Roger's Baptism
bjo...@jvcdiscusa.com
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>
>Well, that teach being Jesus, it is important that only disciples are
>baptized (Matthew 28:19) so it would be necessary to look at Scriptures
>that discuss discipleship and make sure that the candidate is already
>living out those verses prior to baptism.
>
>Roger Poehlmann
>member, SF Church of Christ
>(International Church of Christ)
>
>
Roger, I want to ask you what you think about this:
I go to work and restore cars, stripping them down and rebuilding them:
renewing their bodies to their original condition: and I am there to work
on them, even on Saturday.
What is the order of the events here? Do I restore them, then strip them,
then rebuild them, then renew them?
I very seriously believe teaching that people are disciples before they are
baptized, and that they must be bearing the fruits of a disciple before baptism
is heresy in its truest sense of the word. When is a college student
considered taught? When he is still in school? No! When he has received
his degree. So can someone truly be a disciple before they have repented?
No. Can they be a disciple before they have believed? No, no! Can someone
be a disciple before they have taken up their cross and followed Jesus? No,
no, no! Can someone be a disciple before they have been cleansed?
Absolutely not! For example, whether Jesus meant the serving or the washing,
he told Peter, 'What I do now you don't presently understand; but you will
know hereafter.... If I don't wash you, you have no part in Me. Whether
it was His service, or of His washing, it does not matter. Neither were
completed until Jesus was crucified, and resurrected. Both made us complete
IN Him. Baptism is where we come in contact with His blood that cleanses us,
and it is there that He served us, paying the price for our sins.
So we are not disciples until we take part in that as well. It is not
until we take part in His death that we are made alive again with and in Him.
So, if disciple=Christian=saved, then someone who is a disciple is
ALREADY baptized. Or does that equation say that we are saved first,
then baptized? I know that is not a scriptural teaching. It cannot
say both. So is the order:
a) hear, believe, faith, repent, baptized into Jesus,
saved=disciple=Christian, continue steadfast?
or
b) hear, believe, faith, repent, saved=disciple=Christian,
baptized into Jesus, continue steadfast?
It is not 'only disciples are baptized',
it is 'penitent sinners submerge, reborn disciples emerge.'
That is the pattern.
Any comments are welcome.
Peace,
Bart
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
bjo...@jvcdiscusa.com wrote:
: rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
: >
: >Well, that teach being Jesus, it is important that only disciples are
: >baptized (Matthew 28:19) so it would be necessary to look at Scriptures
: >that discuss discipleship and make sure that the candidate is already
: >living out those verses prior to baptism.
: >
: >Roger Poehlmann
: >member, SF Church of Christ
: >(International Church of Christ)
: >
: >
: Roger, I want to ask you what you think about this:
: So, if disciple=Christian=saved, then someone who is a disciple is
: ALREADY baptized. Or does that equation say that we are saved first,
: then baptized? I know that is not a scriptural teaching. It cannot
: say both. So is the order:
: a) hear, believe, faith, repent, baptized into Jesus,
: saved=disciple=Christian, continue steadfast?
: or
: b) hear, believe, faith, repent, saved=disciple=Christian,
: baptized into Jesus, continue steadfast?
: It is not 'only disciples are baptized',
: it is 'penitent sinners submerge, reborn disciples emerge.'
: That is the pattern.
This is a good question about the "disciple=Christian=saved" equation
that has come up a couple of times before on this newsgroup.
Acts 11:26 refers to the church in Antioch, people who individually had
simply been called "disciples" and now began to be called this new name
"Christian" which surely would never catch on to describe believers of
Jesus since it was such an insult. A bunch of little Christs running
around, brainwashing zombies and trained seals hanging the every word of
their "Messiah".
The word "disciple" though simply means "learner" or student. But
it's more than that: it's someone who does not merely learn facts
from a teaching, but who actively tries to imitate that teacher. Now,
as some disciples of Jesus turned back when they learned some "hard
teachings" (John 6:60-66) and others ran off when they saw Jesus do some
things they were unwilling to do (Luke 9:57-62) it is necessary to teach
the "student" about Christianity and make sure he knows what he's getting
into: repentance, evangelism, persecution, lifelong commitment, etc. It
may be that the "disciple" draws a line in the sand and says, "Look, I'm
just not going to move out, my girlfriend and I love each other and I
think it's OK that we live together. I think God understands." Well,
then there's a problem with that person being unwilling to be a disciple
of Jesus in that area. If I can turn to a Scripture and the baptism
candidate says, "No way, I won't follow that, I don't care if the Bible
says that, I'm not doing it" then he's not a disciple.
Once the person understands what a disciple is and wants to go for it
(and repents, obviously, Acts 2:38), then he's baptized. However, since
some people study quite a ways through before hitting a snag, it's hard
for us mortals to make judgments on people. The policy I see in the
Bible is that they assumed you weren't a disciple and hadn't repented
until you proved otherwise by your life (Paul, Apollos, Gentiles Paul
preached to, Ephesian disciples, etc.)
I would amend the equation to be "baptized disciple=Christian=saved"
since this is the group to which Acts 11:26 refers, and eradicates the
confusion as to the exact point of salvation (Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21)
which is the moment of baptism and not the decision of discipleship.
bjo...@jvcdiscusa.com
In article <rognmichD...@netcom.com>, rogn...@netcom.com says...
>
>: rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>
>
>: >
>: >Well, that teach being Jesus, it is important that only disciples are
>: >baptized (Matthew 28:19) so it would be necessary to look at Scriptures
>: >that discuss discipleship and make sure that the candidate is already
>: >living out those verses prior to baptism.
>: >
>: >Roger Poehlmann
>: >member, SF Church of Christ
>: >(International Church of Christ)
>: >
>: >
>bjo...@jvcdiscusa.com wrote:
>: Roger, I want to ask you what you think about this:
>
>: So, if disciple=Christian=saved, then someone who is a disciple is
>: ALREADY baptized. Or does that equation say that we are saved first,
>: then baptized? I know that is not a scriptural teaching. It cannot
>: say both. So is the order:
>
>: a) hear, believe, faith, repent, baptized into Jesus,
>: saved=disciple=Christian, continue steadfast?
>
>: or
>
>: b) hear, believe, faith, repent, saved=disciple=Christian,
>: baptized into Jesus, continue steadfast?
>
>
>: It is not 'only disciples are baptized',
>: it is 'penitent sinners submerge, reborn disciples emerge.'
>: That is the pattern.
> rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>This is a good question about the "disciple=Christian=saved" equation
>that has come up a couple of times before on this newsgroup.
>
>Acts 11:26 refers to the church in Antioch, people who individually had
>simply been called "disciples" and now began to be called this new name
>"Christian" which surely would never catch on to describe believers of
>Jesus since it was such an insult. A bunch of little Christs running
>around, brainwashing zombies and trained seals hanging the every word of
>their "Messiah".
WHERE IN THE WORLD DID ALL THAT COME FROM? NOWHERE in God's word does it even
give a HINT of ANY of that! That is false doctrine, and has no place in any
church. Do you realize that the apostle Peter calls us Christians in the NT?
Roger, I realize that (apparently the reason stated above) the ICC prefers the term
disciple over that of Christian. That is your right. However, I think it actually
serves to give the appearance of being some elevated form of Christian. It is
not. If Peter is willing to call us Christians, so am I. A disciple. Of what?
Plato, Socrates, and on and on ... were ALL disciples. But of what?
What is the deal?
> rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>The word "disciple" though simply means "learner" or student. But
>it's more than that: it's someone who does not merely learn facts
>from a teaching, but who actively tries to imitate that teacher.
How true. Understand that the overwhelming majority of career choices in the world
then, as many now, were carried out through apprenticeships. Apprenticeships
came from trades, discipleship from 'higher' learning, whether religious, philosophical,
or whatever. If a carpenter, you learned from a carpenter, if a stonemason,
from a stonemason. However, you were considered an apprentice or disciple when?
Once you first started to train. You didn't achieve the rank of apprentice or
disciple after having first worked x number of days, or a disciple after first
studying x number of hours. Once you began to learn, you were a disciple or an
apprentice.
> rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>as some disciples of Jesus turned back when they learned some "hard
>teachings" (John 6:60-66) and others ran off when they saw Jesus do some
>things they were unwilling to do
As some *what* turned back? Some disciples. The START of that learning IS to
be a disciple. While one can CONTINUE or DISCONTINUE being a disciple, to
merely start is to be a disciple.
>: rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>(Luke 9:57-62) it is necessary to teach
>the "student" about Christianity and make sure he knows what he's getting
>into: repentance, evangelism, persecution, lifelong commitment, etc. It
>may be that the "disciple" draws a line in the sand and says, "Look, I'm
>just not going to move out, my girlfriend and I love each other and I
>think it's OK that we live together. I think God understands." Well,
>then there's a problem with that person being unwilling to be a disciple
>of Jesus in that area. If I can turn to a Scripture and the baptism
>candidate says, "No way, I won't follow that, I don't care if the Bible
>says that, I'm not doing it" then he's not a disciple.
Then he chooses to NO LONGER be a disciple if he decides to leave. It doesn't
say he never was. Don't you understand that trying to make a big deal and
mincing words that way is not only puffery, but also divisive? It is almost as
inane as the presbyterians deciding they needed to split from the other
wesleyans over predestination?
>: rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>Once the person understands what a disciple is and wants to go for it
>(and repents, obviously, Acts 2:38), then he's baptized. However, since
>some people study quite a ways through before hitting a snag, it's hard
>for us mortals to make judgments on people.
This needs no distinction, because even those who believe in the false teaching
that you 'pray Jesus into your heart' acknowledge that you die to yourself, giving
up the sins of your 'former' life. To repent is a measure of direction, not
of ANY movement in the other direction, which is impossible before baptism. It is
the Holy Spirit which empowers our heart, mind and soul's struggle with the flesh.
>: rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>The policy I see in the
>Bible is that they assumed you weren't a disciple and hadn't repented
>until you proved otherwise by your life (Paul, Apollos, Gentiles Paul
>preached to, Ephesian disciples, etc.)
That is a false teaching. It is supported nowhere in the bible.They were
disciples who had sin in their lives. Do you not realize that Paul wrote
his letter to THE SAINTS who were in Ephesus and to the faithful in Christ
Jesus? So does their sin exclude them then from being disciples? No, otherwise
we would not have disfellowships, but more importantly encouragement, nor correction,
nor exhortation, nor rebuking (a list of which each of us has our favorite).
You can't say, 'Get rid of your sin, then we'll baptize you.' It's a form of
godliness, but denies the power of the Holy Spirit in guidance and over sin.
Once you start down that road, where do you end? 'Well, he quit drinking, but
he occasionally swears.' 'Well, we'll give him three weeks of no cussing, then
we'll baptize him. He didn't cuss in the last two weeks, but he lusted in his
mind and masturbated.' Okay, just two more weeks of cussing, and 4 weeks of
no self-gratification, and then...' 'Or two hail Marys and three guests at bible
talk, and....' I don't mean that sarcastically, but rather as a look down the
road that others have travelled down.
>: rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>I would amend the equation to be "baptized disciple=Christian=saved"
>since this is the group to which Acts 11:26 refers, and eradicates the
>confusion as to the exact point of salvation (Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21)
>which is the moment of baptism and not the decision of discipleship.
Roger, for all the fuss, you are saying the ICC teaches:
baptized=disciple/Christian=saved
If the ICC teaches this, then they are standing awfully tall on a non-issue.
Saying that only disciples can be baptized is true. You must have a
knowledge and a will to die to self, otherwise, you're all wet. But traditionally,
while the equation from the ICC camp has always been written:
disciple=Christian=saved
With this, to an extent, I can agree. But Roger, I'll have to say that I do not
very far trust the commitments of those who are not in Christ, so a decision
of discipleship means nothing to begin with. It means nothing until they are
willing to make a lifelong commitment to Christ and die to themselves, being
covered by His blood, and sealed with the Holy Spirit.
You don't make a decision to die to this sin and that sin, only to grow
in understanding and realize that some sin is still in your life, you have
not died to yet, then run out and get rebaptized. You make a commitment to
die to self, whatever that is, and 'die daily' to self AND to sin. Obviously
that includes ALL you know to be sin before baptism, and a commitment to die to
all those sins that used to be relatively so small you didn't notice them when
you stil had those bigger ones in the way. As you continue to sanctify yourself,
as Jesus sanctified Himself, your 'little' sins then become your big ones, and
on and on and on. Daily victories not for the cross, but because and by the cross.
In actuality, the teaching has been:
lost-> candidate -> fruits of repentance -> disciple=Christian=baptized=saved
You earn disciple status through works, then receive baptism through grace? Is
that not still earning? For such a thing someone could very well earn their wages
(Romans 6:23) rather than receive their gift. That is like buying a ticket for
admission to a party that gives a free prize for all who attend.
>Roger Poehlmann
>member, SF Church of Christ
>(International Church of Christ)
Roger, I think we have made wonderful progress in just a few short posts. Thank
you for realizing my sincerity in bringing up this issue, and thank you for taking
the time to reply. I believe THIS is why this newsgroup is here. And I hope
you can see I do have sincere and valid concerns about some of the ICC doctrines
as presently taught. You don't know how honestly relieved I was to hear Kip and
Al Baird admit to fault concerning the 'submission-in-all-matters' doctrine. I
do not hope for the fall of the ICC, I do not hope for its harm or demise. I hope
for a restoration of the ICC to its heritage (God's Word) and for its knowledge
and love to equal its zeal in all things.
Sincerely,
Bart
Bryan Erik Slatner
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <rognmichD...@netcom.com> rogn...@netcom.com
(Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) had the following to say:
>The word "disciple" though simply means "learner" or student. But
>it's more than that: it's someone who does not merely learn facts
>from a teaching, but who actively tries to imitate that teacher.
Frankly, I feel that the assertion that "disciple" = "imitator" is flawed.
Can you back that up with scripture and/or some reputable scholarly reference
to the greek word meaning "disciple"?
>However, since
>some people study quite a ways through before hitting a snag, it's hard
>for us mortals to make judgments on people.
Not only is it hard, it's *forbidden*. There are more passages about *not
judging* people in the NT than there are about *baptism*! (I don't have my
Bible here, so I can't cite references--but I will when I get home from work
this evening).
One of my favorite C.S. Lewis quotes on this subject:
"It is not for us to say who, in the deepest sense, is or is not close to the
spirit of Christ. We do not see into men's hearts. We cannot judge, and are
indeed forbidden to judge. It would be wicked arrogance for us to say that
any man is, or is not, a Christian in this refined sense."
I love that description: "wicked arrogance."
>The policy I see in the
>Bible is that they assumed you weren't a disciple and hadn't repented
>until you proved otherwise by your life (Paul, Apollos, Gentiles Paul
>preached to, Ephesian disciples, etc.)
Fair enough...but *where* do you see this policy in the Bible? Can you show
me a passage in which *another human being* makes the judgement as to whether
or not someone is ready and/or not ready for baptism? How can, in your words,
"us mortals" make such a judgement? Do you honestly think that God would give
an arbitrary and capricious human being the power to *deny salvation* to
someone? To think that is *absurd!*
Love in Christ,
Bryan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.0 Personal Edition
iQEVAgUBMa2Fe42thMkRBmL3AQFAMwf+LNxCwv2OkttkXAj9hwK79WEo+V2ucTgY
2su6H96CAEldhLWQ+JaT36o6phS/Q3KLBzcOtlRoWkJCMz+sQwgt267AU3hTCLVr
2GSkg88Xwt66agK3gK8QtEHSUTW4CGzLjd6e9jaTnJtIV81xRUYEs9G2MD0tOT7x
oASUTl1TtommbROe2wX8WHByUu4A5THzLX+SwmNpL2Qd2Gdhob3U4S9IlGZITlar
h4pIY6Aj449dcZokn7+iebd5Qi3kgZ7MDAw9/iVT+5Kydet0ru3Bv8p0OED11xmi
kSu6Z10yf1LapgMqAUXzblfu5xZOhKcWxXW2nu2BAw/Hy8uyhzbM3g==
=xCti
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Bryan Erik Slatner, TurboPower Software Company, bsla...@rmi.net
http://rainbow.rmii.com/~bslatner
My opinions are my own, not those of my discipler.
Catherine Hampton
Bryan Erik Slatner (bsla...@rmi.net) wrote:
: In article <rognmichD...@netcom.com> rogn...@netcom.com
: (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) had the following to say:
: >The word "disciple" though simply means "learner" or student. But
: >it's more than that: it's someone who does not merely learn facts
: >from a teaching, but who actively tries to imitate that teacher.
: Frankly, I feel that the assertion that "disciple" = "imitator" is flawed.
: Can you back that up with scripture and/or some reputable scholarly reference
: to the greek word meaning "disciple"?
disciple = "mathetes"
Liddell & Scott = a learner, pupil, Lat. discipulus: a disciple.
Thayer's = a learner, pupil, disciple: univ., opp. to didaskalos (teacher)
The meaning of the core fragment, "math", is simply "learning". (Yes, our
term "mathematics" comes from this word, but it did not bear this meaning
in classical or koine Greek.) The fragment "math" does not determine how
something is learned, or what is learned. Any such meaning has to come out
of a particular context.
One also has to remember that, while the Gospels were written in Greek, the
original words of Christ to His disciples and others were almost certainly
in Aramic or (occasionally) Hebrew. So the Greek terms used to describe
what was happening are approximations, just as all translations are. Since
we don't have the original Aramic or Hebrew terms, we have to work with what
we have, which is a fairly clear narrative account from several viewpoints
of how Christ taught, and His followers learned. Personally, I don't see much
resemblance between Christ's methods of teaching and that of the ICOC.
This does not in itself mean the ICOC is doing wrong, IMHO. I also often
don't see much external resemblance between what happens in the Book of Acts
and what Christ did, and yet I doubt any of us would question the legitimacy
of the Book of Acts. Unless I miss the point (which is quite possible), the
=principles= Christ and the Apostles taught are the critical issues, not the
teaching methods.
Good teachers and good students can use any of a number of methods. If the
method succeeds in getting the principles of Christ across, it works. If not,
not. And, given a a particular teacher and particular student, one method
may work very well, while another teacher and student will see little success
with it.
My big problem with the ICOC and "discipling" is that, as far as I can tell,
it isn't usually making disciples, if by that you mean mature, faithful
followers of Jesus Christ. I left the discipling movement (not the ICOC --
another branch) largely because I took a good look at the kind of person
I'd become and realized I was getting less and less Christlike. For someone
who wants to follow Christ, that's scary. And, looking around me, I saw
a pattern of the same thing -- people focused on results, on numbers, on
process, and not on Christ, character, and the fruits of the spirit.
To wrap this up, the ICOC hasn't made a case for its kind of discipling on
linguistic grounds. IMHO it hasn't made a case on scriptural grounds,
either. On the other hand, there is nothing in the scriptures that forbids
its methods =if they work=, as far as I can tell. But, IMHO, they don't
appear to be working for most people.
Under His mercy,
Catherine
Scott W. Schreiber
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>I would amend the equation to be "baptized disciple=Christian=saved"
>since this is the group to which Acts 11:26 refers, and eradicates the
>confusion as to the exact point of salvation (Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21)
>which is the moment of baptism and not the decision of discipleship.
Is that so? The "exact point of salvation" is at baptism?
Can you please show me in the Bible where it says that baptism is a
condition of salvation Roger. I have been saying something quite the
opposite (salvation is free...gift of grace...etc) and I would like to
not be ignorant, or teaching a false doctrine.
I was under the impression that if a man believe in his heart that God
raised Jesus from the dead for the fogiveness of sin, and if I confess
with my mouth that Jesus is Lord, then my salvation would be in
effect, and I would undergo a spiritual change and begin my walk with
the Lord.
Mark 16:16
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not
believe will be condemned.
This passage doesn't say "but whoever does not believe, or get
baptized will be condemned", just not beliving.
