What is the boundary of the Local Church?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy,

Yours was a reasoned response so I wanted to offer a response in kind.

So to the first point above..... there are recorded in the New Testament the mention of apostles who did not see the Lord in person. Only one is needed to dispel that idea so I offered Timothy. Yet, we find several other apostles mentioned: Silvanus ( 1Thess 2:6) , Ephaproditus (Phil 2:25), Andronicus and Junia (Romans 16:7), Titus and others (2Cor 8:23).

So, when were these other apostles appointed and by who? They were appointed by the Lord Himself after His ascension. (Ephesians 4:7-11)

Drake

The Bible doesn't specifically say these men had not seen the Lord Jesus. However, I think the probability that they all had is low. It's doubtful the Roman brothers had been in the Holy Land while Jesus was there.

The "seen Jesus" portion of my post was not a major assertion, more of a footnote. I never claimed Lee was not an apostle with the authority of a Paul because he hadn't "seen Jesus." So I didn't really do the idea justice. Let me do that now.

It seems that everyone who was a true apostle or who wrote the New Testament was either someone who had followed Jesus (seen Jesus) when he was on earth OR someone who was closely associated with such a person. For example, Mark was associated with Peter and got his Gospel story from Peter. In other words, all true apostles likely only had 2 degrees of separation from Jesus himself.

Paul clearly showed some disrespect for certain so-called apostles (2 Cor 11:5). Why did he do that? He probably didn't think they really were apostles. Why? Because he knew they didn't fit the criteria. Possibly because he knew who had been with Jesus or was associated with someone who had, and he knew who could work miracles.

Your assertion that Jesus appointed apostles after the ascension begs the question of how we know who Jesus appointed. I don't think we can know that, so I don't think it's safe to assume anyone after the early apostles have that kind of authority. Certainly history has shown that latter-day people claiming apostleship have no evidence of such a gift other than the credulity of certain followers. This usually ends up being a problem. I think it is safe to say the Lord knows the Church needs more evidence from a so-called apostle that just that person's claim that Jesus appointed him.

Revelation says the church in Ephesus tested those who claimed to be apostles and were not. How did they do that? It's safe to say they didn't give them a test on "God's economy."

Finally, if Lee was an apostle he should have asserted that. Paul had no problem making the claim. But Lee was coy about it. To me that's evidence he knew he wasn't, and so had no business butting into the authority affairs of churches.

[Cal]

Let me make another point. The Church has no problem saying certain members are evangelists, pastors, shepherds, teachers and healers. But for some reason it no longer seems to want to designate anyone as an apostle. Even giants like Rick Warren are not designated apostles.

Why is that? Why would the Church be so hesitant?

I think there are two reasons:

1. The Church knows intellectually that saying a person is an apostle confers immense authority to that person, and is careful about doing that.
   
   
2. The Church does not have the prompting from the Holy Spirit recognize anyone in such a way.

The only groups that ever claim anyone is an apostle are tiny, fringe groups like the Local Church Movement. And it's always one of their guys who gets the honor. Surprise!

I think it's dangerous to go around claiming present day men (or women) are apostles. I don't think the Lord hands out that kind of authority anymore. So for me, no miracles, no apostle. Period.


You guys need to be more keen on the potential of abuse of authority. You don't just call someone an apostle because he has what you think is an impressive ministry and has planted some churches--not unless you like opening the door to Mr. Apostle stepping in and running your lives.

Some people are abusers. Some are enablers. It's called co-dependent dysfunction.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Let me make another point. The Church has no problem saying certain members are evangelists, pastors, shepherds, teachers and healers. But for some reason it no longer seems to want to designate anyone as an apostle. Even giants like Rick Warren are not designated apostles.

I would prefer we use "The signs of an apostle" and alignment with "the fellowship of the apostles" for this rather than current church practices and mores which tend to change from generation to generation. After all, the two witnesses that appear at the end of the age will have the signs of an apostle and are clearly "sent ones". Besides the scriptural basis for claiming prophets and evangelists also includes apostles. Also, why does the NT repeatedly designate "the 12" and the necessity for having "the 12" if there are no other apostles? If you are sent by the Lord to speak a word and do it, then I see no reason not to consider that action the act of "an apostle". But there is a big difference between "the 12 apostles" and the thousands of other saints who have done the work of an apostle. I also agree with you that seeing the Lord is a critical component, Peter said as much when they replaced Judas, and Paul made a big deal of being caught up to heaven and seeing things (though he was never one of the 12).

