What is the boundary of the Local Church?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Igzy

This debate seems to me a lot like the one about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

Now, I realize the intended result of the debate is to produce a principle that is more useful that the angels-on-a-pin answer. But its hopes of producing any answer are just as empty.

Is it possible to draw a line that delineates saved from unsaved? As a rule I think Christians for the most part agree on "believe and be baptized". The waters of baptism separate those that are saved from those that aren't.

Why can't the definition of a church meeting be just as simple: Wherever two or three gather together in the name of Jesus.

This does not leave open any loophole for divisive cults, as they would not be "in the name of Jesus".

Someone argued that "anyone can claim to be in the name of Jesus" but that is not according to the word in Matt 18. This criteria comes with three promises. 1. What you bind on Earth will be bound in heaven. We saw the blendeds attempt to bind Titus but there is no way you can claim that what they bound in their little fellowship was "bound in heaven".

2. What you loose on Earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again, we saw the puppet elders in Anaheim attempt to "loose" PL, that also did not fly with the kingdom of heaven.

3. Whatever you ask shall be done for you. We have already mocked some of the outrageous requests for world evangelism by WL, that was not done.

Therefore there is no evidence at all that they are in fact meeting "in the name of Jesus" Lord of Lords and King of Kings.

Also, it doesn't matter if "everyone agrees". The goal of the forum is to flesh out the arguments that LSM can make. You want someone with a vested interest in finding error.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Also, it doesn't matter if "everyone agrees". The goal of the forum is to flesh out the arguments that LSM can make. You want someone with a vested interest in finding error.

That much I understand, as long as sensible people know it is like the old joke about economists, "If you laid all the economists in the world end-to-end they would never reach a conclusion."

So if you are talking theory, sure, talk to clarify opinions. But if you are talking about application then a doctrine like the local ground is useless without significant agreement. A person can argue all day that they are "right" about what constitutes a proper church, but it doesn't mean anything if they can't persuade enough people to agree with them to have any significant affect on things. The local ground doctrine will never be accepted by anything but a tiny minority. So, ultimately, it is useless.

Further it is detrimental. I am persuaded that God left the boundaries of the church purposely vague so that we would be less likely to define a legality which would inevitably limit change and reform. If the Catholics had gotten wind of one-church-one-city that's how they would have set it up. Oh, they would have had multiple buildings and congregations, but they would have just called them all part of the "church in.. ", and would have said that any unsanctioned meetings were "not on the proper ground of oneness" just like... you-know-who. In short, the elusive "boundary of the church," the acceptance of which some think would further God's purpose, would inevitably restrict it.

God always leaves a door open to reform. The local ground closes it. The LCM is proof.

[ZNPaaneah]

I think the "local ground" is worse than useless, it is an error. Jesus said "my kingdom is not of this earth" but the "local ground" is the foundation of turning the LRC into an LSM Franchise.

There are very clear boundaries to the good land, but that is an allegory, a type. There is a very clear, physical ground for the Temple, but again that is an allegory, a type.

There is nothing vague about the ground on which we stand and meet in the NT, it is the blood of Christ. This ground was purchased for us with the Lord's sacrifice.

If you are meeting "in the name of Jesus" this implies that you are standing on the sacrifice the Lord made on the cross.

[Cal]

I agree; and I see absolutely no downside to that belief.

I see a lot of downside to "the local ground," however. It turned out to be a lot like communism--great in theory, but lousy in application.

Our ground is Christ. Our foundation is Christ. Our fellowship is Christ. Our commonality is Christ. Our boundary is Christ. Our oneness is Christ. Take care of that and the outward expression of oneness, however that is to look, will take care of itself.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

I think the "local ground" is worse than useless, it is an error. Jesus said "my kingdom is not of this earth" but the "local ground" is the foundation of turning the LRC into an LSM Franchise.

Originally, thru Brethren teachers and W. Nee, the "local ground" teachings were an attempt to correct the evils of corrupt hierarchical authorities. Initially, the elders were placed as the "ultimate" authority in the church, and no outsider could come in with their agendas. These elders alone had the authority to choose if and which outside ministries could benefit their congregations.

Many of the "old-timers" I knew in the LC's definitely espoused this ecclesiastical structure of the church. Many who voiced their complaints that the "nature of the Recovery changed" pointed to the controls and takeover by the workers in "The Work." I would include this in the original "vision" which attracted many to the Recovery in those early days.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Many who voiced their complaints that the "nature of the Recovery changed" pointed to the controls and takeover by the workers in "The Work." I would include this in the original "vision" which attracted many to the Recovery in those early days.

It's clear from example after example in history that extra-local (extra-congregational) authority presumed directly from God corrupts. The only exception is the original Apostles. Every attempt since to install apostles or even bishops has produced bad results.

Another exception is an organization that has extra-local authority as part of the culture of that organization, like the Methodists. However, that arrangement is different from presuming an extra-local authority directly from God.

What's ironic is the LCM back in the 60s and early 70s pointed to the emergence of bishops in the 2nd century as a point of degradation in the Church. But what are the BBs but bishops and cardinals?

[ZNPaaneah]

Actually the early church also had this corrupting influence from the Judaizers who "were from James". I think James repented of this and refers to this in his epistle:

"My brethren, hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons."

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Actually the early church also had this corrupting influence from the Judaizers who "were from James". I think James repented of this and refers to this in his epistle:

"My brethren, hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons."

How can anyone deny this doesn't happen in the local churches? EM and RK have credit that any other brother's word has no weight.
EM said it or RK said it, must be true. We've seen that in application.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

What's ironic is the LCM back in the 60s and early 70s pointed to the emergence of bishops in the 2nd century as a point of degradation in the Church. But what are the BBs but bishops and cardinals?

Back in those days Lee was adamant that overseers were elders, with overseeing simply the function of the office of the elders. Ignatius' heresy of promoting the bishopric supposedly gave rise to RCC hierarchies. Here are some of Ignatius' more shocking statements written on the eve of his martyrdom:

Let us take heed brothers, that we do not set ourselves against the Bishop, that we may be subject to God. ... It is therefore evident that we ought to look upon the Bishop even as we look upon the Lord Himself. ... Whereas you are subject to your Bishop as to Jesus Christ. ... But He is my witness, for whose sake I am in bonds, that I knew nothing from any man; but the Spirit spake, saying on this wise: Do nothing without the bishop, keep your bodies as the temples of God; love unity; flee divisions; be the followers of Christ, as He was of His Father. (Miller Church History page 179)

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Back in those days Lee was adamant that overseers were elders, with overseeing simply the function of the office of the elders. Ignatius' heresy of promoting the bishopric supposedly gave rise to RCC hierarchies. Here are some of Ignatius' more shocking statements written on the eve of his martyrdom:

Yeah, Ignatius. Time and again he was made the example of one who erred by creating the extra-local office of bishop. He didn't have a good name in the LCM in the early-mid-70s. Then I remember a few years later a young leading one referring to Benson as a "bishop." He meant it positively. I was stunned.

Like in "Animal Farm," when the pigs started walking on their hind legs like humans, their slogan changed from "Four legs goood. Two legs baaad," to "Four legs goood. Two legs beeeter."