Luke 7:50
Jesus said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."
He didn't say "Well, you have faith, but now go get baptized."
Acts 16:30
He then brought them out and asked, "Sirs, what must I do to be
saved?"
Acts 16:31
They replied, "Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved--you
and your household."
Romans 10:9
That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in
your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be
saved.
Romans 10:10
For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it
is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
Ephesians 2:5
made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it
is by grace you have been saved.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^
Ephesians 2:8
For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not
from yourselves, it is the gift of God--
I always thought that baptism is something we do because we love Jesus
and are obedient to His teaching and commands, but salvation is a
gift, delivered when you truely accept and believe in Jesus Christ.
In His Love,
Scott
Bart Jones
On Thu, 30 May 1996 22:07:25 GMT, sco...@nhr.com (Scott W. Schreiber)
wrote:
Mt 3:6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.
Notice the combination here.
Mt 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his
baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned
you to flee from the wrath to come?
Mt 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that
cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to
bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire:
This is the baptism of John. It is very related to the
baptism of the NT church, and carried the marks of repentance and
remission of sin. This baptism did not bestow the Holy Spirit,
because Jesus had not yet died and ascended into heaven to send the
Holy Spirit. This is also evidenced in part by the fact that Apollos
had to be rebaptized, as he hadn't received the teaching of or
indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
Mt 3:13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be
baptized of him.
Mt 3:14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of
thee, and comest thou to me?
Sorry 'bout that, but the next verse is where Jesus said for
John to accept it as so for now, because it was fitting for Jesus to
be baptized in order to fulfill all righteousness.
Mt 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of
the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the
Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
Certainly Jesus had no need to repent or for His sins to be
forgiven. So this was either essential for Him as the firstborn of
the Kingdom, or for the purification of the weak nature of the flesh.
Either way, it not seen as optional. Also, this is the point at which
the Holy Spirit entered Him.
Mt 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and
become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of
heaven.
The 'be' is key in 'be converted' and regards the hearer as the
recipient or object of 'converted.' It implies an external influence,
not a self-causation. In other words, it does not say 'unless you
change yourself over' but rather 'unless you let yourself be changed
over.'
Mt 26:28 For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for
many for the remission of sins.
Here we have Jesus saying that His blood is shed for the
remission of sins. Earlier we read that baptism was for the remission
of sins. I think that just as James and Paul don't disagree when one
says that faith without works is dead, and another says that we are
saved by faith, not by works, lest any man should boast.
Mr 1:4 John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of
repentance for the remission of sins.
Mr 1:5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of
Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan,
confessing their sins.
Mr 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you
with the Holy Ghost.
Mr 1:9 And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from
Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized of John in Jordan.
Mr 4:12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they
may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be
converted, and [their] sins should be forgiven them.
Mr 10:38 But Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye
drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism
that I am baptized with?
Mr 10:39 And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them, Ye
shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism
that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized:
Mr 11:30 The baptism of John, was [it] from heaven, or of men? answer
me.
Mr 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that
believeth not shall be damned.
I think this verse is not definitive in any way, but surely
logic will overcome any tendancy to say, 'Well, it only said you would
be damned if you didn't believe,' because we also know from the
conversion of the Ethiopian that where baptism is concerned, 'If you
believe with all your heart, you may' (be baptised). So the only
thing certain expressed by this verse is that a combination of
believing AND baptism are stipulated, while baptism alone AND
believing alone aren't credited anything.
Lu 3:3 And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the
baptism of repentance for the remission of sins;
Lu 3:7 Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of
him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the
wrath to come?
Lu 3:12 Then came also publicans to be baptized, and said unto him,
Master, what shall we do?
Lu 3:16 John answered, saying unto [them] all, I indeed baptize you
with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes
I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost
and with fire:
Okay, here goes a 2 cents worth on immersion. First of all, John
baptized in the river, namely the Jordan. Why? Wouldn't logic tell
you that preaching would be more effective where the people were?
Sprinkling or anointing, pouring, etc...could all be done within the
city with a jug. It was the volume of water that John needed.
Furthermore, baptism, or bapto {bap'-to} to dip, dip in, immerse,
to dip into as in to dye. That is an easy point altogether. Person
means person, goat means goat, tree means tree, so why in the world
didn't King James and the gang save us all a lot of trouble and just
say immerse? Well, there actually is a small reason. He was
perplexed by a dual meaning.
baptizo {bap-tid'-zo} 1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to
submerge (of vessels sunk) 2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to
wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe 3) to
overwhelm.. The clearest example that showsthe meaning of baptizo is a
text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200
B.C. It is a recipe for making pickles and is helpful because it uses
both words. Nicander says that in order to make a pickle, the
vegetable should first be 'dipped' (bapto) into boiling water and then
'baptised' (baptizo) in the vinegar solution. Both verbs concern the
immersing of vegetables in a solution. But the first is temporary. The
second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent
change.
Lu 3:21 Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that
Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,
Lu 7:29 And all the people that heard [him], and the publicans,
justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John.
Lu 7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God
against themselves, being not baptized of him.
Lu 12:50 But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I
straitened till it be accomplished!
I have a change to be changed by?
Lu 20:4 The baptism of John, was it from heaven, or of men?
Lu 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached
in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
For a little help, lets think of how Peter interpreted this:
On the day of Pentecost, Peter stood up, preached, and ended with,
'Repent! And be baptized everyone of you for the remission of your
sins, that you might receive the Holy Spirit.' We have examples of
all three of these being taught and taking place in the first few
chapters of each gospel.
Joh 1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there
standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
Joh 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with
water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit
descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with
the Holy Ghost.
Joh 3:22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land
of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized.
Jesus baptised. This is simply a little looked at and little read
verse.
Joh 3:23 And John also was baptizing in Aenon near to Salim, because
there was much water there: and they came, and were baptized.
Here again is another example of the need for a body of water.
Joh 4:1 When therefore the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that
Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John,
Joh 4:2 (Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples,)
Jesus' disciples are now baptising.
Joh 10:40 And went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John
at first baptized; and there he abode.
Joh 12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that
they should not see with [their] eyes, nor understand with [their]
heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
Ac 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized
with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
Ac 1:22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he
was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of
his resurrection.
This is significant. Here they say that it must be someone who was
with them from the baptism of John. I believe this to be because they
needed the other apostle to be someone who had what I will just call a
different portioon of the Spirit--one that did not come conjunctive
with baptism, but after, such as on Pentecost with the first
indwelling of the Spirit which was bestowed on the Gentiles, or
before, such as the first Gentile outpouring after Cornelius.
Ac 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one
of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye
shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
This one is our favorite. The one that brings it all together under
one roof. This is a direct teaching--not example, event, etc....
This is the culmination of three years of walking with Christ, by one
of His closest disciples, and after 40 days of direct teaching by a
resurrected Savior.
Ac 2:38 Then Peter said unto them,(what?) Repent, (That's all?)and be
baptized (who?)every one of you (how?)in the name of Jesus Christ
(Why?)for the remission of sins, (Anything else?)and ye shall receive
the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Ac 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the
same day there were added [unto them] about three thousand souls.
Another note: From their actions, they *believed* they had to be
baptized.
Ac 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be
blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence
of the Lord;
Peter said this, too. Is he preaching a different gospel already?
No. He is saying exactly the same thing. Repent and BE converted.
Be changed. We're changed through baptism by having our sins
forgiven. We are the recipient and object of baptism, not the doers.
Ac 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand [to be] a Prince and
a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
Ac 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning
the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized,
both men and women.
Why doesn't it just say they believed? Because that is not
enough. Philip preached 'the things concerning the Kingdom of God.'
Certainly baptism was something that concerned the Kingdom. From
their actions, they *believed* they had to be baptized. Like James
says, 'Show me faith without works. I will rather show you my faith
by my works.'
Ac 8:13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he
continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs
which were done.
Ac 8:16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were
baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
The apostles had to come and literally lay their hands on the
Samaritans in order for them to receive the Holy Spirit. This is the
coming of age of the Gentiles. The Samaritans were the offspring of
Jews who intermarried with the Gentiles of the region when the
Promised Land was taken by Israel. They worshipped Jehovah in Jewish
rites and beliefs, but were not considered by the Jews to be Jews,
even though they considered themselves to be Jews. It is fitting that
the gospel was spread to them between the coming of the Holy Spirit on
the pure Jewish believers and the pure Gentile believers.
Ac 8:36 And as they went on [their] way, they came unto a certain
water: and the eunuch said, See, [here is] water; what doth hinder me
to be baptized? From his words, he *believed* he needed to be
baptized. What about faith? I think you could add any of these
conversion stories into Hebrews ch. 11 and say, for example, 'By
faith, xyz was baptized, being taught that this was the way set forth
for the remission of sins.'
Ac 8:38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went
down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized
him.
Philip preached unto him Jesus. The next thing the Ethiopian is
recorded as saying is 'Here's water, why can't I be baptized. Baptism
is a part of preaching Jesus.
Ac 9:18 And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been
scales: and he received sight forthwith, and arose, and was baptized.
Interesting symbolism here: It was only after his blinders were gone
and he could truly see did Paul become baptized.
Ac 10:37 That word, [I say], ye know, which was published throughout
all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John
preached;
Ac 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name
whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
Here is water. Why can't I be baptized? If you believe with all your
heart, you may.' 'I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.'
And he was baptized.
Here again, we only have Jesus' blood and baptism as being named ways
of receiving the remission of sins after Jesus' ascension.
Ac 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized,
which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
These are the fully Gentiles who have been given the Holy Spirit who
are baptized. This is 'the fullness of the Gentiles.'
Ac 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord.
Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Interesting side note: *They* prayed (petitioned) *him* to stay.
Hmmmnnn. Was staying and discipling essential? I think it was good,
but not essential by this example.
Ac 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said,
John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the
Holy Ghost.
Recounting the Gentile baptism. Here they are saying, 'Yes, we *did*
do the right thing by remitting their sins. We were okay in including
them in the harvest (whatever you shall bind on earth....).
Ac 13:24 When John had first preached before his coming the baptism of
repentance to all the people of Israel.
Ac 13:38 Be it known unto you therefore, men [and] brethren, that
through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:
Ac 16:15 And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought
[us], saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come
into my house, and abide [there]. And she constrained us.
Same as before: The converts petitioned the apostles to stay.
Interesting side note: *They* constrained them to stay. Hmmmnnn.
Was staying and discipling essential? I think it was good, but not
essential by this example.
Ac 16:33 And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed
[their] stripes; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.
They saw baptism to be something they needed immediately, just as the
Ethiopian. It was not just an outward sign to show others, otherwise
they would have waited until the next day? Why else the haste if it
was not essential?
Ac 18:8 And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the
Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed,
and were baptized.
Worded as Mark 16:16.
Ac 18:25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being
fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of
the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.
Ac 19:3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And
they said, Unto John's baptism.
Ac 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of
repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on him
which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Ac 19:5 When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of the
Lord Jesus.
Now here is our scriptural example of rebaptism. They didn't know
about the Holy Spirit and they did not know about Jesus. They knew
they were supposed to be baptized for 'the one', but didn't know who
'the one' was. This shows that there are at least some things that
cannot be retroactively learned about baptism. For many, much prayer
and diligence should go into this one.
Ac 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash
away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
In the Greek, be baptized and wash away are imperative (commands)
compound verbs while calling is a participle, thus the -ing. THIS IS
MOST IMPORTANT!!! In Acts 22:7, Jesus talks to Saul. Saul says, 'Who
are you, Lord? I'm Jesus of Nazareth, who you persecute. 'What shall
I do, Lord?' Saul knows it is the Lord. He knows it is Jesus. He
had been listening to this preaching for a while now. He heard the
entirety of Stephen's testimony. He knows as much as all the people
who heard Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost---EXCEPT.
He knows. He believes. Are his sins forgiven? What else is there?
It is in verse 16.
Ac 26:18 To open their eyes, [and] to turn [them] from darkness to
light, and [from] the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive
forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified
by faith that is in me.
Sanctified. That is an important word in the life of a Christian.
But what does it mean? Is it purification? Is it forgiveness of
sins? No. It means 'made holy, and offered to God.' Prepared as an
offering to God. In John, for example, Jesus says He sanctifies
Himself.
Ac 28:27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears
are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should
see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and understand with
[their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
Ro 3:25 Whom God hath set forth [to be] a propitiation through faith
in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins
that are past, through the forbearance of God;
Ro 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus
Christ were baptized into his death?
Ro 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that
like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father,
even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Death, burial, resurrection. It is that--die to yourself, die to your
sinful nature. Those are indeed the most important. But once you
have died, who is to bury you? God is to bury you in baptism. Who
can bury themselves?
*Important Note*: Paul is writing the book of Romans to those who are
already Christians in Rome. Therefore, is this rhetorical when he
asks questions in this book? Actually, you will see that this is
really a 'bible study' if you will. He talks about the entire life
cycle of a Christian in here. He topically covers: man is sinful
without the law and with the law, sin separates us from God, faith is
a turning back to God. This faithful return is allowed only through
Christ. There are two men we can be made after--Jesus or Adam. To be
the spiritual man united with God as Jesus, we must kill the old man,
created like Adam. We die to ourselves and are buried in baptism
(ch.6). We are now free from the bonds of sin. Notice the change in
tone and tense? He is no longer talking about the past, because he is
now addressing their present state. The are in Christ. He says now
that while they are now walking in the spirit, the body still desires
to do that which is carnal. We have the Holy Spirit to strengthen us
and help us fight sin. The law is still relevent to the Christian,
because it teaches us what sin is, but we are no longer bound by it.
The Jews still think that the law is the righteousness of God. BUT,
don't despise them for this or be proud in yourself, because it would
be much easier for God to bring them back to him than it was to bring
Gentiles. The rest is guidance for living humbly and honorably in
Christ, and greeting those in Christ in Rome.
1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye
baptized in the name of Paul?
1Co 1:14 I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and
Gaius;
1Co 1:15 Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.
1Co 1:16 And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I
know not whether I baptized any other.
1Co 1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel:
not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of
none effect.
Baptize here is an infinitive present tense. In other words, Paul is
saying, 'Christ didn't send me to be a baptiser, but a teacher.'
1Co 10:2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether
[we be] Jews or Gentiles, whether [we be] bond or free; and have been
all made to drink into one Spirit.
1Co 15:29 Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if
the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
Ga 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put
on Christ.
Awesome!
Eph 1:7 In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness
of sins, according to the riches of his grace;
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, [even] the
forgiveness of sins:
There is blood again, the other part of the forgiveness of sins.
Col 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with
[him] through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him
from the dead.
*Through the faith of the operation of God, who raised Him from the
dead. ' Just what is said in Romans 6:
Ro 6:4 Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that
like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father,
even so we also should walk in newness of life.
Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and
without shedding of blood is no remission.
Heb 10:18 Now where remission of these [is, there is] no more offering
for sin.
1Pe 3:21 The like figure whereunto [even] baptism doth also now save
us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of
a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ:
This is talking about the sinfulness of the earth in the days of Noah.
God purified the earth of the evil of man, redeeming Noah and his
family. Peter draws a direct comparison to this when he says that
baptism now saves us. This again is the same Peter that preached on
the day of Pentecost. And notice that he also tells where the power
of baptism is: why? the (eperotema-demand, intense desire) of a good
conscience toward God, and how? By the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Not the blood, the resurrection. Romans 6 again.
We have been given more verses about baptism, and what it is, and what
it is for, and where it gets its power, and what it is symbolic of and
where it was given, and who got it, etc...than of most topics in the
bible. My comments aren't intended to be necessary in any manner. I
just point out a few things to think about or ask yourself when
studying. I am in no way trying to be exhaustive in my comments or
quotations, though I got quite a few in.
As you can probably tell, I do believe in the necessity of baptism.
However, I believe much accompanyment(?) is required: Knowing Jesus
and who he was. Knowing how and why He died-for our sins. Knowing
what sin is, and what it does to our relationship with God. Knowing
that there is a God who created us and all things for a reason, and
that before we have a life in Christ, we are living contrary to that
reason. A sincere desire for our life to be what God really intended
for it to be. Knowing that Jesus died that we might have life, and
have it more abundantly. Knowing that life as a Christian is not
easy--what life is? And knowing that all of what we know of God,
Jesus, the church and eternity is good news (gospel)! And that
Christianity is single in purpose--it is about healing.
Peace,
Bart
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
bjo...@jvcdiscusa.com wrote:
: In article <rognmichD...@netcom.com>, rogn...@netcom.com says...
: >
: >: rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
: >
: >: It is not 'only disciples are baptized',
: >: it is 'penitent sinners submerge, reborn disciples emerge.'
: >: That is the pattern.
: > rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
: >This is a good question about the "disciple=Christian=saved" equation
: >that has come up a couple of times before on this newsgroup.
: >
: >Acts 11:26 refers to the church in Antioch, people who individually had
: >simply been called "disciples" and now began to be called this new name
: >"Christian" which surely would never catch on to describe believers of
: >Jesus since it was such an insult. A bunch of little Christs running
: >around, brainwashing zombies and trained seals hanging the every word of
: >their "Messiah".
: WHERE IN THE WORLD DID ALL THAT COME FROM? NOWHERE in God's word does it even
: give a HINT of ANY of that! That is false doctrine, and has no place in any
: church. Do you realize that the apostle Peter calls us Christians in the NT?
: Roger, I realize that (apparently the reason stated above) the ICC prefers the term
: disciple over that of Christian. That is your right. However, I think it actually
: serves to give the appearance of being some elevated form of Christian. It is
: not. If Peter is willing to call us Christians, so am I. A disciple. Of what?
"So many people were talking about Christ in Antioch that their presence
was felt by the populace, who coined the nick-name 'Christians', i.e.
'Christ's men'. In early times this name was mainly used by outsiders or
by enemies (Acts 26:28, 1 Pet 4:16)". [International Bible Commentary,
ed. F.F. Bruce]
The usage by Peter in his letter was in connection with persecution. It
is not false doctrine, it is an established historical fact. Christian
appears only 3 times in the NT while disciple occurs 273 times. Jesus
never used the word "Christian", nor is there a comprehensive definition
of it in the Bible. Hence the "discipleship" study rather than the
"Christianity" study.
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
: >I would amend the equation to be "baptized disciple=Christian=saved"
: >since this is the group to which Acts 11:26 refers, and eradicates the
: >confusion as to the exact point of salvation (Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21)
: >which is the moment of baptism and not the decision of discipleship.
: Is that so? The "exact point of salvation" is at baptism?
: Can you please show me in the Bible where it says that baptism is a
: condition of salvation Roger. I have been saying something quite the
: opposite (salvation is free...gift of grace...etc) and I would like to
: not be ignorant, or teaching a false doctrine.
Salvation is free, and is gift of grace, etc. No dispute there. The
same God that wrote Romans 10:9, John 3:16, and Ephesians 2:8-10 also
wrote Acts 2:38, Romans 6:1-10, 1 Peter 3:21, and Acts 22:16 which
discuss what the purpose of baptism is, that it is participation in
Jesus's death, burial, and resurrection.
Bart listed out all the baptism verses; the ones above are the main ones
used to explain what baptism is and why it is important, and are
sufficient to refute the easy objections ("What about the thief on the
cross?").
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
: In article <rognmichD...@netcom.com> rogn...@netcom.com
: (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) had the following to say:
: >The word "disciple" though simply means "learner" or student. But
: >it's more than that: it's someone who does not merely learn facts
: >from a teaching, but who actively tries to imitate that teacher.
: Frankly, I feel that the assertion that "disciple" = "imitator" is flawed.
: Can you back that up with scripture and/or some reputable scholarly reference
: to the greek word meaning "disciple"?