[Steel]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Let me make another point. The Church has no problem saying certain members are evangelists, pastors, shepherds, teachers and healers. But for some reason it no longer seems to want to designate anyone as an apostle.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Let me make another point. The Church has no problem saying certain members are evangelists, pastors, shepherds, teachers and healers. But for some reason it no longer seems to want to designate anyone as an apostle.

Interesting observation.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Why is that? Why would the Church be so hesitant? . . . I think there are two reasons: The Church knows intellectually that saying a person is an apostle confers immense authority to that person, and is careful about doing that. . . . The Church does not have the prompting from the Holy Spirit recognize anyone in such a way.

I think there's very related third reason... The church is sufferingfrom the effects of folly religion.

Originally Posted by Igzy

The only groups that ever claim anyone is an apostle are tiny, fringe groups like the Local Church Movement.

Kind of like what the church actually was back in the days when folks claimed to be apostles... And even wrote letters to other believers saying just that.

Originally Posted by Igzy

And it's always one of their guys who gets the honor. Surprise!

Paul is very clear regarding how people love to hold to those they are familiar with... And we are all gulity of doing so, in ine way or another and to one degree or another.

Originally Posted by Igzy

I think it's dangerous to go around claiming present day men (or women) are apostles. I don't think the Lord hands out that kind of authority anymore. So for me, no miracles, no apostle. Period.

According to a simple definition of the word "apostle" as used by Paul in Romans 1:1... It seems that all Paul was saying is that he was a type of representative/messenger of God... "...a delegate; specifically an ambassador of the Gospel; officially a commissioner of Christ..."

And I think that being born again is a wonderful miracle... And if it is a miracle... Then there are miracles happening every day throughout this earth.

But you might be referring to a specific type of miracle... But even regarding that, unless you are aware of what goes on in every part of this earth with all believers in Christ Jesus... Then it would be impossible for you to know if there are "...no miracles, no apostle. Period."

Do you know what goes on in all places with all believers in Christ Jesus, Iggy?

Originally Posted by Igzy

You guys need to be more keen on the potential of abuse of authority. You don't just call someone an apostle because he has what you think is an impressive ministry and has planted some churches--not unless you like opening the door to Mr. Apostle stepping in and running your lives.

Many members... One body... With each member having a particular part.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Some people are abusers. Some are enablers. It's called co-dependent dysfunction.

In our fallen man... We all, including yourself... Suffer from the above.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Steel

I think. . .the church is suffering from the effects of folly religion.

I think promoting oneself as apostle is folly religion.

"But Paul did it!"

But Paul got the right hand of fellowship from Cephas. He had some ground, there.

Originally Posted by Steel

Kind of like what the church actually was back in the days. . .

And a horse is kind of like a hippopotamus: both have four legs, two eyes and a digestive tract.

[Steel]

Originally Posted by aron

I think promoting oneself as apostle is folly religion.

Okay... You are responsible for your thoughts before the Lord.

Originally Posted by aron

"But Paul did it!"

Paul did a lot of things... Including trying to go somewhere that God didn't want him to go to.

Originally Posted by aron

But Paul got the right hand of fellowship from Cephas. He had some ground, there.

The ground Paul had was between him and the Lord. Paul claimed it, but no one could actually see it... This is where faith comes in... Do you believe Paul's speaking, or don't you believe Paul's speaking... It's not rocket science.

Originally Posted by aron

And a horse is kind of like a hippopotamus: both have four legs, two eyes and a digestive tract.

And a foolish remark is just a foolish remark... Not matter how the speaker tries to justify it.

aron... "...kind of like..." doesn't do it where God's concerned.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

The NT Testament only gives two solid validations of an Apostle.

1. They were closely associated with Jesus while he was here, or with somebody who was.
2. They could work miracles. (I don't see how you can explain away 2 Cor 12:12.)

Without criteria such as these, how could Ephesus "try those who call themselves apostles and are not, finding them false"? (Rev. 2.2)

Originally Posted by Igzy

Why wasn't Lee content to be a traveling teacher and author like most other teachers in the Church? Because he wasn't content with having a ministry. He wanted to control things.

According to all the testimonies from those who knew him, during his first decade in the US, Lee was "content to be a traveling teacher and author like most other teachers in the Church."

But then, beginning in early 1974, Lee changed. He wanted to control things. He wanted to control not just his ministry, but all the workers, elders, and Local Churches. Things at first did not work out so well, but once he placed his son Philip in charge, what a ruler he became!

[Steel]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But then, beginning in early 1974, Lee changed.

