What is the boundary of the Local Church?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Again it depends what you mean by not autonomous. If you mean we depend on each other, I agree. If you mean we mutually submit, I agree. If you mean a non-member of a local church has the right to come in and fire elders, I disagree.

Igzy,

Will you agree that a co-worker may come in and appoint elders and set things in order? If so, why can a co-worker appoint an elder but not remove an elder?

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy,

Will you agree that a co-worker may come in and appoint elders and set things in order? If so, why can a co-worker appoint an elder but not remove an elder?

Drake

I have been in many different Christian fellowships and have yet to meet anywhere where that did not have an elder that was not appointed. So neither of those criteria separate the LRC fellowship from other Christian fellowships. So once again, the question is "how can we know if a Christian gathering is meeting in the name of Jesus"?

Neither you nor Evangelical are able to answer this even though you have taken the position that this meeting cannot be a "church" meeting. There is no biblical basis to say that.

Since we can know false prophets by their fruit why can't we know genuine meetings by their fruit?

Do not the rich oppress you, and themselves drag you before the judgment-seats? 7 Do not they blaspheme the honorable name by which ye are called? 8 Howbeit if ye fulfil the royal law, according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well: 9 but if ye have respect of persons, ye commit sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors.

I think Igzy and Ohio are not objecting to things being done in order, or that elders are being appointed according to the NT, rather what they have observed is people "having respect of persons" and that is contrary to the Lord's command to love thy neighbor as thyself. It is played out by the "rich" in the "spirit" oppressing others, dragging them into law courts and before "judgement seats".

[Drake]

ZNP>”Neither you nor Evangelical are able to answer this even though you have taken the position that this meeting cannot be a "church" meeting”

Hi ZNP,

Sorry brother. I do not mean to ignore you, it’s just I can’t follow your logic most of the time. I try but your entries are often long, seem repetitive, a little complicated, and even when you ask a question in reply as above it’s worded in such a way that is different from the conversation, sometimes slightly, I might be having with someone else. That is why I have not responded to most of your posts. I assume it’s me, not you. I can’t speak for Evangelical but it seems he has the capacity to ingest, analyze, and respond to your train of thought and occasionally I understand what you were saying by reading his posts.

The few times I have responded to you directly it is mostly on a point or a single post at most because I can’t consolidate your many posts into something I can articulate. Forgive me, it is just me. It is helpful if you ask me to clarify something I said, and that can jump start a conversation between us., though regrettably that too may be short lived.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Sorry brother. I do not mean to ignore you, it’s just I can’t follow your logic most of the time.Drake

Simple point, Evangelical was very frank in saying what was not a church. I feel that if you can say what isn't a church then surely you can tell us what is a church.

Evangelical said that it is "all the Christians in a city" and used numerous verses from the NT where this can be inferred. Therefore he has delineated the "boundary" of the church as being equal to the city boundary. Hence the question for this thread "What is the boundary of the local church?"

The goal has been to find the black and white verse that gives us this "boundary". Without that you cannot answer the most basic question, what is a church?

I feel that this verse in Matt 18 -- wherever two or three meet in the Lord's name refers to that bare minimum requirement for a "gathering of the called out ones".

Evangelical said no, it has to be more than 2 or 3, and then revealed that the magic number is 12 because there were 12 apostles. I reject that explanation. He said you can't have a church unless you have elders, yet the verses he quoted to support this position clearly said they appointed elders in every church, hence the gatherings were considered to be a church prior to the elders being appointed. Steel said that this forum cannot be a considered a gathering of the called out ones because we are not verifying that every person on the forum is a born again believer. Again, I reject that because in 1Cor 14 Paul makes it very clear that unbelievers can come into the midst of a church meeting.

Therefore the only verse that has been suggested as "the boundary" that can pass scrutiny is this verse in Matt 18. That would mean the boundary between a gathering that is the church and a gathering that is not the church is "to meet into the name of Jesus". That would include every Christian gathering I have ever been in.

That is the logic behind my question: "how can you know if a Christian gathering is in the name of Jesus?"

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

Sorry brother. I do not mean to ignore you, it’s just I can’t follow your logic most of the time. I try but your entries are often long, seem repetitive, a little complicated, and even when you ask a question in reply as above it’s worded in such a way that is different from the conversation, sometimes slightly, I might be having with someone else. That is why I have not responded to most of your posts.Drake

No problem, I'll try to make this simpler for you.

I said that WL and WN taught that the local churches were autonomous.

You challenged that.

Ohio, Untohim and Igzy provided quotes from both WL and WN proving that they in fact do teach this.

You said that "a careful reading of his point is in disagreement with your statement about autonomous local churches."

And I agreed with you that a careful reading of WL's ministry was not at all clear, rather I would call it doublespeak.

So I asked you if you could explain WL's position to us?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

No problem, I'll try to make this simpler for you.

I said that WL and WN taught that the local churches were autonomous.