"A disciple was not only a pupil, but an adherent; hence they are spoken
of as imitators of their teacher; cp John 8:31, 15:8" [Expanded Vine's
Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, 'mathetes' (disciple), p. 308]
: >The policy I see in the
: >Bible is that they assumed you weren't a disciple and hadn't repented
: >until you proved otherwise by your life (Paul, Apollos, Gentiles Paul
: >preached to, Ephesian disciples, etc.)
: Fair enough...but *where* do you see this policy in the Bible? Can you show
: me a passage in which *another human being* makes the judgement as to whether
: or not someone is ready and/or not ready for baptism?
Acts 2:41 says that those who accepted Peter's message were baptized.
Not everyone who wanted to be baptized; only those who accepted his message.
Acts 8:37 says "Phillip said, 'If you believe with all your heart, you may?'"
This is in "some late manuscripts" says the NIV so if you want to dispute
it on those grounds, that's up to you.
Acts 22:16 has Ananias approaching Paul. Paul was sitting there.
Waiting. Reflecting. Playing solitaire tic-tac-toe in the sand. I
dunno. But he wasn't getting baptized. Ananias came up and TOLD HIM to
get baptized.
: How can, in your words,
: "us mortals" make such a judgement? Do you honestly think that God would give
: an arbitrary and capricious human being the power to *deny salvation* to
: someone? To think that is *absurd!*
Like it or not, the Scriptures command that we "be baptized". You can't
baptize yourself. Did the early disciples just baptize anything that
moved? Or did they only baptize disciples, like Jesus taught in Matthew
28:19? I don't know, I wasn't there, but I don't think their reasoning
was necessarily arbitrary and capricious, but to preserve the sanctity
of Christ's church. My experience in the ICC is that only disciples are
baptized.
Bryan Erik Slatner
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In article <rognmich...@netcom.com> rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle
Poehlmann) had the following to say:
>"A disciple was not only a pupil, but an adherent; hence they are spoken
>of as imitators of their teacher; cp John 8:31, 15:8" [Expanded Vine's
>Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, 'mathetes' (disciple), p. 308]
Okay, fair enough. I wasn't sure as to whether or not the word "mathetes"
carried with it the concept of an "imitator." I'm glad to finally have that
issue put to rest.
I suppose, knowing that at least one scholarly references considers imitation
of one's teacher a part of the definition of "disciple" that we must consider
the question of *who* to imitate. The definition states that the disciples
are imitators of their teacher." Who is their teacher, ultimately? Christ, of
course...and the Holy Spirit.
Now, I suppose you could make a case that one's "discipler" is one's
"teacher" and, as such, is to be imitated. However, the big difference
between a "discipler" or a "zone leader" or a "lead evangelist" and Christ is
that I *choose* Christ as my Lord and my teacher...I do *not* choose my
discipler, or my zone leader, or my lead evangelist. When I was baptized, it
was because I had *chosen* to follow Christ. Does following Christ mean that
one is *implicitly* following human authority?
>: Fair enough...but *where* do you see this policy in the Bible? Can you show
>: me a passage in which *another human being* makes the judgement as to
whether
>: or not someone is ready and/or not ready for baptism?
>
>Acts 2:41 says that those who accepted Peter's message were baptized.
>Not everyone who wanted to be baptized; only those who accepted his message.
Yes, but it does *not* say that Peter determined who had accepted his message
and decided to baptize those people. As such, this scripture does not answer
my question.
>Acts 8:37 says "Phillip said, 'If you believe with all your heart, you may?'"
>This is in "some late manuscripts" says the NIV so if you want to dispute
>it on those grounds, that's up to you.
Well, I won't dispute it on those grounds. I will, however, point out that we
shouldn't base a practice or doctrine on a scripture that may be disputable.
We should find other passages to back it up.
>Acts 22:16 has Ananias approaching Paul. Paul was sitting there.
>Waiting. Reflecting. Playing solitaire tic-tac-toe in the sand. I
>dunno. But he wasn't getting baptized. Ananias came up and TOLD HIM to
>get baptized.
Yes, but I'm hard pressed to see how this answers my question? Even if you go
with the theory that Ananias "decided" that Paul was ready for baptism, you
have to take into account the Jesus himself visited Ananias and told him to
go to Paul. He said that Paul was his chosen instrument to bring the Gospel
to the Gentiles. I myself believe, like C.S. Lewis, that it is "wicked
arrogance" to pass judgement on whether someone is or is not a Christian, or
is or is not a servant of God, but I am willing to make an exception for
those times when Christ himself comes to me and tells me about somebody :)
>Like it or not, the Scriptures command that we "be baptized".
I agree with you. I am not in *any* way arguing against baptism itself. I am
arguing that it is downright unbiblical for a human being to determine
whether or not someone is "ready" for baptism.
>baptize yourself. Did the early disciples just baptize anything that
>moved? Or did they only baptize disciples, like Jesus taught in Matthew
>28:19?
I suspect that the truth lies somewhere between the two extremes you have
mentioned.
Moreoever, Matthew 28:19 *does not* teach that we baptize only disciples! It
says "Go and make disciples...baptizing them...and teaching them..." In the
Greek, "Go and make disciples" is one word...and that word is a *verb*. The
two participles "baptizing" and "teaching" *modify* the verb, they do not
describe the order in which things are done. A participles describes *how* an
action is accomplished, not the sequence of events leading up to the action.
An example I heard from Rick Bauer goes something like: "Therefore go and
make popsicles out of the water, flavoring it and freezing it..." Do we
flavor only popsicles? Do we freeze only flavored popsicles? No, we
*accomplish* the task of making popsicles by flavoring water and freezing it.
Similarly, we accomplish the task of making disciples by baptizing them and
teaching them to obey everything Jesus commanded.
>I don't know, I wasn't there, but I don't think their reasoning
>was necessarily arbitrary and capricious, but to preserve the sanctity
>of Christ's church. My experience in the ICC is that only disciples are
>baptized.
That's my experience in the ICC, too...but that doesn't necessarily make it
*right.* Frankly, Roger, if the definition of one who is a Christian is a
person who *became* a disciple, and then was baptized, then Kip McKean is not
a Christian, as he defines a Christian. Kip has told his conversion story on
more than one occassion and if he is to be believed, then he was not a
"disciple" before baptism. Kip admits to being a "lousy" baby Christian
(i.e., for the two years following his baptism). He admits to missing lots of
services, to not having his quiet times, to not tithing, and so on.
Tell me: if I send you a copy of Jerry Jones's "What Does The Boston Movement
Teach Volume III" (which describes the above in detail) as a gift, will you
read it? I understand that you might not want me to have your address, so I
can send it "general delivery" if necessary.
Love in Christ,
Bryan
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 4.0 Personal Edition
iQEVAgUBMbegqY2thMkRBmL3AQFcrQf/cmeRIDwU+ywLeRr+wY0uUgOeEgFWIiDa
bteddLlVfOizZf4POwKnVD+/VaQ1Qa1IPgyEkVLOrO2dBcHhJuEcKBOcRh1XyA6a
mMlly27padiLHIdg96/FtkLqexrlpq6rXiFq1fE2aRo8BrM0AUZ2YUt9TIcNTJMi
Gj/UUZGl3UoN2dluaUNB4cz3qCsV0rVMJiw2vwRLXVY2WVWTv6f8l9sEG/Tw3Oci
K3z8U+s/jh0PRwF31dXQnExZe2LdbhY27RDWL+J6HATqjathO8MP/Aez5wuj3tPl
RqYgLWRouhpQspAMYSVmyei2/Lj5376FKLr6KsJhec2t0p1NFFGeqw==
=l5rB
R.L.Measures
> Salvation is free, and is gift of grace, etc. No dispute there.
With members of 'God's Kingdom' forking over around 20% of gross,
salvation hardly seems free.
--Rich--
DAnder9518
>: Can you please show me in the Bible where it says that baptism is a
>: condition of salvation Roger. I have been saying something quite the
>: opposite (salvation is free...gift of grace...etc) and I would like to
>: not be ignorant, or teaching a false doctrine.
>
>Salvation is free, and is gift of grace, etc. No dispute there. The
>same God that wrote Romans 10:9, John 3:16, and Ephesians 2:8-10 also
>wrote Acts 2:38, Romans 6:1-10, 1 Peter 3:21, and Acts 22:16 which
>discuss what the purpose of baptism is, that it is participation in
>Jesus's death, burial, and resurrection.
Roger, I'm curious which verse SAYS that baptism is an *actual*
participation in Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection (versus a
*symbolic* one)? The Bible uses symbolic language all over the place; it
is not a flying inductive leap to suggest that the Bible might also speak
about *baptism* in symbolic terms.
>Bart listed out all the baptism verses; the ones above are the main ones
>used to explain what baptism is and why it is important, and are
>sufficient to refute the easy objections ("What about the thief on the
>cross?").
Key word in the above paragraph = "used". Scriptures are USED by the ICC
to show that recruits are in need of an ICC baptism. "All Scripture is
useful. . ." but not every *use* of Scripture is correct.
----->Dave
Jani A Heinonen
>of Christ's church. My experience in the ICC is that only disciples are
>baptized.
Let's consider:
a. Disciple=Christian=Saved
b. to be saved, you need to be baptized
c. to be baptized, you need to be a disciple
Where does that leave you?
--
Jani Heinonen A wanna-be (al)chemist at
jzhe...@rock.helsinki.fi the University of Helsinki
DAnder9518
In article <rognmich...@netcom.com>, rogn...@netcom.com
(Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) writes:
>The usage by Peter in his letter was in connection with persecution. It
>is not false doctrine, it is an established historical fact. Christian
>appears only 3 times in the NT while disciple occurs 273 times. Jesus
>never used the word "Christian", nor is there a comprehensive definition
>of it in the Bible. Hence the "discipleship" study rather than the
>"Christianity" study.
But then there's evidence the ICC is hung up on the word "disciple" in a
way that is COMPLETELY FOREIGN to the New Testament church: In the 22
epistles (letters) of the New Testament, the word "disciple" is used a
grand total of ZERO TIMES. ZIPPO.
Now, if using the word "disciple" is so *crucial* to being a follower of
Christ, then don't you think Paul would have used the word once in a
while?
--->Dave
Clayton Lane
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann (rogn...@netcom.com) wrote: [snip]
: never used the word "Christian", nor is there a comprehensive definition
: "Christianity" study.
Chris Reed (lead evangelist of the Philadelphia Church of Christ & Student
Zone leader) used to tell us that, "'Discipleship' is really a misnomer.
The real title should be 'Are you a Christian?' because that's what the
real point of the study is."
Clayton
bjo...@jvcdiscusa.com
On Thu, 6 Jun 1996 12:45:36 GMT, rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>: >The policy I see in the
>: >Bible is that they assumed you weren't a disciple and hadn't repented
>: >until you proved otherwise by your life (Paul, Apollos, Gentiles Paul
>: >preached to, Ephesian disciples, etc.)
>Bryan Erik Slatner (bsla...@rmi.net) wrote:
>: Fair enough...but *where* do you see this policy in the Bible? Can you show
>: me a passage in which *another human being* makes the judgement as to whether
>: or not someone is ready and/or not ready for baptism?
Actually, one of the few places this is talked about is indirectly, when
Jesus tells Peter that he will be given the keys to the kingdom, and that
'whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.' Some denoms have
misused this verse as saying that whatever rules Peter bound on the earthly
part of the kingdom would be bound on the heavenly part of the kingdom.
Notice, however, that this follows Peter's recognition of Jesus as the Christ,
and also is always mentioned in close proximity to the parable of the soils,
and in no way adds qualifiers to 'binding.' I think this in no way implies
that Jesus wanted people left out.
'Kill 'em all, and let God sort 'em out!' ? Or 'The Few, the Proud,
the Self-Selected Few.' These are the extremes. I prefer to be in
the middle of this and fight off both these extremes.
You know what? Being born again is an analogy. It talks of being
'babes in Christ.' It talks of the 'new man.' It includes water,
as does natural birth. So why not look at the whole birth process?
A seed is sown, the word of God (excuse what needs it)
(insemination=to sow - Webster's) ,
it is believed (received) (conception - to cause to begin; to be pregnant
with - Webster's),
it produces faith and repentance (pregnant-adjective ;origin: Fr.
preindre - to press [Press- a crowded condition] Webster's) What
a great analogy! At this point, both the spiritual seed and the carnal
seed are in the same space. Who will win? Will it be faith?) Will this
pregnancy go to term? If so,
it is concluded with baptism into death, and emergence into newness of
life (birth - the emergence of a new individual from the womb of its parent
[our spiritual mother, the Church-- see Galatians ch.4), then it is a new
person (baby, babe in Christ), and then milk from the mother, then honey
(bible-time custom) then solid food, then meat - growth and maturity occurs
in measurable ways from then on until ....
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>Acts 2:41 says that those who accepted Peter's message were baptized.
>Not everyone who wanted to be baptized; only those who accepted his message.
If they didn't believe, why would they WANT to be baptized? To go for the
ride? Hadn't bathed that week? Wanted to challenge Peter to a swimming
race once they were in the water? :- )
>Acts 8:37 says "Phillip said, 'If you believe with all your heart, you may?'"
>This is in "some late manuscripts" says the NIV so if you want to dispute
>it on those grounds, that's up to you.
If he didn't believe, why would he WANT to be baptized?
>Acts 22:16 has Ananias approaching Paul. Paul was sitting there.
>Waiting. Reflecting. Playing solitaire tic-tac-toe in the sand. I
>dunno. But he wasn't getting baptized. Ananias came up and TOLD HIM to
>get baptized.
No, Jesus was the one who played tic-tac-toe in the sand, while others were
accusing the adulterous woman. :- )
And of course, Paul wasn't getting baptized: 1)he hadn't heard the gospel,
2)he couldn't baptize himself, and 3)Jesus told him Ananias would tell him
what he needed to do (since he didn't already know) (Acts 22:10). But note,
Ananias explained to him the revelation of Jesus, Paul accepted this and arose
and was baptized. So is being a disciple BEFORE baptism exhibited in the act
of believing? Of of going to the water? Or of being baptized? Or of
coming out of the water? These are common to those examples.
Bryan Erik Slatner (bsla...@rmi.net) wrote:
>: How can, in your words,
>: "us mortals" make such a judgement? Do you honestly think that God would give
>: an arbitrary and capricious human being the power to *deny salvation* to
>: someone? To think that is *absurd!*
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>Like it or not, the Scriptures command that we "be baptized". You can't
>baptize yourself. Did the early disciples just baptize anything that
>moved? Or did they only baptize disciples, like Jesus taught in Matthew
>28:19?
No, they made disciples by teaching them and baptizing them for the remission
of their sins, allowing God to seal them with His Spirit. They went after
lost sheep, pointed them in the right direction, then tended and fed them
once they were a part of the flock of sheep and lambs. Christ suffered
and rose on the third day: and repentance and remission of sins should
therefore be preached among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. Then
Jesus told Peter what manner of death he was to die, and Jesus said to Peter,
'Follow me.' Peter then asked Jesus about John, and Jesus said 'If I will
that he tarry till I come, what is that to you? You follow ME.'
>I don't know, I wasn't there, but I don't think their reasoning
>was necessarily arbitrary and capricious, but to preserve the sanctity
>of Christ's church. My experience in the ICC is that only disciples are
>baptized.
>Roger Poehlmann
>member, SF Church of Christ
>(International Church of Christ)
Scripturally, that statement is true--since you are only a Christian/disciple
if you have been baptized, yes...only disciples are baptized. But to say
that Christian=disciple=saved, then to say that only disciples are candidates
for baptism is to say that 'only those who are baptized can be allowed to be
baptized.' That explains nothing except rebaptisms. :-)
Bart
bjo...@jvcdiscusa.com
On 5 Jun 1996 12:10:17 GMT, RICK & SARAH BAUER <rgb...@umd5.umd.edu> wrote:
>n1...@usa.pipeline.com(Nancy) wrote:
>>
>> One of the things they've done in Boston, is to rearrange the regions and
>> sectors. For instance, Portland Me and I think Manchester NH are now in the
>> North region of the Boston church. Last fall the church went through a
>> major rearrangement.
>> nancy
>
>This is one way that the Boston church *appears* to be growing.
>I would call it "padding the stats."
>
>Boston did this back in the mid 80's. They would publish rebaptisms
>as baptisms. The baptism stat was tremendous, but the membership
>stat was not showing an increase, because they were rebaptizing
>current members already counted in the "membership" stat.
Don't you know why? You can only baptize disciples! :-)
>"Members in Boston increased from 3050 to 3600...Note: We did take
>in the disciples in Providence and Springfield, which represents
>almost the same number of disciples that moved away from the Boston
>area in 1991...Baptized 900 in '91." Boston Bulletin - 1/19/92
>
>Do the math! :)
>
>Boston also reports including Rhode Island Zone in membership stats
>in 12/15/91 Boston Bulletin.
>
>According to Boston Bulletin stats, Providence membership was close
>to 400 and Springfield was close to 100.
>
>Included as "Sector Churches" within the Boston stats - "sector
>churches *officially* part of the Boston church, Providence, Nashua/
>Manchester, Worcester, Portsmouth, NH, Groton/New London, CT."....
>"Members from 3050 to 3555, includes 1100 move aways; 350 move ins
>from Providence and Springfield and 750 fallaways from a *one time*
>pruning of the fringe build-up." Congregational Meeting Handout 1/95
>
>It has also been Kip's practice to do this same type of "padding"
>in LA. Indianapolis was required to send a certain about of people
>to LA, as were other ICC congregations. Literally, thousands of
>members in LA are "move ins" from other churches. Kip has especially
>"padded" the leadership, to create the "Super church."
>
>Sarah
Note: Some have said that Boston slowed its growth after Kip left and went to L.A. This is not backed up by the 'math.'
Bart
bjo...@jvcdiscusa.com
On 5 Jun 1996 21:31:31 GMT, Chris Garland <chr...@village.ios.com> wrote:
>Cyberperk <cybe...@cyberperk.com> wrote:
>>Now you can confess your sins right from the comfort of your own home,
>>and enter the kingdom of Heaven. Connect to:
>>
>> www.cyberperk.com/confess/confess.htm
>>
>>and be absolved of all thy sins....
>
>
>This was an amusing web site! However...beware... for your absolution
>they send you something to download. My version of Netscape couldn't
>handle whatever it was and crashed, so I don't know what they send! If
>anyone finds out, please let me know.
>
Maybe it's the Holy Hand Grenade!!!! Sorry 'bout that. :-)
Bart
bjo...@jvcdiscusa.com
On 7 Jun 1996 20:39:46 GMT, Chris Garland <chr...@village.ios.com> filled with love, said:
>Todd Wilson <twi...@mindscape.com> wrote:
>>Chris Garland wrote:
>>>
>>> rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>>> >bjo...@jvcdiscusa.com wrote:
>>> >: In article <31A68D...@pop.interaccess.com>, Frank says...
>>> >: >
>>> >: >What!?
>>> >: > You are comparing Communism with Christianity? Are you insane?
>>> >: >Communism has failed. Also those people who live in communist countries
>>> >: >are not communist by choice. I would say that they were taken captive,
>>> >: >not converted.
>>> >: >
>>> >: >-Paul
>>> >
>>> >: Well, you didn't quote any of the original message, so I will only assume this
>>> >: was directed at a statement about GROWTH. I never compared the ICC to communism,
>>> >: I simply stated, which your post affirms, that growth does not equate godliness,
>>> >: since communism has experienced incredible growth. Thank you for agreeing with
>>> >: me.
>>> >
>>> >I'd agree wholeheartedly that growth does not equate to godliness.
>>> >Growth is simply one aspect of the New Testament church which appears
>>> >time and time again in the book of Acts. So does love, faith, grace,
>>> >etc. but you can't tell that the ICC has 493,000 gallons of grace, 650
>>> >psi of faith, and 0.00 Joules of grace (since we are saved by grace, not
>>> >by works, lest any man should boast). You can, however, observe, that 30
>>> >people in the Gempels' living room have multiplied into 120,000+ church
>>> >attendances in congregations spanning the globe since 1979.