Why do you think this happened, Ohio?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

However, if someone absolutely insists that the works of power, signs, miracles, etc. are the proof of apostleship, then by the same standard believers must prove they are believers by signs such as casting out demons, speaking with new tongues, picking up serpents, drinking deadly things without harm and laying hands on the sick, for they too, using that same logic, are the signs that follow a bonafide believer.

Hi Drake,

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate it. But, unfortunately, I think the above is not a compelling argument. The Bible never says that believers have to prove their validity as believers to each other. It also never tells us to test whether believers are true believers, and in fact seems to discourage such a course (parable of the wheat and the weeds, Matt 13:24-30).

However, the Bible does give us the ground to test those who claim they are apostles (Rev 2:2), and as you said, Paul felt to prove his apostleship.

There is a big difference between claiming to be a follower of Christ and claiming to be an Apostle of Christ. Apostles in the mold of Paul, Peter, John and Timothy had a special commission and authority. They bridged the gap between Christ on earth and the establishment of the New Testament Scriptures as God's unique authority on earth. They were the original "Living Bible."

It's easy to see why people claiming such authority in the latter days are problematic. How do we know they are what they claim? What if there is disagreement? This can cause deep, intractable schisms with reasons to believe either way. Such situations are exceedingly problematic. We have to look no further than LCM history for this concern to be validated.

It seems your argument is working against itself a bit, too. Paul proved his apostleship by performing miracles. This shows that God gave him the power to produce such proof. Why didn't he give it to Lee?

Witness Lee, the present Blendeds, and Titus Chu for that matter, are welcome to produce proof of Apostleship. Until they do, as far as I'm concerned they have no authority from God to order churches around. They might have good ministry. They might be good teachers. But without further proof, that's where it ends.

(Obviously, it is too late for Lee to produce proof of Apostleship. So as far as he is concerned, the case is closed.)

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Hi Drake,

Thanks for the reply. I appreciate it. But, unfortunately, I think the above is not a compelling argument. The Bible never says that believers have to prove their validity as believers to each other. It also never tells us to test whether believers are true believers, and in fact seems to discourage such a course (parable of the wheat and the weeds, Matt 13:24-30).

However, the Bible does give us the ground to test those who claim they are apostles (Rev 2:22), and as you said, Paul felt to prove his apostleship.

There is a big difference between claiming to be a Christ follower and claiming to be an Apostle of Christ. Apostles in the mold of Paul, Peter, John and Timothy had a special commission and authority. They bridged the gap between Christ on earth and the establishment of the New Testament Scriptures as God's unique authority on earth. They were the original "Living Bible."

It's easy to see why people claiming such authority in the latter days are a problem. How do we know they are what they claim? What if there is disagreement? This can cause deep, intractable schisms with reasons to believe either way. Such a situation is exceedingly problematic. We have to look no further than the LCM history for this concern to be validated.

It's seems your argument is working against itself a bit, too. Paul proved his apostleship by performing miracles. This shows that God gave him the power to produce such proof. Why didn't he give it to Lee?

Witness Lee and the present Blendeds are welcome to produce proof of Apostleship. Until they do, as far as I'm concerned they have no authority from God to order churches around. They might have good ministry. They might be good teachers. But without further proof, that's where it ends.

If miracles are the sign of an apostle then the problem is that the bible does not record every apostle working a miracle. There are about 25 apostles mentioned in the NT:

http://bmarkanderson.com/how-many-ap...ment-12-or-25/

On the other hand, perhaps those who work miracles today are apostles - Benny Hinn etc.

This idea that apostles must work miracles is equivalent to the idea that you cannot have the Spirit unless you speak in tongues.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Steel

Kind of like what the church actually was back in the days when folks claimed to be apostles... And even wrote letters to other believers saying just that.



According to a simple definition of the word "apostle" as used by Paul in Romans 1:1... It seems that all Paul was saying is that he was a type of representative/messenger of God... "...a delegate; specifically an ambassador of the Gospel; officially a commissioner of Christ..."

You do realize that the context of what Igzy wrote is in a thread called "the boundary of the local church". The apostles became a key issue because the boundary of the NJ is the wall. "And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."

So I do not understand how these comments are relevant or contribute to the understanding of the boundary of the church?

Are you saying that Witness Lee was one of "the twelve apostles of the Lamb" and wrote letters to the church saying this?

Are you saying that this reference to the "twelve apostles to the lamb" is a generic term referring to anyone who represents God or brings a message from God?

[Steel]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

You do realize that the context of what Igzy wrote is in a thread called "the boundary of the local church". The apostles became a key issue because the boundary of the NJ is the wall. "And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."

Yes... I was clear that Igzy's speaking was in relation to the topic of this thread... As is my speaking in the comment you quoted.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So I do not understand how these comments are relevant or contribute to the understanding of the boundary of the church?