You challenged that.

Ohio, Untohim and Igzy provided quotes from both WL and WN proving that they in fact do teach this.

You said that "a careful reading of his point is in disagreement with your statement about autonomous local churches."

And I agreed with you that a careful reading of WL's ministry was not at all clear, rather I would call it doublespeak.

So I asked you if you could explain WL's position to us?

Oh, that is where the disconnect is, By him, I meant UntoHim’s post .

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Will you agree that a co-worker may come in and appoint elders and set things in order? If so, why can a co-worker appoint an elder but not remove an elder?

What Drake never wants to acknowledge is what qualifies a co-worker. How does he justify the actions taken by operatives from LSM who worked with belligerent saints to undermine elders and divide the churches?

The Bible also indicates that leaders are selected by the Spirit and approved by His people. LSM conveniently forgets these as they exercise their false authority to hire and fire unqualified LC elders.

During the chaos of the Midwest quarantines, I heard every elder say this. They all expressed dismay how editors and workers at LSM could tell them how to serve and follow the Lord, "Those brothers never raised me up, raised up my church, nor were my spiritual father." And particularly disturbing were the book editors at LSM, Kangas and Marks, who had never even established a LC.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

What Drake never wants to acknowledge is what qualifies a co-worker. How does he justify the actions taken by operatives from LSM who worked with belligerent saints to undermine elders and divide the churches?

The Bible also indicates that leaders are selected by the Spirit and approved by His people. LSM conveniently forgets these as they exercise their false authority to hire and fire unqualified LC elders.

During the chaos of the Midwest quarantines, I heard every elder say this. They all expressed dismay how editors and workers at LSM could tell them how to serve and follow the Lord, "Those brothers never raised me up, raised up my church, nor were my spiritual father." And particularly disturbing were the book editors at LSM, Kangas and Marks, who had never even established a LC.

...and probably that explains the strange teaching that the "Jerusalem principle" is a work of Judaizers. I suspect that was the origin of that teaching. It appears, the mid-west elders and co-workers needed an alternative explanation to that of workers outside their patch coming in and what they perceived as interfering in their "autonomous churches" so they concocted that Jerusalem Principle - Judaizers teaching to justify their actions to disengage from the ministry and rally around Titus Chu's ministry.

Drake

[Drake]

Igzy>"Paul said the sign of an Apostle was being able to work miracles. This is clear in 2 Cor 12:12. So, either (1) apostles who can't work miracles are not really apostles, or (2) Paul was talking about a special kind of Apostle. I think it is #2. Paul also implied that this kind of Apostle had physically "seen Jesus" (1 Cor 9:1)....... Please don't say this has no scriptural basis, unless you can give a plausible different explanation for 2 Cor 12:12. Don't tell me I have no basis for this belief. You may not agree with it, but it has a basis. ....If a worker comes along who can heal people and raise the dead and get bitten by snakes or be stoned and not be affected, like Paul, then he can dictate to my church who should be the elders. Until then, his counsel will be taken under advisement. "

Fair enough Igzy. I will ponder your reasoned scriptural argument here and return to discuss it.

Thanks
Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Fair enough Igzy. I will ponder your reasoned scriptural argument here and return to discuss it.

Thanks
Drake

See also Romans 15:18-19.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

...and probably that explains the strange teaching that the "Jerusalem principle" is a work of Judaizers. I suspect that was the origin of that teaching. It appears, the mid-west elders and co-workers needed an alternative explanation to that of workers outside their patch coming in and what they perceived as interfering in their "autonomous churches" so they concocted that Jerusalem Principle - Judaizers teaching to justify their actions to disengage from the ministry and rally around Titus Chu's ministry.

Drake

Read The Resumption of Watchman Nee's Ministry (Vol 57,) he speaks much about this.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Read The Resumption of Watchman Nee's Ministry (Vol 57,) he speaks much about this.

When Brother Nee speaks of the Jerusalem principle as he did in Further Talks on the Church Life and the book you reference above he does not say the Jerusalem principle is a work of Judaizers as you did.

But perhaps I missed it, so give the exact quote.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

When Brother Nee speaks of the Jerusalem principle as he did in Further Talks on the Church Life and the book you reference above he does not say the Jerusalem principle is a work of Judaizers as you did.

But perhaps I missed it, so give the exact quote.

Drake

Read the book yourself, and do try to portray my views accurately.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Read the book yourself, and do try to portray my views accurately.

I have read the book... and in trying to muster Watchman Nees support for your erroneous views on the Jerusalem principle being a work of Judaizers there is none.

That strange teaching you are promoting was a twisting of a term by the “autonomous churches” promoters in the Midwest. The term was originally introduced by Brother Nee in Further Talks and expounded on in the Resumption messages where he showed that principle as a work initiated by the Holy Spirit and explained our need to apply it in the work of ministry to the churches.