>>> >
>>> >Growth isn't everything. But lack of growth does say something. It says
>>> >something is terribly wrong.
>>>
>>> Then, by your own words, something is terribly terribly wrong with the
>>> New York City Church of Christ, because it hasn't grown in the 5 years
>>> I've been exposed to it.
>>
>>My experience in New York was much different. The attendance at the
>>first service I attended in 1987 was 1,500. Last year the New York
>>church began hitting the 10,000 mark in Sunday attendance. Sounds like
>>growth to me. I've been in San Francisco for a year now, but still keep
>>up with several friends in NY and they seem convinced that the growth
>>continues.
>>
>>Todd
>
>Furthermore, attendance and membership are not the same thing.
>
And Islam started with just one man - Muhammed, in a cave.
Bart
bjo...@jvcdiscusa.com
On Thu, 6 Jun 1996 12:32:49 GMT, rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>bjo...@jvcdiscusa.com wrote:
>: In article <rognmichD...@netcom.com>, rogn...@netcom.com says...
>: >
>
>: >: rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>: >
>: >: It is not 'only disciples are baptized',
>: >: it is 'penitent sinners submerge, reborn disciples emerge.'
>: >: That is the pattern.
>
>: > rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>
>: >This is a good question about the "disciple=Christian=saved" equation
>: >that has come up a couple of times before on this newsgroup.
>: >
>: >Acts 11:26 refers to the church in Antioch, people who individually had
>: >simply been called "disciples" and now began to be called this new name
>: >"Christian" which surely would never catch on to describe believers of
>: >Jesus since it was such an insult. A bunch of little Christs running
>: >around, brainwashing zombies and trained seals hanging the every word of
>: >their "Messiah".
>
>: WHERE IN THE WORLD DID ALL THAT COME FROM? NOWHERE in God's word does it even
>: give a HINT of ANY of that! That is false doctrine, and has no place in any
>: church. Do you realize that the apostle Peter calls us Christians in the NT?
>
>: Roger, I realize that (apparently the reason stated above) the ICC prefers the term
>: disciple over that of Christian. That is your right. However, I think it actually
>: serves to give the appearance of being some elevated form of Christian. It is
>: not. If Peter is willing to call us Christians, so am I. A disciple. Of what?
>
>"So many people were talking about Christ in Antioch that their presence
>was felt by the populace, who coined the nick-name 'Christians', i.e.
>'Christ's men'. In early times this name was mainly used by outsiders or
>by enemies (Acts 26:28, 1 Pet 4:16)". [International Bible Commentary,
>ed. F.F. Bruce]
>
>The usage by Peter in his letter was in connection with persecution. It
>is not false doctrine, it is an established historical fact. Christian
>appears only 3 times in the NT while disciple occurs 273 times. Jesus
>never used the word "Christian", nor is there a comprehensive definition
>of it in the Bible. Hence the "discipleship" study rather than the
>"Christianity" study.
>
>Roger Poehlmann
>member, SF Church of Christ
>(International Church of Christ)
>
So where does a 'bunch of little Christs' 'running around, brainwashed zombies and trained seals hanging the every word' of their 'Messiah' come into the equation? And as for the fact that 'it would never catch on', well actually, it did.
Additionally, I think the last part of my statement is misrepresented if the statement which originally followed it is not included, which read,
If Peter is willing to call us Christians, so am I. A disciple. Of what?
Plato, Socrates, and on and on ... were ALL disciples. But of what?
What is the deal?
The following are from my original message on 25 May, 1996:
Roger, I want to ask you what you think about this:
I go to work and restore cars, stripping them down and rebuilding them:
renewing their bodies to their original condition: and I am there to work
on them, even on Saturday.
What is the order of the events here? Do I restore them, then strip them,
then rebuild them, then renew them?
I very seriously believe teaching that people are disciples before they
are baptized, and that they must be bearing the fruits of a disciple before
baptism is heresy in its truest sense of the word. When is a college student
considered taught? When he is still in school? No! When he has received his
degree. So can someone truly be a disciple before they have repented? No.
Can they be a disciple before they have believed? No, no! Can someone be
a disciple before they have taken up their cross and followed Jesus? No,no,
no! Can someone be a disciple before they have been cleansed? Absolutely not!
For example, whether Jesus meant the serving or the washing, he told Peter,
'What I do now you don't presently understand; but you will
know hereafter.... If I don't wash you, you have no part in Me. Whether
it was His service, or of His washing, it does not matter. Neither were
completed until Jesus was crucified, and resurrected. Both made us complete
IN Him. Baptism is where we come in contact with His blood that cleanses us,
and it is there that He served us, paying the price for our sins. So we are
not disciples until we take part in that as well. It is not until we take
part in His death that we are made alive again with and in Him.
So, if disciple=Christian=saved, then someone who is a disciple is
ALREADY baptized. Or does that equation say that we are saved first,
then baptized? I know that is not a scriptural teaching. It cannot
say both.
Additionally, my post on 29 May, 1996, the post you respond to above,
> rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>The word "disciple" though simply means "learner" or student. But
>it's more than that: it's someone who does not merely learn facts
>from a teaching, but who actively tries to imitate that teacher.
Roger, I want to ask you what you think about this:
How true. Understand that the overwhelming majority of career choices in
the world then, as many now, were carried out through apprenticeships.
Apprenticeships came from trades, discipleship from 'higher' learning,
whether religious, philosophical, or whatever. If a carpenter, you learned
from a carpenter, if a stonemason, from a stonemason. However, you were
considered an apprentice or disciple when? Once you first started to train.
You didn't achieve the rank of apprentice or disciple after having first
worked x number of days, or a disciple after first studying x number of hours.
Once you began to learn, you were a disciple or an apprentice.
> rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>as some disciples of Jesus turned back when they learned some "hard
>teachings" (John 6:60-66) and others ran off when they saw Jesus do some
>things they were unwilling to do
Roger, I want to ask you what you think about this:
As some *what* turned back? Some disciples. The START of that learning
IS to be a disciple. While one can CONTINUE or DISCONTINUE being a disciple,
to merely start is to be a disciple.
>: rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>(Luke 9:57-62) it is necessary to teach
>the "student" about Christianity and make sure he knows what he's getting
>into: repentance, evangelism, persecution, lifelong commitment, etc. It
>may be that the "disciple" draws a line in the sand and says, "Look, I'm
>just not going to move out, my girlfriend and I love each other and I
>think it's OK that we live together. I think God understands." Well,
>then there's a problem with that person being unwilling to be a disciple
>of Jesus in that area. If I can turn to a Scripture and the baptism
>candidate says, "No way, I won't follow that, I don't care if the Bible
>says that, I'm not doing it" then he's not a disciple.
Roger, I want to ask you what you think about this:
Then he chooses to NO LONGER be a disciple if he decides to leave. It doesn't
say he never was. Don't you understand that trying to make a big deal and
mincing words that way is not only puffery, but also divisive? It is almost
as inane as the presbyterians deciding they needed to split from the other
wesleyans over predestination?
>: rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>Once the person understands what a disciple is and wants to go for it
>(and repents, obviously, Acts 2:38), then he's baptized. However, since
>some people study quite a ways through before hitting a snag, it's hard
>for us mortals to make judgments on people.
Roger, I want to ask you what you think about this:
This needs no distinction, because even those who believe in the false teaching
that you 'pray Jesus into your heart' acknowledge that you die to yourself,
giving up the sins of your 'former' life. To repent is a measure of direction,
not of ANY movement in the other direction, which is impossible before baptism.
It is the Holy Spirit which empowers our heart, mind and soul's struggle with
the flesh.
>: rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>The policy I see in the
>Bible is that they assumed you weren't a disciple and hadn't repented
>until you proved otherwise by your life (Paul, Apollos, Gentiles Paul
>preached to, Ephesian disciples, etc.)
Roger, I want to ask you what you think about this:
That is a false teaching. It is supported nowhere in the bible.They were
disciples who had sin in their lives. Do you not realize that Paul wrote
his letter to THE SAINTS who were in Ephesus and to the faithful in Christ
Jesus? So does their sin exclude them then from being disciples? No,
otherwise we would not have disfellowships, but more importantly encouragement,
nor correction, nor exhortation, nor rebuking (a list of which each of us has
our favorite).
You can't say, 'Get rid of your sin, then we'll baptize you.' It's a form of
godliness, but denies the power of the Holy Spirit in guidance and over sin.
Once you start down that road, where do you end? 'Well, he quit drinking,
but he occasionally swears.' 'Well, we'll give him three weeks of no cussing,
then we'll baptize him. He didn't cuss in the last two weeks, but he lusted
in his mind and masturbated.' Okay, just two more weeks of cussing, and 4
weeks of no self-gratification, and then...' 'Or two hail Marys and three
guests at bible talk, and....' I don't mean that sarcastically, but rather
as a look down the road that others have travelled down.
>: rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>I would amend the equation to be "baptized disciple=Christian=saved"
>since this is the group to which Acts 11:26 refers, and eradicates the
>confusion as to the exact point of salvation (Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21)
>which is the moment of baptism and not the decision of discipleship.
Roger, I want to ask you what you think about this:
Roger, for all the fuss, you are saying the ICC teaches:
bjo...@jvcdiscusa.com
Disclaimer: 1)This post contains real definitions of words which may
be offensive to some. This post is not made as an exercise in offense, but an
exercise in the sharing in truth. Please take it in the manner in which it was
intended.
Disclaimer #2)It is longwinded. It has been a slow day.
On Fri, 07 Jun 1996 23:12:08 GMT, sco...@nhr.com (Scott W. Schreiber) filled
with love, said:
>I was just curious...... It never really dawned on me untill
>recently, but I was wondering how many people thought about it when
>someone posted the translation of ecclesia. They said it meant to be
>called out of "their" houses, as to an assembly.
>
>I know (from experience with a disciple) that at least he thinks of it
>in terms of todays slang ex: "I'm callin' you out on that one!"
>
>I guess what I'm trying to say is that, due to their not needing any
>higher education (as per Roger and others), they misuse a word that
>could just as easily apply to the local chapter of Hell's Angels to
>mean their own special challenge....?
>
>Does that make sense? I got a chuckle out of it when it hit me...
>
>Scott
>
Yeah, I think I was the one who posted that, and you're right. Again,
'Ekklesia' means those called out of their houses as to an assembly.
Its common usage emphasized the assembly or gathering of people
together, rather than an identifier of an individual of that crowd or
an identifier of an individual in reference to where he lives. i.e,
'to be called out' says nothing about what that person is called out
of, as many spurriously imply. Note that the non-believers who
gathered in the theatre in Ephesus were called ekklesia, but were
certainly not Christians, as they began to cry out 'great is Diana of
the Ephesians.'
The same thing with the word mathetes. I like the fact which Dave pointed out:
>dande...@aol.com (DAnder9518) wrote:
>But then there's evidence the ICC is hung up on the word "disciple" in a
>way that is COMPLETELY FOREIGN to the New Testament church: In the 22
>epistles (letters) of the New Testament, the word "disciple" is used a
>grand total of ZERO TIMES. ZIPPO.
>
>Now, if using the word "disciple" is so *crucial* to being a follower of
>Christ, then don't you think Paul would have used the word once in a
>while?
>
>--->Dave
>dande...@aol.com (DAnder9518) wrote:
>Thanks, Bryan, for saying that! I've been trying to put my finger on this
>for quite a while.
>That's exactly what's going on: The student is initially given a very
>generic definition (church = ecclesia / "the called out") which is
>innately non-organizational -- i.e. according to this definition, "the
>church" is not so much an organization as a *category* of people who are
>believers.
>But then, towards the end of the Kingdom Study, Acts 2:42-47 is used to
>point out several characteristics of the early church (ecclesia/"called
>out"/believers): the believers were devoted to fellowship, prayer, they
>met together daily, and they grew. Then suddenly, the word "church" is
>applied in a sense which is specific to the organization: The ICC = The
>Kingdom of God, because the ICC shares these characteristics with the
>early church (ecclesia).
>But the logic is not sound -- a subtle in shift in definitions has
>produced a fallacious conclusion. (example:)
>
>JUST BECAUSE THE CAT GAVE BIRTH IN THE OVEN, DON'T MAKE THE KITTENS
>MUFFINS!
Now, I know it seems that these two snips from Dave are unrelated, but they are
actually very much related in the pattern they show of certain ICC teachings
which are based on spurrious assumptions about what *isolated* scriptures say,
and *skewed* views of these scriptures within their own context. Remember
Disciples' Baptism? That is another. The problem is a misunderstanding of
*both* the Greek AND the English languages.
Disciples' Baptism
mathetes
ekklesia
********************************************************************************
EKKLESIA
Let's take ekklesia first. It means called out, as to an assembly. First,
there are two parts to this definition, and secondly are either part of it
a manmade definition? No. How do we know? It is the word's consistent usage
'within the pages.' Ekklesia is used to talk about more than one person,
usually several or more. It is also used to talk of those who are gathered
together into one vicinity. It IS NOT always used to talk about Christians,
thus many qualify (hold to a certain standard) the word when using it, such
as Paul does in 1 Corinthians 1:2. 'Unto the Church *of God*. This
distinction is made in specific to denote exactly to *which* ekklesia
his letter is has been sent. If it inherently implied what these people
were called to (other than just together) the qualification would never
need to be made. Note: it is actually translated assembly in some places
in the NT. Additionally, there is a sect that uses this translation in its
scriptural name, the Assemblies of God.
Again:
Note that the non-believers who gathered in the theatre in Ephesus were
called ekklesia, but were certainly not Christians, as they began to cry
out 'great is Diana of the Ephesians.' Acts 19.
*************************************************************************
MATHETES
Let's just go ahead and say that it means imitator. Period. Nothing else.
And what is its usage in the NT? Well, we know that Jesus had disciples.
They were called His disciples. We know that the Pharisees had disciples
as well. Does that mean that also to be a disciple, you have to follow
Pharisees? It is biblically correct.
disciple \di-s-pel\ noun [ME, fr. OE discipul & OF desciple, fr. LL
and L; LL discipulus follower of Jesus Christ in his lifetime, fr. L,
pupil] (bef. 12c)
1 : one who accepts and assists in spreading the doctrines of
another
a : one of the twelve in the inner circle of Christ's
followers according to the Gospel accounts
b : a convinced adherent of a school or individual
follower \fa-le-wer\ noun (bef. 12c)
1 a : one in the service of another : retainer
b : one that follows the opinions or teachings of another
c : one that imitates another
2 archaic : one that chases
3 : a sheet added to the first sheet of an indenture
or other deed
4 : a machine part that receives motion from another part
5 : a spring-loaded plate at the bottom of a firearm's
magazine that angles cartridges for proper insertion
into the chamber
6 : fan, devotee
1retainer \ri-ta-ner\ noun (1540)
1 a : a person attached or owing service to a household;
esp : servant
b : employee
2 : one that retains
3 : any of various devices used for holding something
1)The ICC makes a distinction between 'Christian' and 'disciple'. Once I was
asked by someone in the ICC, "Are you a Christian?" My response was simply,
"Yes." Then, as a retort, they asked again, but this time it was, "But are
you a disciple?" Is there some distinction in this that my Bible does not
include? Am I missing out on a teaching in scripture that is so important
as to divide a Church over and subject myself to judgement and destruction
(I Corinthians ch. 1-3)?
What are the reasons for this, if any, and one of my favorite
quotes from The Princess Bride:
"You keep saying that! I do not think it
means what you think it means."
The word disciple simply means 'student' or one who is taught. This word was
used totally without distinction as to the teaching the 'student' or 'disciple'
received. Example: In Matthew 22:16, the Pharisees sent out their disciples
that they might entangle Jesus in His speech. Does that mean that disciple is
merely a word that means student, or does it mean that if I am to be a disciple
I am to follow the Pharisees and entangle Jesus' words? How profound!!!!
Or is there a distinction because in the ICC people are 'disciples' or students
of a man or men's teaching?
Meanwhile, the word Christian defines not only a disciple or student,
but it also gives glory and identification to the One who is teaching, namely
Christ. That is enough for me.
2) As for the word 'discipler.' It apparently means teacher, but the
correct term 'teacher' does not make sense if you are deliberately trying
change the meaning of the word disciple, and thus pervert the scriptures.
If, however, it is instead a certain kind of teacher, and in the context
that the ICC teaches it is, then there is a biblical term for this, so why
make another? Another term had to be made up because of what the bible says
about calling a man your teacher in this context: There again, in Matthew,
ch23, the word is rabbi, or actually, rabboni (Aramaic) which means good
teacher, or teacher of that which is good (aka spiritual). Look, and read
what it says! Jesus Himself says to call no man rabbi (teacher) for you
have one master!
Teacher=master.
This is consistent with all the previous definitions given for disciple,
follower, retainer. Therefore, I was wrong. A disciple is not merely a
student, it is one who follows, imitates, owes service to, chases after,
receives motion from, is an adherent to,and is devoted to another, namely
a discipler--one who teaches, one who makes disciples. Therefore, I am a
disciple, and my discipler is Jesus, for my discipler can be no other.
Disciples' Baptism is covered in another current thread. The condensed version
is: The University of Florida apparently doesn't emphasize grammar. :-)
Making His disciples--not mine,
Bart
DAnder9518
In article <4pco9v$f...@netnews.upenn.edu>, clay...@blue.seas.upenn.edu
(Clayton Lane) writes:
>Chris Reed (lead evangelist of the Philadelphia Church of Christ &
Student
>Zone leader) used to tell us that, "'Discipleship' is really a misnomer.
>The real title should be 'Are you a Christian?' because that's what the
>real point of the study is."
Correction -- the real point of the Discipleship Study is "You ARE NOT a
Christian." There is no other conceivable outcome, to the ICC! : )
To draw an analagy: Pretend the ICC is a computer, the Discipleship Study
is a computer program, and the prospective recruit is the user. The user
runs the program. The program asks the user, "Are you a disciple". If
the user answers "Yes", he will either be told "SYNTAX ERROR", or "DOES
NOT COMPUTE!"
Sounds to me like there's a glich in the program! : )
--->Dave Anderson
Starr
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>Acts 2:41 says that those who accepted Peter's message were baptized.
>Not everyone who wanted to be baptized; only those who accepted his message.
You are reading a lot into one sentence. Those who accepted, were
baptized. Why would you want to be baptized if you didn't accept the
message? Why bother?
>Like it or not, the Scriptures command that we "be baptized". You can't
>baptize yourself. Did the early disciples just baptize anything that
>moved? Or did they only baptize disciples, like Jesus taught in Matthew
>28:19? I don't know, I wasn't there, but I don't think their reasoning
>was necessarily arbitrary and capricious, but to preserve the sanctity
>of Christ's church. My experience in the ICC is that only disciples are
>baptized.
"early disciples...only baptize disciples..." This is an oxymoron.
How can the only disciples baptize other disciples? Your logic is
flawed.
Kinda ironic how the need to "protect the sanctity of Christ's Church"
has actually led to some of the greatest persecutions man has ever
known.
RICK & SARAH BAUER
bjo...@jvcdiscusa.com wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> Note: Some have said that Boston slowed its growth after Kip left and went to L.A. This is not backed up by the 'math.'
> Bart
Al was quoted in the Boston Bulletin as saying, "As Boston goes, so
goes the movement." BB 1/14/90
Al also made a statement, I don't have the quote handy, that went
something like this.....
A man's work is tested after he leaves it, will the Boston church
stand the test?
Al made this statement after Kip made the decision to become "Missions
Evangelist" in 1988.
Has Boston passed the test?
Sarah
Scott W. Schreiber
kcs...@echo.sound.net (Starr) wrote:
>Kinda ironic how the need to "protect the sanctity of Christ's Church"
>has actually led to some of the greatest persecutions man has ever
>known.