In both the comment I quoted and responded to, and the comment just prior to it, Igzy brought up the matter of what determines apostleship... Which is the line of thought that I was responding to.

If there is such a things as "...the boundary of the church...", then this matter would have been addressed in scripture, and spoken to through apostleship.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Are you saying that Witness Lee was one of "the twelve apostles of the Lamb" and wrote letters to the church saying this?

Honestly... I have no idea why you would think I was saying that.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Are you saying that this reference to the "twelve apostles to the lamb" is a generic term referring to anyone who represents God or brings a message from God?

Again... I have no idea why you would think I was saying that.

Tell you what though... Why not stick to what I actually said, rather than assume/suggest something I absolutely did not say or suggest... And let's start from there.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Steel

Yes... I was clear that Igzy's speaking was in relation to the topic of this thread... As is my speaking in the comment you quoted.

Whether or not we have apostles in all ages, the twelve apostles of the Lamb are those recorded in the NT. The fellowship of the apostles refers to the NT, not to WL, WN, or anyone else. That is the boundary of the church.

This thread is not about whether or not we still have apostles.

[Steel]

When I read the title of this thread — "What is the boundary of the Local Church" — my thought was that it would be a thread discussing the idea of one church per city as presented in Living Stream Ministry publications... And that is the context my following speaking will be related to.

The first time I heard about the "...one church per city..." thought was just after I started meeting with the local church in Miami... And my first response to it was "Wonderful, this is how it should be."

And this wasn't because I had come to hold to anything Witness Lee or Watchman Nee or LSM... It was because I had just spent three years working through a project called OneAmen, which had as the thought behind it, a platform on and through which all believers in Christ Jesus could come together outside of the denominations/specifc "churches" they were associated with.

"WWJD" . . . Remember that acronym that was popular back in the '90s... "What would Jesus do?" . . . Well... I asked that question regarding this scripture... John 17:21... "That they all may be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that You have sent Me." . . . And I asked it because from my POV there was nothing "...one..." about the church I was seeing around me.

The answer I got was this... 2nd Corinthians 1:20... "For as many promises of God as there are, in Him is the Yes; therefore also through Him is the Amen to God, for glory through us to God."

This told me that it's all about the Son... All about Christ Jesus... And He is just One... It's not about doctrines, or ministries, or denominations, or anything else... It's only about the Lord Jesus... And if the body is to be one body... Then the members of the body need to realize this reality... That is is all about, and only about, Jesus.

There is only... one... Amen... To God's calling/desire... And anything outside of this one Amen is not according to God's calling/desire.

Now when I came to see this truth regarding the one body of Christ, I had no idea about the "...ground of the church..." or "...one church per city..." . . . I just knew that what I was seeing when I looked at the body of Christ around me wasn't aligning with what I had come to know about the matter after considering scripture before the Lord.

And then the Lord removed my wife and myself from meeting with believers in what I'd later come to see as Christianity... And brought us to the local church meeting in Miami.

And no... I didn't for a moment think I'd found the oneness of God's body being expressed on this earth... But what I realized is that the Lord had revealed another part of the matter of the oneness of the body that I had been seeking Him on.

Before you can truly enter into something you need to first see it... There is just no way to truly enter into something without first seeing it... And what I came to see as I met with the local church, and read the ministry of LSM, help me see a little more about the matter of the oneness of the body of Christ... Something that the ministry publications referred to as "...the ground of the church..." and the thought of "...one church per city...".

And what is "wrong" with the thought of "...one church per city..."?

Isn't that what the reality of being in Christ actually is, for those of us who live in a city?

In the Lord's eyes... How many churches are there in a city?

One, right... And if so... How many churches should we see, as believers in Him, when we look at a city?

Again... Just one.

Not two... Not three... Not four... Only one.

"...I will build My church..."

And yet... Here we are... Three "churches" right here on my quarter mile of street where I live... And one more half a mile away... And four more maybe one mile away... Eight "churches" within one mile of where I live... And none having anything to do with the others.

Lord Jesus... Help us. . . . Is this what you want Lord?

No... It isn't. . . . He certainly allows it... But it's not what He wants... Not according to scripture... "That they all may be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that You have sent Me."

"...that the world may believe that You have sent Me."

It doesn't say "...that believers may believe that You sent Me." . . . It says "...the world..." . . . But the world looks at Christianity and doesn't see this oneness... Every day I participate on online forums in which some claimed atheist states that there is so much division between believers... And they are correct, there is.

Why do we believers allow this to take place? . . . Why don't we care for the oness of the Lord in His church?

