothing unclean, abominable or that makes a lie could enter! Imagine a society, a company, anything! How does this work?

Matt 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear beautiful, but inwardly are full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.


What a fantastic irony! The reason sepulchres were "whited" each year was to make it readily apparent to everyone else that there were dead, unclean things inside and you were to stay away. In nature most creatures blend into their surroundings and are very difficult to see. But there are exceptions. These creatures have very bright, vivid colors that make them easy to see from far off, but the message is clear, stay away, I am full of poison. Jesus sees the "outward appearance" of the scribes and pharisees designed to make them "appear beautiful" was really a sign of corruption, and a warning to keep away from them. They think their evil deeds are like bones hidden within the sepulchre, but to the Lord it was so apparent that they stood out like neon lights. No doubt this ability plays a big role in the wall preventing the unclean from entering the city.

Malachi 2:17 Ye have wearied Jehovah with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we wearied him? In that ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of Jehovah, and he delighteth in them; or where is the God of justice?

I saw this with PL. I only met him once. We went to lunch with Ray Graver and 12 brothers working on the construction site in Irving. It was readily apparent to me that PL was a greedy, lascivious man. Completely fair to say this stood out like a neon light. What I couldn't understand is how Ray Graver couldn't see it. I guess it is like Upton Sinclair said "it is impossible for a man to see corruption if his pay check requires that he not see it".

1Kings 3:9 Give thy servant therefore an understanding heart to judge thy people, that I may discern between good and evil; for who is able to judge this thy great people?

It is a living wall, there are watchers on the wall and they stand on the foundation of the Apostles and prophets.