Interesting thought...Made me think that "ya know. If this was an
earlier time in history...sayy, oh idunno...13-1500? The ICC would be
executing us heretics for our outspoken blasphemy...."
Sound like sense to anyone else?
Scott
Clayton Lane
RICK & SARAH BAUER (rgb...@umd5.umd.edu) wrote:
: Al was quoted in the Boston Bulletin as saying, "As Boston goes, so
: goes the movement." BB 1/14/90
: Al also made a statement, I don't have the quote handy, that went
: something like this.....
: A man's work is tested after he leaves it, will the Boston church
: stand the test?
: Al made this statement after Kip made the decision to become "Missions
: Evangelist" in 1988.
: Has Boston passed the test?
In response to this, as well as to Bart's question regarding Boston's
membership: the year before Kip McKean left Boston, the BCC experienced
its smallest growth in its 10-year history. Though it still grew, it was
plainly evident, to Kip & everyone else, that the Boston congregation
would not be the "Super Church" of 20,000 that McKean had envisioned.
There were many people leaving, and the BCC had received quite a bit of
critisism that hampered its growth. The year that Kip left Boston, its
membership *declined*.
Since the ICC with no doubt measures "success" as a whole in terms of
numerical growth (as opposed to, say, spiritual growth), Kip's work did
not "stand the test," according to Baird's definition. I believe Jesus
also spoke a parable about building a house with a firm foundation, so
that will stand under fire and even natural disaster. . . .
Clayton
Bart Jones
>bjo...@jvcdiscusa.com wrote:
>: In article <rognmichD...@netcom.com>, rogn...@netcom.com says...
>: >
>
>: >: rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>: >
>: >: It is not 'only disciples are baptized',
>: >: it is 'penitent sinners submerge, reborn disciples emerge.'
>: >: That is the pattern.
>
>: > rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>
>: >This is a good question about the "disciple=Christian=saved" equation
>: >that has come up a couple of times before on this newsgroup.
>: >
>: >Acts 11:26 refers to the church in Antioch, people who individually had
>: >simply been called "disciples" and now began to be called this new name
>: >"Christian" which surely would never catch on to describe believers of
>: >Jesus since it was such an insult. A bunch of little Christs running
>: >around, brainwashing zombies and trained seals hanging the every word of
>: >their "Messiah".
>
>: WHERE IN THE WORLD DID ALL THAT COME FROM? NOWHERE in God's word does it even
>: give a HINT of ANY of that! That is false doctrine, and has no place in any
>: church. Do you realize that the apostle Peter calls us Christians in the NT?
>
>: Roger, I realize that (apparently the reason stated above) the ICC prefers the term
>: disciple over that of Christian. That is your right. However, I think it actually
>: serves to give the appearance of being some elevated form of Christian. It is
>: not. If Peter is willing to call us Christians, so am I. A disciple. Of what?
>
>"So many people were talking about Christ in Antioch that their presence
>was felt by the populace, who coined the nick-name 'Christians', i.e.
>'Christ's men'. In early times this name was mainly used by outsiders or
>by enemies (Acts 26:28, 1 Pet 4:16)". [International Bible Commentary,
>ed. F.F. Bruce]
>
>The usage by Peter in his letter was in connection with persecution. It
>is not false doctrine, it is an established historical fact. Christian
>appears only 3 times in the NT while disciple occurs 273 times. Jesus
>never used the word "Christian", nor is there a comprehensive definition
>of it in the Bible. Hence the "discipleship" study rather than the
>"Christianity" study.
>
>Roger Poehlmann
>member, SF Church of Christ
>(International Church of Christ)
>
So where does a 'bunch of little Christs' 'running around, brainwashed zombies
and trained seals hanging the every word' of their 'Messiah' come into the
equation? And as for the fact that 'it would never catch on', well actually, it
did.
Additionally, I think the last part of my statement is misrepresented if the
statement which originally followed it is not included, which read,
If Peter is willing to call us Christians, so am I. A disciple. Of what?
Plato, Socrates, and on and on ... were ALL disciples. But of what?
What is the deal?
The following are from my original message on 25 May, 1996:
Roger, I want to ask you what you think about this:
I go to work and restore cars, stripping them down and rebuilding them:
renewing their bodies to their original condition: and I am there to work on
them, even on Saturday.
What is the order of the events here? Do I restore them, then strip them, then
rebuild them, then renew them?
I very seriously believe teaching that people are disciples before they are
baptized, and that they must be bearing the fruits of a disciple before baptism
is heresy in its truest sense of the word. When is a college student considered
taught? When he is still in school? No! When he has received his degree. So
can someone truly be a disciple before they have repented? No. Can they be a
disciple before they have believed? No, no! Can someone be a disciple before
they have taken up their cross and followed Jesus? No,no, no! Can someone be a
disciple before they have been cleansed? Absolutely not! For example, whether
Jesus meant the serving or the washing, he told Peter, 'What I do now you don't
presently understand; but you will
know hereafter.... If I don't wash you, you have no part in Me. Whether it was
His service, or of His washing, it does not matter. Neither were completed
until Jesus was crucified, and resurrected. Both made us complete IN Him.
Baptism is where we come in contact with His blood that cleanses us, and it is
there that He served us, paying the price for our sins. So we are not disciples
until we take part in that as well. It is not until we take part in His death
that we are made alive again with and in Him.
So, if disciple=Christian=saved, then someone who is a disciple is
ALREADY baptized. Or does that equation say that we are saved first,
then baptized? I know that is not a scriptural teaching. It cannot
say both.
Additionally, my post on 29 May, 1996, the post you respond to above,
> rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>The word "disciple" though simply means "learner" or student. But
>it's more than that: it's someone who does not merely learn facts
>from a teaching, but who actively tries to imitate that teacher.
Roger, I want to ask you what you think about this:
How true. Understand that the overwhelming majority of career choices in the
world then, as many now, were carried out through apprenticeships.
Apprenticeships came from trades, discipleship from 'higher' learning, whether
religious, philosophical, or whatever. If a carpenter, you learned from a
carpenter, if a stonemason, from a stonemason. However, you were considered an
apprentice or disciple when? Once you first started to train. You didn't achieve
the rank of apprentice or disciple after having first worked x number of days,
or a disciple after first studying x number of hours. Once you began to learn,
you were a disciple or an apprentice.
> rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>as some disciples of Jesus turned back when they learned some "hard
>teachings" (John 6:60-66) and others ran off when they saw Jesus do some
>things they were unwilling to do
Roger, I want to ask you what you think about this:
As some *what* turned back? Some disciples. The START of that learning IS to
be a disciple. While one can CONTINUE or DISCONTINUE being a disciple, to
merely start is to be a disciple.
>: rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>(Luke 9:57-62) it is necessary to teach
>the "student" about Christianity and make sure he knows what he's getting
>into: repentance, evangelism, persecution, lifelong commitment, etc. It
>may be that the "disciple" draws a line in the sand and says, "Look, I'm
>just not going to move out, my girlfriend and I love each other and I
>think it's OK that we live together. I think God understands." Well,
>then there's a problem with that person being unwilling to be a disciple
>of Jesus in that area. If I can turn to a Scripture and the baptism
>candidate says, "No way, I won't follow that, I don't care if the Bible
>says that, I'm not doing it" then he's not a disciple.
Roger, I want to ask you what you think about this:
Then he chooses to NO LONGER be a disciple if he decides to leave. It doesn't
say he never was. Don't you understand that trying to make a big deal and
mincing words that way is not only puffery, but also divisive? It is almost as
inane as the presbyterians deciding they needed to split from the other
wesleyans over predestination?
>: rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>Once the person understands what a disciple is and wants to go for it
>(and repents, obviously, Acts 2:38), then he's baptized. However, since
>some people study quite a ways through before hitting a snag, it's hard
>for us mortals to make judgments on people.
Roger, I want to ask you what you think about this:
This needs no distinction, because even those who believe in the false teaching
that you 'pray Jesus into your heart' acknowledge that you die to yourself,
giving up the sins of your 'former' life. To repent is a measure of direction,
not of ANY movement in the other direction, which is impossible before baptism.
It is the Holy Spirit which empowers our heart, mind and soul's struggle with
the flesh.
>: rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>The policy I see in the
>Bible is that they assumed you weren't a disciple and hadn't repented
>until you proved otherwise by your life (Paul, Apollos, Gentiles Paul
>preached to, Ephesian disciples, etc.)
Roger, I want to ask you what you think about this:
That is a false teaching. It is supported nowhere in the bible.They were
disciples who had sin in their lives. Do you not realize that Paul wrote his
letter to THE SAINTS who were in Ephesus and to the faithful in Christ Jesus?
So does their sin exclude them then from being disciples? No, otherwise we
would not have disfellowships, but more importantly encouragement, nor
correction, nor exhortation, nor rebuking (a list of which each of us has our
favorite).
You can't say, 'Get rid of your sin, then we'll baptize you.' It's a form of
godliness, but denies the power of the Holy Spirit in guidance and over sin.
Once you start down that road, where do you end? 'Well, he quit drinking, but
he occasionally swears.' 'Well, we'll give him three weeks of no cussing, then
we'll baptize him. He didn't cuss in the last two weeks, but he lusted in his
mind and masturbated.' Okay, just two more weeks of cussing, and 4 weeks of no
self-gratification, and then...' 'Or two hail Marys and three guests at bible
talk, and....' I don't mean that sarcastically, but rather as a look down the
road that others have travelled down.
>: rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>I would amend the equation to be "baptized disciple=Christian=saved"
>since this is the group to which Acts 11:26 refers, and eradicates the
>confusion as to the exact point of salvation (Acts 22:16, 1 Peter 3:21)
>which is the moment of baptism and not the decision of discipleship.
Roger, I want to ask you what you think about this:
Roger, for all the fuss, you are saying the ICC teaches:
Bart Jones
On 11 Jun 1996 12:18:20 GMT, RICK & SARAH BAUER <rgb...@umd5.umd.edu> filled
with love, said:
>bjo...@jvcdiscusa.com wrote:
>>
><snip>
>>
>> Note: Some have said that Boston slowed its growth after Kip left
> and went to L.A. This is not backed up by the 'math.'
>> Bart
>
>Al was quoted in the Boston Bulletin as saying, "As Boston goes, so
>goes the movement." BB 1/14/90
>
>Al also made a statement, I don't have the quote handy, that went
>something like this.....
>
>A man's work is tested after he leaves it, will the Boston church
>stand the test?
>
>Al made this statement after Kip made the decision to become "Missions
>Evangelist" in 1988.
>
>Has Boston passed the test?
>
>Sarah
I guess my original post should have read,
Note: Some have said that Boston slowed its growth **AFTER** Kip left
and went to L.A. This is not backed up by the 'math.' It was ALREADY slowing
down, wasn't it?
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
bjo...@jvcdiscusa.com wrote:
: On Thu, 6 Jun 1996 12:32:49 GMT, rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
I call myself a disciple of Christ or a Christian. Primarily I use the
term 'disciple' since this is less ambiguous in today's religious world.
A few brothers with a camera went around SF to ask random people on the
street, "Are you a Christian? and What is a Christian?" and got wildly
different answers from people. "Disciple" at least has some definition
in the Scriptures.
: The following are from my original message on 25 May, 1996:
: Roger, I want to ask you what you think about this:
: I go to work and restore cars, stripping them down and rebuilding them:
: renewing their bodies to their original condition: and I am there to work
: on them, even on Saturday.
: What is the order of the events here? Do I restore them, then strip them,
: then rebuild them, then renew them?
You know best the order and process of turning an old hunk of junk into a
Restored Car that is marketable. You'd strip, rebuild, and paint
prior to saying, "I have a restored car for sale". Maybe putting the ad
in the newspaper would be equivalent to "baptism" since you are declaring
that this junk heap is a Restored Car and is ready to be driven and title
transferred. Someone else will drive it around town, maintain it, etc.
: > rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
: >The word "disciple" though simply means "learner" or student. But
: >it's more than that: it's someone who does not merely learn facts
: >from a teaching, but who actively tries to imitate that teacher.
: Roger, I want to ask you what you think about this:
: How true. Understand that the overwhelming majority of career choices in
: the world then, as many now, were carried out through apprenticeships.
: Apprenticeships came from trades, discipleship from 'higher' learning,
: whether religious, philosophical, or whatever. If a carpenter, you learned
: from a carpenter, if a stonemason, from a stonemason. However, you were
: considered an apprentice or disciple when? Once you first started to train.
: You didn't achieve the rank of apprentice or disciple after having first
: worked x number of days, or a disciple after first studying x number of hours.
: Once you began to learn, you were a disciple or an apprentice.
That's right. Now before this guy takes you on as a carpenter, he's
going to prepare you a bit for the job: "Hey, I'll train you, but it's
going to be hard work. I'll need you do watch what I do, and when I show
you something, like sanding a board, I'll expect you to do it. We start
work at 8am and end at 5pm. We work Saturdays too, ending at 12pm. You
need to be there every day. Also, I'll send you out for errands, and you
need to get exactly what I ask you to." Now if this would-be disciple
says, "Well, actually, I think I'd rather work 10am-7pm...see I'm not a
morning person. And you see rather authoritarian, actually I have my own
ideas about carpentry and I just don't do sanding boards. In fact,
sawdust makes me sneeze. And when's the coffee break?" the discipling
relationship isn't going to start off too well. And if the carpenter
just took the guy on without any preparatory talk, they'd be in for real
troubles.
: >The policy I see in the
: >Bible is that they assumed you weren't a disciple and hadn't repented
: >until you proved otherwise by your life (Paul, Apollos, Gentiles Paul
: >preached to, Ephesian disciples, etc.)
: Roger, I want to ask you what you think about this:
: That is a false teaching. It is supported nowhere in the bible.
I just gave you four examples of it; look them up.
They were
: disciples who had sin in their lives. Do you not realize that Paul wrote
: his letter to THE SAINTS who were in Ephesus and to the faithful in Christ
: Jesus? So does their sin exclude them then from being disciples? No,
: otherwise we would not have disfellowships, but more importantly encouragement,
: nor correction, nor exhortation, nor rebuking (a list of which each of us has
: our favorite).
: You can't say, 'Get rid of your sin, then we'll baptize you.'
Peter himself said "Repent and be baptized" and that's all we're saying
too. God forgives the sin, our job is to repent (Greek to turn (away))
of it.
: baptized=disciple/Christian=saved
: disciple=Christian=saved
Yes, that's right. With cussing, I look for the person to turn (repent)
from that behavior. Saying a cuss-word, which used to happen constantly,
has become a once-aday (or longer) occurrance about which the person is
immediately aware and catches himself. That is a drastic change in
behavior that even non-member friends take notice of. "Hey, Joe, ol'
foul-mouth Bill hasn't cussed once today! What's gotten into him?"
I think what we're debating here is WHAT we teach Bill prior to baptism.
Do we say he's a disciple while he's still painfully ignorant of the
basic teachings of Jesus but expresses a desire to learn?
Some on this newsgroup claim we take too long and study too much before
baptism. Others accuse the church of not talking about some issues like
dating, discipling, etc. -- although when I was baptized we talked about
all that stuff up front. I don't think we can please all the critics and
I personally don't even try. God's message in Matthew 28:18-20 is to
make disciples and baptize them, and it's God we need to please, not men.
One of the first Scriptures we study with someone is John 8:31-32: "If
you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples". Most people are
unaware of Jesus's teachings or have only a partial understanding, and
are pretty honest about it. I think the study series is pretty
comprehensive in preparing people for the decision about whether to
make Jesus their Lord or not.
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
: >: Can you please show me in the Bible where it says that baptism is a
: >: condition of salvation Roger. I have been saying something quite the
: >: opposite (salvation is free...gift of grace...etc) and I would like to
: >: not be ignorant, or teaching a false doctrine.
: >
: >Salvation is free, and is gift of grace, etc. No dispute there. The
: >same God that wrote Romans 10:9, John 3:16, and Ephesians 2:8-10 also
: >wrote Acts 2:38, Romans 6:1-10, 1 Peter 3:21, and Acts 22:16 which
: >discuss what the purpose of baptism is, that it is participation in
: >Jesus's death, burial, and resurrection.
: Roger, I'm curious which verse SAYS that baptism is an *actual*
: participation in Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection (versus a
: *symbolic* one)? The Bible uses symbolic language all over the place; it
: is not a flying inductive leap to suggest that the Bible might also speak
: about *baptism* in symbolic terms.
Romans 6:1-10 is the one that speaks about us dying to our old life, being
buried with Jesus in baptism, and raised to live a new life just as Jesus
was resurrected. This language is *spiritual* not symbolic. Baptism is
never spoken of as a sign, seal, or symbol.
Scott W. Schreiber
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>One of the first Scriptures we study with someone is John 8:31-32: "If
>you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples".
Rog, I know you are probably getting tired of hearing from me,
BUT..... I couldn't help but notice something.
That scripture above....Who is speaking...Jesus. Agreed.
Let's emphasize the word "MY" of "My disciples"....
Now, why is it then, that as a member of the ICC, you are called a
"discipler", and the guy "under" you {sorry, can't quite think of a
better word} is called your disciple??
Let me say that again YOUR DISCIPLE.
Should you not ALL be disciples of Christ?? {Not of folks who've been
members longer..or whatever..}
Again I wish to point out that YOU yourself once said "The Lord is NOT
my discipler."
So, According to your own words, you do not fit in to John
8:31-32...Because you are X's disciple, and you said "The lord is NOT
my discipler".
This is just a thought that crossed my mind.
I thought the ICC was supposed to be the only church truly following
the Bible......
Love,
Scott
tri...@primenet.com
In article <4pq7kr$3...@madrid.visi.net> sco...@nhr.com (Scott W. Schreiber) writes:
>From: sco...@nhr.com (Scott W. Schreiber)
>Subject: Re: Roger's Baptism
>Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 23:31:36 GMT
>rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>>One of the first Scriptures we study with someone is John 8:31-32: "If
>>you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples".
>Rog, I know you are probably getting tired of hearing from me,
>BUT..... I couldn't help but notice something.
>That scripture above....Who is speaking...Jesus. Agreed.
>Let's emphasize the word "MY" of "My disciples"....
>Now, why is it then, that as a member of the ICC, you are called a
>"discipler", and the guy "under" you {sorry, can't quite think of a
>better word} is called your disciple??
>Let me say that again YOUR DISCIPLE.
>Should you not ALL be disciples of Christ?? {Not of folks who've been
>members longer..or whatever..}
Good points, Scott. I'd like to have the ICC people who call someone "my
disciple" to recognize this and quit it.
But ...
>Again I wish to point out that YOU yourself once said "The Lord is NOT
>my discipler."
>So, According to your own words, you do not fit in to John
>8:31-32...Because you are X's disciple, and you said "The lord is NOT
>my discipler".
... In regard to these two accusations, I remember the discussion between you
and Roger and did not read his statement to you in the same way you
interpreted it. He actually said (if I remember right), "My discipler is not
the Lord." I took it to mean that he didn't consider the guy who was
discipling him to be the Lord (or his Lord).
It would be better just to look for direction from the Lord in everything, and
call Him our discipler (and He told his disciples not to call anyone else
"Teacher", so I think the same may apply to calling someone "my discipler").
Jani A Heinonen
>"early disciples...only baptize disciples..." This is an oxymoron.
>How can the only disciples baptize other disciples? Your logic is
>flawed.
You have a bad heart.
For 1900 years all of Christendom was going to Hell, until God sent us
God's Man(tm) to tell us that we need to be disciples to be baptized to
be saved(=Christians=disciples). Far out!
Now the real trick, as someone pointed out, is to make 70,000 fairly
intelligent people to believe this claptrap.