I have come to see that this is where the rubber hits the road regarding the matters of "...the ground of the church..." and "...one church per city..."... It's about how much we care for the oneness of the Lord in His church.

You want to know what the "...boundary of the local church..." is, saints... It's the measure of grace that God has given you to care for the oneness of the body of Christ... And the capacity you have through this measure of grace God has given you to care for the oneness of the body of Christ... And finally... It is the environment into which the measure of God's grace has brought you so that you can express this care for the oneness of the body of Christ in a living/practical way.

In new testament the word translated as "city" defines a particular geographic area related to a particular set of inhabitants within that geographic area. And it's somewhat similar in the old testament also.

It's not rocket science... How can you care for the oneness of the body of Christ in relation to those who live a hundred miles from you... Or even fifty miles from you... On a monthly basis maybe... But weekly... Daily... Hourly... Not so much.

This is what I clearly see in scripture as a pattern for us to follow... The oneness of the Lord's church is seen locally, then regionally, then universally... In and through the caring of the saints for this oneness... First locally, then regionally, then universally.

And why a "...city..." for the local boundary of this caring? . . . It's what the apostles set as a pattern for us... And our fellowship is with the apostles... Whose fellowship is with the Father and the Son (1 John 1:3).

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Steel

What is "wrong" with the thought of "...one church per city..."?

Yes, great question.

In the LRC I met in Houston (200), Irving (100), Odessa (<100), NYC (300).

Even if you considered yourself "one with all the Christians" in the city you couldn't possibly think that you were comprehensively one with them. There were obviously many, many meetings going on in the city of genuine Christians.

So then the question becomes "Is one church in one city = all the Christians have to meet with us?" That is where the error comes in. No, all the Christians have to meet with Jesus, that is the only requirement.

If "one church one city" means that only our elders are the "authority" in the church here then that is the error.

If "one church one city" means that every other Lord's table meeting in this city is in division and sin, then that is the error.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Steel

And what is "wrong" with the thought of "...one church per city..."?

There is only one church per city because there is only one body of Christ.

It is only the fallen, natural man who looks at all of God's children and sees differences. Are not all churches golden lampstands, indistinguishable from one another?

It was W. Lee who decided that only his LC's are legitimate, and only the elders he appointed are legitimate, and only his printing presses are legitimate, and only his seminaries are legitimate, and divided his followers from the rest of the body of Christ.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Steel

But you might be referring to a specific type of miracle... But even regarding that, unless you are aware of what goes on in every part of this earth with all believers in Christ Jesus... Then it would be impossible for you to know if there are "...no miracles, no apostle. Period."

Do you know what goes on in all places with all believers in Christ Jesus, Iggy?

I'm saying if I am going to follow someone as an Apostle, I'm going to need to see the sign of Apostleship. What other people claim to have seen is their business.

[Steel]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm saying if I am going to follow someone as an Apostle, I'm going to need to see the sign of Apostleship.

So you are speaking in regards to your own personal experience... Which is limited?

Originally Posted by Igzy

What other people claim to have seen is their business.

Absolutely... Just as what you claim to know is according to your own limited experience.

On another note... Can you reference the scripture/s that tells us we should follow an apostle?

[ZNPaaneah]

I think what is very safe is that the reference to the name of the apostles as the foundation of the wall refers to these 12. The idea that the wall is the boundary of the church and that the foundation of this boundary is "The apostles" does not refer to future ones, but rather to these 12. Therefore I understand this to refer to the "Fellowship of the apostles".

As long as a meeting of believers is within the fellowship of the apostles it is within the boundaries of the NT for a church meeting.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think what is very safe is that the reference to the name of the apostles as the foundation of the wall refers to these 12. The idea that the wall is the boundary of the church and that the foundation of this boundary is "The apostles" does not refer to future ones, but rather to these 12. Therefore I understand this to refer to the "Fellowship of the apostles".

As long as a meeting of believers is within the fellowship of the apostles it is within the boundaries of the NT for a church meeting.

Paul is a problem since he is not one of the 12. It sort of deflates the 12 apostles argument. If the 12 apostles thing is correct then the true church boundary would be messianic Judaism since without Paul protestantism would not exist.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Paul is a problem since he is not one of the 12. It sort of deflates the 12 apostles argument. If the 12 apostles thing is correct then the true church boundary would be messianic Judaism since without Paul protestantism would not exist.

Yes, it definitely throws a wrench into the equation, however Peter is an apostle and he referenced Paul's epistles as the divinely inspired word of God. That is certainly part of the "fellowship of the apostles".