If you think I am wrong about that and portrayed it inaccurately then you can explain it yourself... or not! for the record in post 211 of this thread you said:

“......with workers sent out from headquarters overseeing the elders, and a Minister of the Age overseeing these workers. Some have referred to this as the "Jerusalem Principle" practiced by Judaizers who were in some cases sent out by James.”

You apparently are included in “some” by your promotion of the notion.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy,

Will you agree that a co-worker may come in and appoint elders and set things in order? If so, why can a co-worker appoint an elder but not remove an elder?

Drake

Not in the way of practically owning a church as the LCM does. The worker can come and advise, and the church can cooperate with him. But the church does not have to. That's between them and the Lord. Just like any decision is between a person and the Lord.

Clearly in the New Testament some Christians chose to no longer follow Paul. Whether that was right or wrong in particular instances, it was clearly their right. What is the apostle going to do if the church says, "We appreciate your advice but we are going a different way"? Is he going to put the lead elder in a headlock? Is he going to march into the church meeting with arms and take over? Is he going to declare the church "rebellious" or "leprous"? Paul did none of these things. He had his point of view and thought what he had to offer was good for churches, but only took the authority the churches gave him. He never forced himself on any church and he never condemned a church for not following him.

Even so, as I said, I do not believe Apostles of the type of Paul, Peter and John even exist anymore. There are still apostles, but not with the kind of power they had. You said this had no scriptural basis, but it does:

Paul said the sign of an Apostle was being able to work miracles. This is clear in 2 Cor 12:12. So, either (1) apostles who can't work miracles are not really apostles, or (2) Paul was talking about a special kind of Apostle. I think it is #2. Paul also implied that this kind of Apostle had physically "seen Jesus" (1 Cor 9:1).

Clearly there are "sent ones" now. In a sense we are all sent ones. But there are none of the type of Paul, Peter and John. These men could work miracles, they could define truth, they could author Scripture, they had firsthand experience of seeing Jesus physically. They had more power in the churches. But even so they did not throw their weight around and they did not accuse churches of being leprous for not following them. If they did not do this then certainly Lee and his henchmen don't have such authority.

Please don't say this has no scriptural basis, unless you can give a plausible different explanation for 2 Cor 12:12. Don't tell me I have no basis for this belief. You may not agree with it, but it has a basis.

If a worker comes along who can heal people and raise the dead and get bitten by snakes or be stoned and not be affected, like Paul, then he can dictate to my church who should be the elders. Until then, his counsel will be taken under advisement.

[Cal]

As Ohio implied, how do you even know who is an Apostle so you can let them appoint elders? Well, Paul makes it very clear. An Apostle can work miracles (2 Cor 12:12). Paul said plainly that this was the sign of a true Apostle.

Could Lee work miracles? No. So plainly he was not an Apostle of the kind Paul spoke. He was a traveling preacher, and if you want to call him some kind of little 'a' apostle that's your business. But he was not given the sign that Paul said identified a true Apostle of the kind he and Peter and John were.

The Lord was wise. He provided irrefutable proof of true Apostle credentials: the ability to work miracles.

You don't have that sign? Then you ain't no Apostle. And you're not appointing any elders in my church. Sorry. We might let you teach. We might even take much of your fellowship very seriously. But you have no appointing or firing authority.

[Cal]

Let me tell a story here.

The church I meet with started out as one church. Then the leaders felt to plant other churches in the area having similar vision and to be associated with us. There are now five or so, I lose count. You may not like that kind of arrangement, but I don't think the Bible prohibits it.

What's funny is that Lee and Nee used to say it was wrong. Nee called a church that was really controlled by a outside entity a "kite." It was controlled by a long string held by someone far away.

I agreed with that at the time. But now I don't think it's wrong for churches to be associated with and advised by a central entity. What matters is what the churches freely feel to do.

To continue my story, one of the churches we planted decided they didn't want to be in our little fold anymore. They wanted to go a different way. You know what our leaders said? They said if that's how you feel God is leading you then that is fine us. They allowed the church to be autonomous.

That is exactly what the LCM DOESN'T DO. The LCM condemns churches that break ties with them. That's wrong and I shouldn't have to go into why it's wrong.

So I don't think it's wrong for LCM churches to associate in a movement. What's wrong, among several others things, is the way they treat churches that want to go a different way.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

To continue my story, one of the churches we planted decided they didn't want to be in our little fold anymore. They wanted to go a different way. You know what our leaders said? They said if that's how you feel God is leading you then that is fine us. They allowed the church to be autonomous.

That is exactly what the LCM DOESN'T DO. The LCM condemns churches that break ties with them. That's wrong and I shouldn't have to go into why it's wrong.

So I don't think it's wrong for LCM churches to associate in a movement. What's wrong, among several others things, is the way they treat churches that want to go a different way.

Wow! No lawsuits? No training sessions to undermine the elderships and usurp the meeting hall?

Real men of God with big hearts, faithful to a heavenly vision!