Scott W. Schreiber
tri...@primenet.com wrote:
{SNIP}
> He actually said (if I remember right), "My discipler is not
>the Lord." I took it to mean that he didn't consider the guy who was
>discipling him to be the Lord (or his Lord).
You are right! Thanks for pointing that viewpoint out to me. I
hadn't seen it like that before...Sorry Roger! still pals? :)
>It would be better just to look for direction from the Lord in everything, and
>call Him our discipler (and He told his disciples not to call anyone else
>"Teacher", so I think the same may apply to calling someone "my discipler").
I agree whole heartedly with the above, that was my overall point. I
like to have one of those when I post !!! :)
Humbled,
Scott
Starr
R.L.Measures
---------
By its own records, the Roman church executed over 340,000 people in
public at its 'Act of Faith' celebration. Burned people alive was a
popular means of accomplishing the desired result. The last such
execution took place in 1830. All in the name of the God of love,
charity, and mercy.
In the mid-1960s, the Roman church dropped the claim to being 'God's One
True Church'. However, the icoc seems to have picked up the banner.
--Rich--
Emjay65
Why do you make such a big deal over the term disciple?!!! I have never
seen a group of people split hairs the way some of you do on this board!
*If* I called someone "my disciple" (which I do not) that does not mean
the person is worshiping me or studying me etc.
For example, I am a school teacher, I teach chemistry, the children
in the class are "chemistry sudents" BUT GUESS WHAT! !! I refer to them
as MY STUDENTS !!! oooh imagine that! I call them that because I am
helping them learn about CHEMISTRY, not about ME!
Perhaps someone in the ICC calls another person "her" disciple
because she is helping the person learn about Christ.
...take it easy............
Starr
jzhe...@cc.helsinki.fi (Jani A Heinonen) wrote:
>In <4pj1mb$7...@guitar.sound.net> kcs...@echo.sound.net (Starr) writes:
>>"early disciples...only baptize disciples..." This is an oxymoron.
>>How can the only disciples baptize other disciples? Your logic is
>>flawed.
>You have a bad heart.
Darn! "If I only had a brain..."
>For 1900 years all of Christendom was going to Hell, until God sent us
>God's Man(tm) to tell us that we need to be disciples to be baptized to
>be saved(=Christians=disciples). Far out!
>Now the real trick, as someone pointed out, is to make 70,000 fairly
>intelligent people to believe this claptrap.
>--
>Jani Heinonen A wanna-be (al)chemist at
>jzhe...@rock.helsinki.fi the University of Helsinki
Oh, way more than that, Jani - the ICC has affected far more than the
70,000 current "members in good standing".
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
: >One of the first Scriptures we study with someone is John 8:31-32: "If
: >you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples".
: Rog, I know you are probably getting tired of hearing from me,
: BUT..... I couldn't help but notice something.
: That scripture above....Who is speaking...Jesus. Agreed.
: Let's emphasize the word "MY" of "My disciples"....
I am a disciple of Jesus Christ, who is my Lord. I strive to obey his
teaching and imitate his lifestyle.
: Now, why is it then, that as a member of the ICC, you are called a
: "discipler", and the guy "under" you {sorry, can't quite think of a
: better word} is called your disciple??
"Over/under" is an acceptable terminology, since 1 Thess 5:12 says, "Now
we ask you brothers, to respect those who work hard among you and who are
over you in the Lord and who admonish you". This Scripture illustrates
that human leaders who are "over" others in God's church is a normal and
natural thing.
: Let me say that again YOUR DISCIPLE.
One-on-one discipling has several aims, one of which is to ensure that no
one in the congregation is overlooked, but that everyones' needs are
taken care of. That relationship is *not* meant to be the only
friendship in that person's life, or to be the only spiritual
relationship where encouraging, correcting, and rebuking, and training
take place.
Another aim is to provide a living, 20th Century example. Seeing
Christlike qualities in another person and the practical expression of
those qualities helps enormously. I may not speak perfect English, but
my child will learn how to speak from imitating his mother and me. He
may later surpass my vocabulary. But for now, I'm ahead. I won't lord
over him my superior grammatical understanding, but will bear with him
and teach him how to talk and we'll be closer as a result.
: Should you not ALL be disciples of Christ?? {Not of folks who've been
: members longer..or whatever..}
Gee, is it really OK to have one man following another man while both are
trying to be godly and spiritual?
1 Cor 11:1 "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ."
Hebrews 13:7 "Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to
you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith."
Phil 3:17 "Join with others in following my example, brothers, and take
note of those who live according to the pattern we gave you."
1 Cor 4:17 "For this reason I am sending you Timothy....He will remind you
of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach
everywhere in every church."
Yes, not only is it a good idea, but it is *commanded* by these and other
Scriptures. The OT gives numerous examples of one godly man training
another godly man, sometimes well, sometimes with neglect and abysmal
consequences.
: Again I wish to point out that YOU yourself once said "The Lord is NOT
: my discipler."
The Lord is my God. He is in heaven. I pray to him, I read his word.
He is a great and glorious God. He sees perfectly into my heart and is
never wrong. I strive to learn from, and to imitate the Lord in every
area. The Lord is NOT my discipler.
My discipler is one of my friends. He is in Richmond. I talk to him on
the phone and he talks back. He's a nice guy. He has very good
spiritual insight, better than mine, and is objective. He's about 95% on
target, and I trust him as a friend. When he's wrong, he apologizes,
and vice versa. I strive to learn from, and to imitate the qualities about
him that are like the Lord.
Maybe you're studying math in school. One guy's got a multiplication
table. It's 100% accurate! No mistakes, ever! Another guy's got a
Pentium notebook computer. It's....well, it's mostly accurate. It can
do some things the multiplication table can't do. But it uses the
principles found in the multiplication table to get its answers.
Which would you rather have? The table, or the Pentium? As a disciple,
I bring in BOTH to the test.
DAnder9518
In article <4q537u$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, emj...@aol.com (Emjay65)
writes:
>Why do you make such a big deal over the term disciple?!!! I have never
>seen a group of people split hairs the way some of you do on this board!
>*If* I called someone "my disciple" (which I do not) that does not mean
>the person is worshiping me or studying me etc. {snip}
But there's still lots of *authority* in the discipling relationship, and
that's probably why former members find the phrase "my disciple"
objectionable. The term reveals ICC discipleship for what it is: a
system of *authority*.
I recall that when Jesus gave the command to make disciples, he said "All
authority in heaven and on earth is given to *ME*. . ." (Mt. 28:18) This
is the most-ignored part of the Great Commission.
--->Dave
Jani A Heinonen
> For example, I am a school teacher, I teach chemistry, the children
>in the class are "chemistry sudents" BUT GUESS WHAT! !! I refer to them
>as MY STUDENTS !!! oooh imagine that! I call them that because I am
>helping them learn about CHEMISTRY, not about ME!
Do you also teach them that all non-chemists will burn in Hell and that
you have the authority to grade them on all other subjects besides
chemistry? Do you tell them that they are worthless scum if they confuse
oxidation with reduction or screw up a reaction? Do you tell them
that they have a bad heart if they devote time to other activities
besides chemistry? Do you give them a whiff of HCN to help them to
improve their performance? Do you tell them to mimic your way to dress and
speak and move? Do you tell them to think exactly like you? Do you tell
them that you are the closest thing to Antoine Lavoisier on Earth and
that they'd better OBEY?
> Perhaps someone in the ICC calls another person "her" disciple
>because she is helping the person learn about Christ.
You wish.
Sincerely,
One of the elect,
Emjay65
<4q8lme$8...@kruuna.helsinki.fi> jzhe...@cc.helsinki.fi (Jani A Heinonen)
wrote:
>.Do you also teach them that all non-chemists will burn in Hell and that
>you have the authority to grade them on all other subjects besides
>chemistry? Do you tell them that they are worthless scum if they confuse
>oxidation with reduction or screw up a reaction? Do you tell them
>that they have a bad heart if they devote time to other activities
>besides chemistry? Do you give them a whiff of HCN to help them to
>improve their performance? Do you tell them to mimic your way to dress
and
>speak and move? Do you tell them to think exactly like you? Do you tell
>them that you are the closest thing to Antoine Lavoisier on Earth and
>that they'd better OBEY?
Perhaps there has been a miscommunication here... Jani, I was NOT
refering to any of the "practices" of the ICC. I was merely commenting on
the use of the term "disciple". There have been quite a few STRANGE
accusations aginst the ICC and I don't really believe they should go
unchecked. ie Who cares how they use the term disciple? ie Another post
criticised the ICC for "counting everything that moves" is *that* really
an issue? I begin to wonder about some of the criticisms I've been
reading, some may sound legitinate, but many start to sound like a
disgruntled spouse who points out every minute fault of their spouse and
tends to overlook his/her own faults while focusing and exagerating
someone else's.
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
: In article <4q537u$c...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, emj...@aol.com (Emjay65)
: writes:
: >Why do you make such a big deal over the term disciple?!!! I have never
: >seen a group of people split hairs the way some of you do on this board!
: >*If* I called someone "my disciple" (which I do not) that does not mean
: >the person is worshiping me or studying me etc. {snip}
: But there's still lots of *authority* in the discipling relationship, and
: that's probably why former members find the phrase "my disciple"
: objectionable. The term reveals ICC discipleship for what it is: a
: system of *authority*.
Didn't Paul call Timothy his "son"? Doesn't that have an element of
authority to it? It also envelopes love, patience, etc. which a father
is supposed to have in that relationship. Looking at the "my disciple"
from another standpoint, shortly before his death Jesus washed the feet
of "his" disciples. So that phrase envelopes love, servitude, and one
laying down his life, not to mention his schedule, leisure time, etc. to
serve "his" disciple and to help him to grow more like Jesus.
Starr
<snip>
>Didn't Paul call Timothy his "son"? Doesn't that have an element of
>authority to it? It also envelopes love, patience, etc. which a father
>is supposed to have in that relationship. Looking at the "my disciple"
>from another standpoint, shortly before his death Jesus washed the feet
>of "his" disciples. So that phrase envelopes love, servitude, and one
>laying down his life, not to mention his schedule, leisure time, etc. to
>serve "his" disciple and to help him to grow more like Jesus.
At the beginning of your statement, Rog, I agreed with you. But
unfortunately, I have *yet* to see a discipler go so far as to wash
the feet of his "disciple". Go out of their way, yes, I will grant
you that. But unfortunately, people being people, and imperfect,
there exists an extreme possibility of abuse in this system. And
usually it has been my experience that if one has a problem with the
statements of a discipler, and does the ol' Matthew 18 thang, then the
problem becomes that of the disciple, and not the discipler.
Emjay65
>From: kcs...@echo.sound.net (Starr)
>Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 04:45:19 GMT
>Message-ID: <4r56rs$f...@guitar.sound.net>
>At the beginning of your statement, Rog, I agreed with you. But
>unfortunately, I have *yet* to see a discipler go so far as to wash
>the feet of his "disciple". Go out of their way, yes, I will grant
>you that.
That is very sad indeed! It is sad you have not been around the kind
of disciple that is willing to serve others without limit. I have seen
some of the most amazing acts of self-lessness committed by members of the
ICC.... yes even including washing of feet! In addition, after I had
surgery two years ago I had one of these cult members stay with me and
help me recover for a week. He had to do a lot more for me than wash my
feet. And this was not *rare* in the ICC.
Scott W. Schreiber
emj...@aol.com (Emjay65) wrote:
>I have seen some of the most amazing acts of self-lessness committed by members of the
>ICC.... yes even including washing of feet! In addition, after I had
>surgery two years ago I had one of these cult members stay with me and
>help me recover for a week. He had to do a lot more for me than wash my
>feet. And this was not *rare* in the ICC.
I don't get it. {This may be due to my well documented ignorance or
whatever} But if you've seen all these great things, why aren't you a
member? If I had seen all these great things, and everything I
witnessed was the opposite of what everyone here says, I would be
eating it up.
Seriously.
Scott
Smlleecat6
emjay wrote:
>That is very sad indeed! It is sad you have not been around the kind
>of disciple that is willing to serve others without limit. I have seen
>some of the most amazing acts of self-lessness committed by members of
the
>ICC....
I think it is safe to say that most "amazing acts of self-lessness
committed by members" are directed towards potential members. If your
studying with a member then they will bend over backwards for you. If you
no longer want to study then its "see ya!" As far as member to member
serving, I have seen some of the most amazing acts of selfishness
Jan Sloan
Smlleecat6 wrote:
>
> emjay wrote:
>
> >That is very sad indeed! It is sad you have not been around the kind
> >of disciple that is willing to serve others without limit. I have seen
> >some of the most amazing acts of self-lessness committed by members of
> the
> >ICC....
>
> I think it is safe to say that most "amazing acts of self-lessness
> committed by members" are directed towards potential members.
I've seen these selfless acts by members given to current members, potential members and
folks who are not at the least bit interested in joining the church.
>If your
> studying with a member then they will bend over backwards for you. If you
> no longer want to study then its "see ya!"
I've seen this happen also. From what I've seen, this is why it happens - people have
the wrong motives to begin with. Some members are not (gulp) perfect. Some are
glory-seeking. Some haven't learned how to be a friend. When they realize that a
person is not interested in joining the church they are dropped like a hot potato.
One of the things that me and my husband totally encourage in our mission group (house
church) is disciples being a real friend to people, whether they are members of the
church or not. It's real easy to walk up to a stranger and ask them to come to church
but it takes alot to be a true friend. It is real easy to smile in a disciple's face
and act like you like them when you really are just trying to look loving in the
fellowship. It's not so easy to sit with them and be real friends. Real friends share
the good and the bad. If you are truly a friend to someone, you will be selfless in
their times of need.
In Christ,
--
Jan E. Sloan
Smlleecat6
emjay wrote:
>>That is very sad indeed! It is sad you have not been around the kind
>>of disciple that is willing to serve others without limit. I have seen
>>some of the most amazing acts of self-lessness committed by members of
>>the ICC....
> Smlleecat responded:
>I think it is safe to say that most "amazing acts of self-lessness
>committed by members" are directed towards potential members. If your
>studying with a member then they will bend over backwards for you. If
you
>no longer want to study then its "see ya!" As far as member to member
>serving, I have seen some of the most amazing acts of selfishness
>committed by members of the ICC.
emjay responded:
>At the time I was recovering from surgery and the disciple from ICC
stayed
>with me for a week and had to do "more than wash my feet" I was a member
>of the same church. I had been a member for over 4 years when this
>incident (and many like it) occured. *
So why did you leave this perfect church?
> I am very offended at your inuendo that disciples in the ICC "bend
>over backwards for non members".
why are you offended if it is no longer your church?
>Perhaps that is what you have experienced, perhaps that was the way
*YOUR* >heart served others.
Sorry. If there is one thing I am not it is phony. And I certainly paid
the price for that in the ICC.
>If you saw acts of selfishness, it is YOUR responsibility to call the
>sin a sin and help the person(s) deal with it. It sounds to me like you
>became a spectator rather than a participant. When you felt the team was
>losing, you left the game.
Listen, I was in that church for 5 years. I'd say after year 1 I felt the
team was losing but I didn't leave the game because I wasn't in it for the
team I was in it for God. And calling a sin a sin does nothing if a
person does not repent of it, does it? Telling a leader I thought they
did something wrong would inevitably result in *me* being rebuked. For
quite some time I thought my name had been changed to stubborn, prideful
and rebellious.
>*NOTE: Now before anyone gets their bowels in an uproar look closely: I
>never said I was NOT an ex-member. I only said I was not a current member
>and have nothing to do with the ICC (present tense) ... just ask FredMc.
>Besides, that is NOT the issue.
Sure it is an issue. Why would you e-mail me asking for doctrine if you
were in the church for more than 4 years? You were deceitful. It seems
like you use this newsgroup to amuse yourself.
LKMSIMS
Didn't Paul call Timothy his "son"? Doesn't that have an element of
authority to it? It also envelopes love, patience, etc. which a father
is supposed to have in that relationship. Looking at the "my disciple"
from another standpoint, shortly before his death Jesus washed the feet
of "his" disciples. So that phrase envelopes love, servitude, and one
laying down his life, not to mention his schedule, leisure time, etc. to
serve "his" disciple and to help him to grow more like Jesus.
Roger,
There in lies a danger in your thinking. It scares me that the church
teaches people to misplace their trust for who to depend on for their
spiritual growth and salvation. While I was a member I had a roommate who
was pretty new into the church. We use to spend a lot of time hanging out
with a brother in the SF zone. He was a good friend of mine and
eventually the two of them became good friends as well. On the day of
Birthday in '94 he came to a party that was being held for me at our
apartment. He was dressed in his business suit and wanted to change
clothes and didn't have anything else to change into so my roommate
offered a pair of old jeans, shirt and baseball cap for him to wear and he
did. No one would have known the difference if he was wearing his own
clothes or not, but some how someone caught wind of it and went and told
my roommates dp. A couple of days later they were going to go out on a
date and my roommate gets a call from her dp ordering her to cancel the
date with him. She does so reluctantly. Well, after she met with her dp
and sector leader they had convinced her that she acted independently and
their was an elimate of intimacy in her relationship with my friend that
shouldn't be there. They had told her that those whom she had been
spending time with have encouraged her to be that way and in result led
her astray spiritually. Needless, to say she came home and began to
accuse me of being spiritually weak and deceiving her. Right then I
realized she had been taught to rely on people to define her spirituality
and I also thought she was quite arrogant to point a finger at me. The
irony of it all is that I was not even her dp!! Why did I get blamed for
her actions?? because she put her trust in me way too much to help define
her spirituality. Where did she learn that? She was one of the main
reasons why I decided to leave. I was tired of being accused by her when
she felt she wasn't doing good spiritually.
I believe the group teaches people to misplace their trust in who to rely
on for their salvation. Instead of trusting Jesus, one is taught to trust
man,(Russ and Gail Ewell, Sector leaders, HC leaders, BT leader, dp and so
on. For example, if you don't trust your dp, you don't trust God. When did
man become the go between me and God. I thought that was Jesus' position.
Only God can help me to grow and become more like his son. Definitely
not Russ Ewell!!
MLC
I left my so called 'deceived heart' in San Francisco ( i.e.Church of
Christ )
Emjay65
From: smlle...@aol.com (Smlleecat6)
Date: 1 Jul 1996 18:04:46 -0400
Message-ID: <4r9i1u$2...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
>Sure it is an issue. Why would you e-mail me asking for doctrine if you
>were in the church for more than 4 years? You were deceitful. It seems
>like you use this newsgroup to amuse yourself.
I asked for "ICC doctrine" because I was really interested in seeing what
some people would send to me. I wanted to find out if someone would send
me a bunch of BS about the Church. You did not. In fact you were the
*only* one to send me anything. You were very helpful.
>So why did you leave this perfect church?
Excuse me Missy, but *when* did I ever claim the ICC was perfect or
even near perfection? Why is *this* your response? I explained to you
that members of the ICC were guilty of incredible acts of selfless-ness to
members and non-members alike, and you question my *motive* for leaving
the ICC??!! What the heck does that have to do with it? You are
*amazed* and *confused* that someone left the ICC and doesnt have an axe
to grind. You can't believe I have no reason to jump on the bandwagon and
bad mouth the ICC so you attack me and avoid the real issue. The point is
that *most* of the disciples in the Philly Church truly have a servant's
heart, whether they are serving people "in" or "out" of the church.
>> I am very offended at your inuendo that disciples in the ICC "bend
>>over backwards for non members".
>why are you offended if it is no longer your church?
I'm offended because it is NOT true. I think very highly of the
people committed to being disciples in the ICC. I think it is prejudicial
and discriminatory to say people in the ICC bend over backwards for
non-members until they don't want to study anymore. Bull. That is just
like saying Jews are money-hungry and Catholics are drunks. They are GROSS
prejudicial beliefs.
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
: >Didn't Paul call Timothy his "son"? Doesn't that have an element of
: >authority to it? It also envelopes love, patience, etc. which a father
: >is supposed to have in that relationship. Looking at the "my disciple"
: >from another standpoint, shortly before his death Jesus washed the feet
: >of "his" disciples. So that phrase envelopes love, servitude, and one
: >laying down his life, not to mention his schedule, leisure time, etc. to
: >serve "his" disciple and to help him to grow more like Jesus.
: At the beginning of your statement, Rog, I agreed with you. But
: unfortunately, I have *yet* to see a discipler go so far as to wash
: the feet of his "disciple". Go out of their way, yes, I will grant
: you that. But unfortunately, people being people, and imperfect,
: there exists an extreme possibility of abuse in this system. And
: usually it has been my experience that if one has a problem with the
: statements of a discipler, and does the ol' Matthew 18 thang, then the
: problem becomes that of the disciple, and not the discipler.
I've heard of footwashing done by one disciple to another. I've not
personally done it, except to my wife. If I were to say there were any
abuse in the system, it would be for the discipl-ee to take for granted
and to be unappreciative of the input, prayer, and love of the
discipl-er. However, it pales in comparison to the neglect in
relationships that occurs in many churches today, where people have gone
for years and have no friends and don't know anyone in the congregation.
I think that Paul and Timothy had a pretty close friendship and it's one
worth imitating, as Paul commands and commends in the NT.
Starr
Jan Sloan <sl...@access.digex.net> wrote:
>I've seen this happen also. From what I've seen, this is why it happens - people have
>the wrong motives to begin with. Some members are not (gulp) perfect. Some are
>glory-seeking. Some haven't learned how to be a friend. When they realize that a
>person is not interested in joining the church they are dropped like a hot potato.
Very true.
>One of the things that me and my husband totally encourage in our mission group (house
>church) is disciples being a real friend to people, whether they are members of the
>church or not. It's real easy to walk up to a stranger and ask them to come to church
>but it takes alot to be a true friend. It is real easy to smile in a disciple's face
>and act like you like them when you really are just trying to look loving in the
>fellowship. It's not so easy to sit with them and be real friends. Real friends share
>the good and the bad. If you are truly a friend to someone, you will be selfless in
>their times of need.
A very good post, Joan.
Starr
emj...@aol.com (Emjay65) wrote:
<snip>
>>So why did you leave this perfect church?
> Excuse me Missy, but *when* did I ever claim the ICC was perfect or
>even near perfection? Why is *this* your response? I explained to you
>that members of the ICC were guilty of incredible acts of selfless-ness to
>members and non-members alike, and you question my *motive* for leaving
>the ICC??!! What the heck does that have to do with it? You are
>*amazed* and *confused* that someone left the ICC and doesnt have an axe
>to grind. You can't believe I have no reason to jump on the bandwagon and
>bad mouth the ICC so you attack me and avoid the real issue. The point is
>that *most* of the disciples in the Philly Church truly have a servant's
>heart, whether they are serving people "in" or "out" of the church.
You confuse most of us, EM, because quite frankly, if you have no
problem with the ICC's teachings, it's selflessness, it's doctrine,
discipling, it's recruiting, etc., etc., etc., then why are you no
longer involved with the ICC, as you have said? If I had no problem
with these things, I would still be a member.
I met a lot of great people. I wasn't subject to some of the abuse
that I have read on this group. But I had questions that were not
answered - and still do. I do *not* believe many of the things that
the ICC teaches as its core doctrine. Therefore I am not a member of
the ICC. I don't have a particular "axe" to grind. I have not been
"marked". I still have friends within the ICC. I still see many of
the good things the ICC does. But I have also made my position on the
ICC rather clear in this group.
Why are you so defensive/offensive?
Emjay65
.From: kcs...@echo.sound.net (Starr)
>Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 22:57:38 GMT
>Message-ID: <4rcfju$3...@guitar.sound.net>
> I do *not* believe many of the things that
>the ICC teaches as its core doctrine. Therefore I am not a member of
>the ICC. I don't have a particular "axe" to grind. I have not been
>"marked". I still have friends within the ICC. I still see many of
>the good things the ICC does. But I have also made my position on the
>ICC rather clear in this group.
But, I thought the ICC wants "nothing to do with you" if you decide
not to be a member or leave? (you did not claim that) I read that
frequently on this NewsGroup.
That confuses me.
RICK & SARAH BAUER
emj...@aol.com (Emjay65) wrote:
>
>
> ..From: kcs...@echo.sound.net (Starr)
Marty Fuqua told the San Diego Church at their 1992 Revival "to stay
away from *anyone* who leaves the church. Not to "pal-around" with
them.
Not everyone in the ICC is obedient to the leadership. The leadership
instructs their members to "stay away" from former members. PERIOD
The only reason co-mingling is allowed is to bring back the "fallaway."
Of course, only those who are considered "salvagable."
Does that clear up the confusion?
Sarah
Emjay65
>From: RICK & SARAH BAUER <rgb...@umd5.umd.edu>
>Date: 3 Jul 1996 12:05:33 GMT
>Message-ID: <4rdnmd$r...@news.internetmci.com>
>Not everyone in the ICC is obedient to the leadership. The leadership
>instructs their members to "stay away" from former members. PERIOD
>The only reason co-mingling is allowed is to bring back the "fallaway."
>Of course, only those who are considered "salvagable."
>Does that clear up the confusion?
>Sarah
In nearly six years with the ICC I NEVER heard anything like this.
Go figure.....
Love,
~~Emjay
Smlleecat6
Sarah wrote:
.>Not everyone in the ICC is obedient to the leadership. The leadership
.>instructs their members to "stay away" from former members. PERIOD
.>The only reason co-mingling is allowed is to bring back the "fallaway."
.>Of course, only those who are considered "salvagable."
.>Does that clear up the confusion?
.>Sarah
emjay responded:
. In nearly six years with the ICC I NEVER heard anything like this.
. Go figure.....
When I graduated from college I wanted to move to San Diego. I had a
degree in criminal justice and I loved spanish and I wanted to work for
the Border Patrol. I was part of the BCC at the time. I let people know
my intent and I heard things like "oh thats nice" I knew two people
there. Both had been in my campus ministry. One was getting a graduate
degree at UCSD(she was an old roommate) and the other was still working on
her bachelors. When it came time to leave, after the last world mission
seminar, I was told I could not go. Being the "stubborn, prideful, and
rebellious" person that I am, I went anyway. I can remember thinking
before I left that I was really going to change. I was going to be more
bold, I was going to be more outgoing, etc., etc. I left with very good
intentions. I get to San Diego and I find out that I am no longer a
member of the church. I am not allowed to move in with christians, I am
not a member of a bible talk, I am not given a discipleship partner. I
was a former member and I didn't even have any say in the matter. I was
3000 miles away from anyone I knew but ICC members. When I would call my
*friends* in Boston, they didn't want to talk to me. I can remember being
on the phone with some elder's wife in San Diego trying to understand why
all of a sudden I was persona non grata. She couldn't give me an adequate
explanation. And I could tell that she *knew* she wasn't doing the right
thing.
Needless to say I was depressed. I hadn't expected this. For 6 months I
lived in the garage of my old roommates apartment. I shared the garage
with a *diesel* Mercedes and a washer and dryer. I had my old roommate's
new roommates *confess* to me that they had bad attitudes towards me. It
was a great time. I am probably the only person in the world who *hates*
San Diego.
Where were these wonderful loving, giving, selfless disciples then? Had
they all moved to Philadelphia????
Mark Davis
emj...@aol.com (Emjay65) wrote:
>>From: RICK & SARAH BAUER <rgb...@umd5.umd.edu>
>>Date: 3 Jul 1996 12:05:33 GMT
>>Message-ID: <4rdnmd$r...@news.internetmci.com>
>>Not everyone in the ICC is obedient to the leadership. The leadership
>>instructs their members to "stay away" from former members. PERIOD
>>The only reason co-mingling is allowed is to bring back the "fallaway."
>>Of course, only those who are considered "salvagable."
>>Does that clear up the confusion?
>>Sarah
> In nearly six years with the ICC I NEVER heard anything like this.
> Go figure.....
> Love,
> ~~Emjay
NOTHING like that??? Not even remotely close to that???
Once again Emjay - EXACTLY when were you there, what city, and
for how long. I'd like places, times, dates, ect.
Too many things you say just don't compute...
Mark Davis
Starr
emj...@aol.com (Emjay65) wrote:
>.From: kcs...@echo.sound.net (Starr)
>>Date: Tue, 02 Jul 1996 22:57:38 GMT
>>Message-ID: <4rcfju$3...@guitar.sound.net>
>> I do *not* believe many of the things that
>>the ICC teaches as its core doctrine. Therefore I am not a member of
>>the ICC. I don't have a particular "axe" to grind. I have not been
>>"marked". I still have friends within the ICC. I still see many of
>>the good things the ICC does. But I have also made my position on the
>>ICC rather clear in this group.
> But, I thought the ICC wants "nothing to do with you" if you decide
>not to be a member or leave? (you did not claim that) I read that
>frequently on this NewsGroup.
> That confuses me.
It shouldn't. As long as someone still thinks you're "salvageable"
then you are still associated with. And there are people who can
think a bit for themself and judge whether I am a bad influence or
not. :) FWIW, I don't encourage people to leave the ICC *if* they
are happy there. I do encourage *thought* and consideration of what
they are doing, tho.
And for some odd reason, whenever I run into any of my "friends" for
dinner or whatever, it's never just me and them. It's always a couple
ICC members & me, the lone "non-member" hearing how great things are,
and what activity the church is currently doing. I listen because
they are my friends, and if that is important to them then it is
important to me, too, and they also listen to what's going on in my
life.
Starr
>personally done it, except to my wife. If I were to say there were any
>abuse in the system, it would be for the discipl-ee to take for granted
>and to be unappreciative of the input, prayer, and love of the
>discipl-er. However, it pales in comparison to the neglect in
>relationships that occurs in many churches today, where people have gone
>for years and have no friends and don't know anyone in the congregation.
>I think that Paul and Timothy had a pretty close friendship and it's one
>worth imitating, as Paul commands and commends in the NT.
Rog, how do you know of so much neglect in other churches if it's such
a sin to go to a non-ICC service?
TriciaAZ
In article <4rfcbu$i...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, smlle...@aol.com
(Smlleecat6) writes:
>Subject: Re: Roger's Baptism
>From: smlle...@aol.com (Smlleecat6)
>Date: 3 Jul 1996 23:04:30 -0400
:'-( What a sad story. :'-(
I think these people need to be told the effect of their callous treatment
of you.
>
>Where were these wonderful loving, giving, selfless disciples then? Had
>they all moved to Philadelphia????
>
Must have! {{:-{ (what is the symbol for a furrowed brow and a
confused, sad smile?)
LeMel HW
>From: RICK & SARAH BAUER <rgb...@umd5.umd.edu>
>Date: 3 Jul 1996 12:05:33 GMT
>Message-ID: <4rdnmd$r...@news.internetmci.com>
>Not everyone in the ICC is obedient to the leadership. The leadership
>instructs their members to "stay away" from former members. PERIOD
>The only reason co-mingling is allowed is to bring back the "fallaway."
>Of course, only those who are considered "salvagable."
>Does that clear up the confusion?
>Sarah
> In nearly six years with the ICC I NEVER heard
>anything like this.
> Go figure.....
>
> Love,
> ~~Emjay
And in nearly 9 years, I heard it many times. In fact, I eventually heard
it about me in a Wednesday night service.
I, seemingly like you, saw many great things in the church, and had many
great experiences - I became a Christian there - but I know that there are
those who have had godawful experiences there, some of whom I 'went to
bat' for, some of whom I selfishly ignored.
It would behoove(sp?) emjay to consider the radical difference in
individual experiences within the church without being dismissive.
RICK & SARAH BAUER
ma...@mindspring.com (Mark Davis) wrote:
>
> emj...@aol.com (Emjay65) wrote:
>
> >>From: RICK & SARAH BAUER <rgb...@umd5.umd.edu>
> >>Date: 3 Jul 1996 12:05:33 GMT
> >>Message-ID: <4rdnmd$r...@news.internetmci.com>
>
> >>Not everyone in the ICC is obedient to the leadership. The leadership
> >>instructs their members to "stay away" from former members. PERIOD
> >>The only reason co-mingling is allowed is to bring back the "fallaway."
> >>Of course, only those who are considered "salvagable."
> >>Does that clear up the confusion?
> >>Sarah
>
> > In nearly six years with the ICC I NEVER heard anything like this.
> > Go figure.....
So, Emjay are you saying that you are a former member, and that you
were a member for "nearly six years?"
I can accept the fact that you've never heard the leadership say to
"stay away from ex-members." But that doesn't change the fact
that leaders have said it!
> NOTHING like that??? Not even remotely close to that???
> Once again Emjay - EXACTLY when were you there, what city, and
> for how long. I'd like places, times, dates, ect.
> Too many things you say just don't compute...
> Mark Davis
"You will not get with any former members of this congregation!"
Marty Fuqua, World Sector Leader
San Diego Revival - September, 1992
This is on tape if you'd like a copy. I'm not fabricating. I'm
simply stating the facts, just the facts ma'am. ;)
Sarah
Emjay65
>From: kcs...@echo.sound.net (Starr)
>Date: Thu, 04 Jul 1996 04:54:41 GMT
>Message-ID: <4rfot9$8...@guitar.sound.net>
>Rog, how do you know of so much neglect in other churches if it's such
>a sin to go to a non-ICC service?
I don't know about Roger, but all I ever had to do is ask someone.
Emjay65
.And for some odd reason, whenever I run into any of my "friends" for
>dinner or whatever, it's never just me and them. It's always a couple
>ICC members & me, the lone "non-member" hearing how great things are,
>and what activity the church is currently doing. I listen because
>they are my friends, and if that is important to them then it is
>important to me, too, and they also listen to what's going on in my
>life.
I had dinner with an old ICC friend last week. He invited me over to
break the news to me that one of our friends had died. He really did not
mention much about church except when I asked, "who's getting married."
Dinner was pretty good.
Love,
~~Emjay
Emjay65
>From: lem...@aol.com (LeMel HW)
>Date: 4 Jul 1996 03:57:43 -0400
>Message-ID: <4rfthn$p...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
>And in nearly 9 years, I heard it many times. In fact, I eventually heard
>it about me in a Wednesday night service.
Are you telling us you had been disfellowshiped by the ICC?
Love,
~~Emjay
Emjay65
>>I am probably the only person in the world who *hates*
>>San Diego.
>>Where were these wonderful loving, giving, selfless disciples then? Had
>>they all moved to Philadelphia????
So I *MUST* be telling a BIG FAT lie then, right??!!! I never said
every person in the ICC is "awesome". I never said every person in the ICC
has a compassionate, servant's heart. (I can't say that because I don't
know all the people in the ICC.) If you re-read what I have said about
the Philadelphia Church, I've said I found MANY people who have great
hearts.
Just because you met a couple of wierdos does not mean I am a liar!
Don't be so quick to paint the whole ICC with broad strokes because
someone mistreated you. My experiences are REAL. They happened. I do
not question your experiences, please don't question mine.
Love,
~Emjay
Emjay65
>Message-ID: <4rgg0c$4...@news.internetmci.com>
>> In nearly six years with the ICC I NEVER heard anything like this.
>> Go figure.....
>"You will not get with any former members of this congregation!"
>Marty Fuqua, World Sector Leader
>San Diego Revival - September, 1992
>This is on tape if you'd like a copy. I'm not fabricating. I'm
>simply stating the facts, just the facts ma'am. ;)
>Sarah
My, my how some of us jump to conclusions and see things the way we
want. (yes, I do it too) Look at what *i* said "I never heard anyhting
like this..." Now, did I say, "No way! Can't happen in the ICC!!" or
"Not on your life, that NEVER happens in the ICC" ?????
No, I did not. I simply related *my* experiences (as many of you
do) and you jump all over me.
Let me say it again, I never heard anyone say, preach, tell, demand to
stay away from ex-members. On *ONE* occasion, in six years, a particular
person was "marked" by an evangelist. We were advised to not talk to the
person about Church "happenings." Only the 15 or so people in our campus
ministry were told this, it was not shouted from the pulpit to the whole
congregation.
~~~~> I can't wait to see what kind of responses this one gets! : -)
Love,
~~Emjay
LeMel HW
I was not disfellowshiped. An announcement was made before ~100 people
that I was a stupid person, making stupid decisions, against the counsel
of discipling. One week later I was told that I was no longer permitted to
attend. Curiously, I was stricken from the membership months later, when I
was declared a "fallaway", informing people (falsely) that I left
voluntarily. Today, I would say I am away by choice.
RICK & SARAH BAUER
emj...@aol.com (Emjay65) wrote:
>
> >From: RICK & SARAH BAUER <rgb...@umd5.umd.edu>
> >Date: 4 Jul 1996 13:12:44 GMT
> >Message-ID: <4rgg0c$4...@news.internetmci.com>
>
> >> In nearly six years with the ICC I NEVER heard anything like this.
> >> Go figure.....
>
> >"You will not get with any former members of this congregation!"
> >Marty Fuqua, World Sector Leader
> >San Diego Revival - September, 1992
> >This is on tape if you'd like a copy. I'm not fabricating. I'm
> >simply stating the facts, just the facts ma'am. ;)
> >Sarah
>
> My, my how some of us jump to conclusions and see things the way we
> want. (yes, I do it too) Look at what *i* said "I never heard anyhting
> like this..." Now, did I say, "No way! Can't happen in the ICC!!" or
> "Not on your life, that NEVER happens in the ICC" ?????
I never said you said that it "couldn't happen, no way, no
how." Look at what I said! I'm just saying it did happen,
and it's documented. I have in no way tried to put words
in your mouth. Frankly, it doesn't sound like I could get
away with that, nor would I try to do so. It's not my style. :)
> No, I did not. I simply related *my* experiences (as many of you
> do) and you jump all over me.
How have a "jumped all over you?" Please! By quoting one sentence
in a speech given by Marty Fuqua, I have "jumped on you?" A bit
defensive are you not?
> Let me say it again, I never heard anyone say, preach, tell, demand to
> stay away from ex-members. On *ONE* occasion, in six years, a particular
> person was "marked" by an evangelist. We were advised to not talk to the
> person about Church "happenings." Only the 15 or so people in our campus
> ministry were told this, it was not shouted from the pulpit to the whole
> congregation.
Well, that is your expierence. Great, wonderful. As a leader in
the ICC, I told people to stay away from "fallaways" all the time.
Marty Fuqua told an entire church of 1700 from the pulpit. I wouldn't
say he was "shouting," but he spoke with *conviction.*
> ~~~~> I can't wait to see what kind of responses this one gets! : -)
Does that mean you are anticipant and eager for my response?
Or are you saying, "oh brother, what's she gonna say next?"
Either way - here it is, such as it is. My mother used to say
that when she served left-overs. ;)
Sarah
Nancy
Emjay,
Why did you lie to us?
>> In nearly six years with the ICC I NEVER heard
>>anything like this.
>> Go figure.....
>>
>> ~~Emjay
nancy
Starr
emj...@aol.com (Emjay65) wrote:
<Starr wrote>
EM, I don't know why you bother to write "Love, Emjay" in your sig.
because I don't see too much evidence of "love" in many of your posts.
I'm just curious - how come whenever *anyone* relates an experience
that they have had in the ICC, you have an almost identical "positive"
experience? You totally missed the point of most of my post.
BTW - *no one's* experiences in the ICC are identical. There are some
similarities, yes. There are some things that have indicated a trend.
But as each person is unique, each situation is unique.
Emjay65
>From: n1...@usa.pipeline.com(Nancy)
>Date: 5 Jul 1996 01:44:32 GMT
>Message-ID: <4rhs20$i...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>
>Emjay,
>Why did you lie to us?
>> In nearly six years with the ICC I NEVER heard
>>anything like this.
>> Go figure.....
I'm sorry you see what I said as a lie. I was responding to the
accusation that it is standard practice for ICC members to be told NOT to
speak to ex-members. In the later story, I related we were NOT told to
"NOT speak" to the particular person, we were advised not to talk about
"church stuff". No one said "don't talk to him". No one siad, "stay away
from him." To ME, there is a very BIG difference.
Love,
~~Emjay
Nancy
On Jul 05, 1996 17:05:52 in article <Re: Roger's Baptism>, 'emj...@aol.com
(Emjay65)' wrote:
>>Emjay,
>
>>Why did you lie to us?
>
>>> In nearly six years with the ICC I NEVER heard
>>>anything like this.
>>> Go figure.....
>
>I'm sorry you see what I said as a lie. I was responding to the
>accusation that it is standard practice for ICC members to be told NOT to
>speak to ex-members. In the later story, I related we were NOT told to
>"NOT speak" to the particular person, we were advised not to talk about
>"church stuff". No one said "don't talk to him". No one siad, "stay away
>from him." To ME, there is a very BIG difference.
>
>Love,
>~~Emjay
Why did you lie to us about never having been a member, or been affiliated
with the ICC etc?
If you are no longer a member then why did you leave a church that you
think is a good church?
Was your leaving voluntary?
Are you Roger's evil twin? <VBG!!>
nancy
Emjay65
>From: kcs...@echo.sound.net (Starr)
>Date: Fri, 05 Jul 1996 05:12:56 GMT
>Message-ID: <4riebf$n...@guitar.sound.net>
>I'm just curious - how come whenever *anyone* relates an experience
>that they have had in the ICC, you have an almost identical "positive"
>experience? You totally missed the point of most of my post.
Well now I'm curious. Are you telling me you only want me to post
*negative* experiences with the ICC?
Love, Love, Love,
~~Emjay
Emjay65
>From: n1...@usa.pipeline.com(Nancy)
>Date: 5 Jul 1996 22:25:18 GMT
>Message-ID: <4rk4oe$3...@news1.t1.usa.pipeline.com>
>No Emjay,
>Why did you lie to us about never having been a member, or been
affiliated
>with the ICC etc?
I did not lie. I never said I was not an ex-member. I said I was not
a member, present tense.
>If you are no longer a member then why did you leave a church that you
>think is a good church?
That is not your business.
>Was your leaving voluntary?
Yes.
>Are you Roger's evil twin? <VBG!!>
No.But I have an evil twin; his name is Scott Schreiber. : - )
>nancy
Love,
~~Emjay,
Scott W. Schreiber
emj...@aol.com (Emjay65) wrote:
> No.But I have an evil twin; his name is Scott Schreiber. : - )
MOAAH AHH AHH AAHHHA HHA hAAH AHHHHHHHHHH!
}8^/
R.L.Measures
In article <4rgncd$2...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, emj...@aol.com (Emjay65) wrote:
. . . If you re-read what I have said about
> the Philadelphia Church, I've said I found MANY people who have great
> hearts.
--------
Do people with 'great hearts' dump their friends just because a third
party said to do it?
--Rich--
805-386-3734
R.L.Measures
> emj...@aol.com (Emjay65) wrote:
> <Starr wrote>
> >.And for some odd reason, whenever I run into any of my "friends" for
> >>dinner or whatever, it's never just me and them. It's always a couple
> >>ICC members & me, the lone "non-member" hearing how great things are,
> >>and what activity the church is currently doing. I listen because
> >>they are my friends, and if that is important to them then it is
> >>important to me, too, and they also listen to what's going on in my
> >>life.
>
> > I had dinner with an old ICC friend last week. He invited me over to
> >break the news to me that one of our friends had died. He really did not
> >mention much about church except when I asked, "who's getting married."
> >Dinner was pretty good.
>
> EM, I don't know why you bother to write "Love, Emjay" in your sig.
> because I don't see too much evidence of "love" in many of your posts.
-----------
Has anyone else noticed that folks who talk a lot about love, don't seem to?
Has anyone else noticed that those who talk a lot about the telling the
truth, don't seem to?
--Rich--
805-386-3734
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
Starr (kcs...@echo.sound.net) wrote:
: rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
: <snip>
: >I've heard of footwashing done by one disciple to another. I've not
: >personally done it, except to my wife. If I were to say there were any
: >abuse in the system, it would be for the discipl-ee to take for granted
: >and to be unappreciative of the input, prayer, and love of the
: >discipl-er. However, it pales in comparison to the neglect in
: >relationships that occurs in many churches today, where people have gone
: >for years and have no friends and don't know anyone in the congregation.
: >I think that Paul and Timothy had a pretty close friendship and it's one
: >worth imitating, as Paul commands and commends in the NT.
: Rog, how do you know of so much neglect in other churches if it's such
: a sin to go to a non-ICC service?
Easy; I sit down and study the Bible with people and they tell me about
their spiritual background. Many visitors to the fellowship are pleasantly
shocked at the closeness and the racial "mixing" (as one lady called it)
between the members.
Roger Poehlmann
member, SF Church of Christ
(International Church of Christ)
Starr
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
<starr wrote>
>: Rog, how do you know of so much neglect in other churches if it's such
>: a sin to go to a non-ICC service?
>Easy; I sit down and study the Bible with people and they tell me about
>their spiritual background. Many visitors to the fellowship are pleasantly
>shocked at the closeness and the racial "mixing" (as one lady called it)
>between the members.
I will agree that ICC churches are very racially diverse - and it is
very pleasant and a model that a lot of churches could emulate.
However, I do believe the practice of "one church one city" has much
to do with that. I'm not saying that's good or bad, mind you, just
that I believe that's the reason for such diversity.
Ovum
In article <4rotk8$g...@guitar.sound.net>, kcs...@echo.sound.net (Starr)
writes:
>I will agree that ICC churches are very racially diverse - and it is
>very pleasant and a model that a lot of churches could emulate.
>However, I do believe the practice of "one church one city" has much
>to do with that. I'm not saying that's good or bad, mind you, just
>that I believe that's the reason for such diversity.
I think it's also because ICC recruits young people, who are often (not
always) not as racist as older folks.
Emjay65
.From: ov...@aol.com (Ovum)
.Date: 7 Jul 1996 21:32:19 -0400
.Message-ID: <4rpof3$d...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
.In article <4rotk8$g...@guitar.sound.net>, kcs...@echo.sound.net (Starr)
.writes:
.>I will agree that ICC churches are very racially diverse - and it is
.>very pleasant and a model that a lot of churches could emulate.
.>However, I do believe the practice of "one church one city" has much
.>to do with that. I'm not saying that's good or bad, mind you, just
.>that I believe that's the reason for such diversity.
.I think it's also because ICC recruits young people, who are often (not
.always) not as racist as older folks.
Is that *your opinion*, or is that fact? "The ICC *recruits* young
people..." ???
Love Emjay
LeMel HW
ICC's genuinely reflect the diversity of the communities in which they
sit. It is a testimony to the sincerity and Godliness of *individual
members who make it so*, as it would be with any other church or
organization.
Martin Hinves
Jan Sloan <sl...@access.digex.net> wrote:
>>If your
>> studying with a member then they will bend over backwards for you. If you
>> no longer want to study then its "see ya!"
>
>I've seen this happen also. From what I've seen, this is why it happens - people have
>the wrong motives to begin with. Some members are not (gulp) perfect. Some are
>glory-seeking. Some haven't learned how to be a friend. When they realize that a
>person is not interested in joining the church they are dropped like a hot potato.
>
>One of the things that me and my husband totally encourage in our mission group (house
>church) is disciples being a real friend to people, whether they are members of the
>church or not. It's real easy to walk up to a stranger and ask them to come to church
>but it takes alot to be a true friend. It is real easy to smile in a disciple's face
>and act like you like them when you really are just trying to look loving in the
>fellowship. It's not so easy to sit with them and be real friends. Real friends share
>the good and the bad. If you are truly a friend to someone, you will be selfless in
>their times of need.
>
>In Christ,
>--
>Jan E. Sloan
I have to admit this is what we were taught within the ICC too.
It was stressed to us that only those people within the ICC
could ever be our freinds.
I personally was rubuked for on many occassions for having
stronger freinships with people outside the ICC including
ex-members.
In many of these cases I had been freinds for over 20 years
with these people and they were christians attending
"demominations" or people I had served with in the military
under "fire" together.
Yet as far as the iCC leadership was concerned I was only to be
a freind to them to get them along to church or to convert
them.
Nothing else mattered.
I attended many sermons on ways to get people to church by
false freindship and trickery.
I attended discussions where it was stated that people were to
be brought to church so that "Person X" could work on their
weak points.
I said I thought we ask people to come to church so God and his
message could impact them - not bring people to church so that
people could influence them in unfair manners.
I saw many cases of this and it sickened me that such
unchristian methods could be used to bring people to "church".
Non members were told that their freindships with church
members could only proceed if thay studied or came to or joined
the church.
Many people joined because the ICC was the social life they
never had.
I saw leaders tell ex-members as they left that they could
never be freinds - not over doctrinal matters but because the
person leaving was no longer a part of the ICC.
Freindship was dependant upon ICC membership !
I went out of my way to to try to establish freinds with
new-members but I was told by the leadership (Zone level) that
I was not good at picking my freinds and they would choose them
for me.
(If that is not a disputable matter what is).
When I did not desist "other freinds" the leadership deemed
"suitable" for the new members was manipulated into the
equation.
It even got to the situation that when I had arranged to pend
time with certain new members, they would ring up and cancel -
the reason being that they told their discipler we had arranged
to do something and when and it was "arranged" that someone
"more important" or "something more important" had to be
seen to.
Now I am used to problems preventing people meeting together
but when you are cancelled on 20 times running and the reason
is always the same - something needs to be looked at.
I guess in my own way I was stubborn enough to persist <G>>
I think as a christian we should look at ANY freindship as to
what can I put into it rather than what can I get out of it.
I know we all will not be freinds but we can as Christians
respect each other.
AS christians we must remember that we are looked at by the
world and it is from us that they gain a look at christianity.
AS christians we must remember that other christians will look
at us to.
It is his lamp that shines that people should see.
WE should not be doing things from compulsion but from our
faith.
And it is that faith that should shine forth to others.
WE should not fall into the legalistic trap of doing things
because they look good/ because they are christian acts.
IT is okay to fail to make a mistake you know <VBG>
We are human not perfect like God.
After all if we did not fail or make a mistake every now and
then - what use would God's Grace and Love be ?
Martin HInves
Chris Garland
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>: Rog, how do you know of so much neglect in other churches if it's such
>: a sin to go to a non-ICC service?
>
>Easy; I sit down and study the Bible with people and they tell me about
>their spiritual background. Many visitors to the fellowship are pleasantly
>shocked at the closeness and the racial "mixing" (as one lady called it)
>between the members.
The *racial mixing* of the ICC is a direct function of their policy of
one church/one city. When you break down into individual zones based on
geography, that mixing also breaks down. For example, the Harlem sector
in New York City is predominantly black, while the Battery Park City zone
is predominantly white. The West Side of Manhattan is quite racially
diverse, so, naturally, the congregation there is racially diverse. Put
them all together and you've got a racially mixed congregation. No magic
here. The only difference is the ICC controls how zones are partioned.
Some times geographically, sometimes, it seems, randomly. The New York
Church leaders have, in the past, hand picked people to be in each zone.
Why pat yourself on the back for something you've orchestrated?
Again, if I were to assemble all of the various Catholic congregations
throughout New York City into one meeting place, the racial diversity
would also appear commendable. Then, what is the reason behind pointing
to the so-called racial diversity in the ICC? Is it to somehow condemn
other churches for their legitimate choices of having numerous smaller
congregations throughout the city, or is it an attempt at gathering
*clues* or indicators that the ICC is truly God's church? We can all
fabricate God's church -- nothing special going on at the ICC in the area
of racial mixing.
JimV1959
:emj...@aol.com (Emjay65) in <4rptvt$3...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> July 7
:.In article <4rotk8$g...@guitar.sound.net>, kcs...@echo.sound.net (Starr)
:.writes:
:.>I will agree that ICC churches are very racially diverse - and it is
:.>very pleasant and a model that a lot of churches could emulate.
:.>However, I do believe the practice of "one church one city" has much
:.>to do with that. I'm not saying that's good or bad, mind you, just
:.>that I believe that's the reason for such diversity.
: Is that *your opinion*, or is that fact? "The ICC *recruits* young
:people..." ???
: Love Emjay
Weeelllll, The ICC's "top dog" did say at the World Leaders Conferance in
South Africa, Nov 1995 (I'm going from memory here ) "We've got to get
back to the campuses, it is this movements lifeblood."
Thought you might want to know.
If you require a more exact quote I'll get the tape out.
In Christ,
Jim
Smlleecat6
> Is that *your opinion*, or is that fact? "The ICC *recruits* young
>people..." ???
> Love Emjay
Recruit - a new member of any group,body or organization. - Webster's New
World Dictionary
I'd say it's a fact.
Emjay65
>From: jimv...@aol.com (JimV1959)
>Date: 8 Jul 1996 14:45:28 -0400
>Message-ID: <4rrl08$k...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
>:.>I will agree that ICC churches are very racially diverse - and it is
>:.>very pleasant and a model that a lot of churches could emulate.
>:.>However, I do believe the practice of "one church one city" has much
>:.>to do with that. I'm not saying that's good or bad, mind you, just
>:.>that I believe that's the reason for such diversity.
>: Is that *your opinion*, or is that fact? "The ICC *recruits* young
>:people..." ???
>: Love Emjay
Careful with the snippage! You snipped what I was comenting on "the
ICC recruits young people..." : - )
>Weeelllll, The ICC's "top dog" did say at the World Leaders Conferance in
>South Africa, Nov 1995 (I'm going from memory here ) "We've got to get
>back to the campuses, it is this movements lifeblood."
Did Mr. McKean say "we should only recruit on the campuses?" I used
to hear that it was important to "reach-out" to family: brothers, sisters,
parents, grandparents etc. My point was that the ICC does not "recruit"
only young people.
T
Emjay65
>From: smlle...@aol.com (Smlleecat6)
>Date: 8 Jul 1996 16:23:18 -0400
>Message-ID: <4rrqnm$n...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
> > Is that *your opinion*, or is that fact? "The ICC *recruits* young
>>people..." ???
>> Love Emjay
>Recruit - a new member of any group,body or organization. - Webster's New
>World Dictionary
>I'd say it's a fact.
I'm sorry, I fail to see the connection between a Webster's Dictionary
and whether or not the ICC only "recruits" young people.
I was referring to a post which seemed to claim the ICC only recruits
young people.
Love Emjay
Smlleecat6
> I was referring to a post which seemed to claim the ICC only recruits
>young people.
> Love Emjay
Well, I haven't seen many old people in the ICC. In fact I've seen very,
very few. And before you ask, No, I haven't been to every ICC church in
the world.
Ovum
In article <4rruab$p...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, emj...@aol.com (Emjay65)
writes:
>
> Careful with the snippage! You snipped what I was comenting on "the
>ICC recruits young people..." : - )
>
>>Weeelllll, The ICC's "top dog" did say at the World Leaders Conferance
in
>>South Africa, Nov 1995 (I'm going from memory here ) "We've got to get
>>back to the campuses, it is this movements lifeblood."
>
> Did Mr. McKean say "we should only recruit on the campuses?" I used
>to hear that it was important to "reach-out" to family: brothers,
sisters,
>parents, grandparents etc. My point was that the ICC does not "recruit"
>only young people.
Hey Emjay,
Several months ago we had a whole newsgroup thread on the age thing. I
don't know if our newsgroup has an archive. Maybe you can ask Chris Lee
how to dig up those posts, instead of us rehashing old ground.
RICK & SARAH BAUER
emj...@aol.com (Emjay65) wrote:
>
<snip>
> to hear that it was important to "reach-out" to family: brothers, sisters,
> parents, grandparents etc. My point was that the ICC does not "recruit"
> only young people.
You did not say "only" in your original post. No one said, "only
recruit on campuses."
In 1992, Chris Fuqua made the statement that future ICC leaders
come from Campus recruits, and that the campus ministry was not
doing well and had to pick up the pace.
The ICC has an emphasis on the campus. That's a fact.
Sarah
RICK & SARAH BAUER
emj...@aol.com (Emjay65) wrote:
>
> snip>
> I'm sorry, I fail to see the connection between a Webster's Dictionary
> I was referring to a post which seemed to claim the ICC only recruits
> young people.
>
> Love Emjay
Again, you have used the term "only." This was not in the original
post. Check it for yourself.
No one has ever said the ICC "only recruits young people."
Sarah
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
Ovum (ov...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <4rotk8$g...@guitar.sound.net>, kcs...@echo.sound.net (Starr)
: writes:
: >I will agree that ICC churches are very racially diverse - and it is
: >very pleasant and a model that a lot of churches could emulate.
: >However, I do believe the practice of "one church one city" has much
: >to do with that. I'm not saying that's good or bad, mind you, just
: >that I believe that's the reason for such diversity.
Here in Berkeley there are many churches with all black, all latino,
all Asian, etc. Even in their *names* there is the "Korean Baptist
Student Union", "Chinese Christian Fellowship", etc.
The Berkeley sector has a mix of Asian, Indian, white, black, latino,
etc. people. So does the University of California. Berkeley is very
racially diverse; however the church organizations seem to separate out
the different peoples.
: I think it's also because ICC recruits young people, who are often (not
: always) not as racist as older folks.
I don't think so; we just call people to repent of hatred, prejudice, and
racism as part of their repentance. I guess those who don't want to
repent of those things manage to find churches that allow it.
RICK & SARAH BAUER
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>
> Ovum (ov...@aol.com) wrote:
> : In article <4rotk8$g...@guitar.sound.net>, kcs...@echo.sound.net (Starr)
> : writes:
> : >I will agree that ICC churches are very racially diverse - and it is
> : >very pleasant and a model that a lot of churches could emulate.
> : >However, I do believe the practice of "one church one city" has much
> : >to do with that. I'm not saying that's good or bad, mind you, just
> : >that I believe that's the reason for such diversity.
>
> Here in Berkeley there are many churches with all black, all latino,
> all Asian, etc. Even in their *names* there is the "Korean Baptist
> Student Union", "Chinese Christian Fellowship", etc.
The ICC has introduced what they term "speciality groups." These
groups are designed to meet the needs of their members, i.e. -
MAS - Music and Arts Sector; Cross and SwitchBlade; etc.
You must fall into certain catagorey to be a member of this sector.
Just thought those out there might like to know that the ICC doesn't
always mix certain people into the general population. Now these
"speciality groups" do not segregate by color, but more by profession
or type.
FYI
Sarah
RICK & SARAH BAUER
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>
> Ovum (ov...@aol.com) wrote:
> : In article <4rotk8$g...@guitar.sound.net>, kcs...@echo.sound.net (Starr)
> : writes:
> : >I will agree that ICC churches are very racially diverse - and it is
> : >very pleasant and a model that a lot of churches could emulate.
> : >However, I do believe the practice of "one church one city" has much
> : >to do with that. I'm not saying that's good or bad, mind you, just
> : >that I believe that's the reason for such diversity.
>
> Here in Berkeley there are many churches with all black, all latino,
> all Asian, etc. Even in their *names* there is the "Korean Baptist
> Student Union", "Chinese Christian Fellowship", etc.
The ICC has introduced what they term "speciality groups." These
groups are designed to meet the needs of their members, i.e. -
MAS - Music and Arts Sector; Cross and SwitchBlade; etc.
You must fall into certain categorey to be a member of this sector.
Scott W. Schreiber
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>I don't think so; we just call people to repent of hatred, prejudice, and
>racism as part of their repentance.
While I agree that racism is a terrible thing, what is so evil about
wanting to be with people who are like you?