Olivia McKean fell away!
fallaway
to leave the church. This can be confirmed by Boston leaders and the
McKeans. Wow.
Allen Barnett
***
HOW - can this be confirmed ? You got links ?
--
Allen Barnett
Snookerdoodle
> This is not a rumor. In January, Kip McKean's daughter Olivia decided
> to leave the church. This can be confirmed by Boston leaders and the
> McKeans. Wow.
Geez, you'd think the admins at the Hospital for Special Surgery
(ain't google wise to put the posting host in their headers?) wouldn't
let their users waste time and others' privacy like this...
And besides, where's the pix of cute_girl so we can be the judge of
how cute he/she really is? Perhaps they should have chosen
UGLY_Troll_Wi...@hotmail.com.
fallaway
any disciples who are in the boston church (especially campus) and who
know, or actually are, leaders there, they can confirm it. There are
no links- you actually think they'd publish this??!! That's why I'm
posting it here. I already know it will be dismissed as a rumor, but
it's not a rumor and the news will come out from the leadership, in
due time. The church will _have_ to deal with it when people find
out. It's all hush-hush now, for obvious reasons.
Allen Barnett
>
> ...
> ... I already know it will be dismissed as a rumor, but
> it's not a rumor and the news will come out from the leadership, in
> due time. The church will _have_ to deal with it when people find
> out. It's all hush-hush now, for obvious reasons.
***
Oh I'm sure the ICC machine will deal with it. In the past - Kip
McKean has dismissed Elders and others in leadership - 'citing
the requirements of the Bible' - when they experienced similar
Religious Freedom and perhaps Theological issues with their own
kids. He has also condemned - [to a life in Hell] - anyone who
leaves his church.
I am personally as much in favor of Olivia making her own
decisions - as I am for my 'kid' to have the same freedom --
don't get me wrong! But - it will be a hard pill to swallow -
when Kip McKean has to admit that he cannot preach his distorted
theology to his own family. I simply wish that he hadn't
preached it to mine.
This is not really about Olivia ... it's about her Dad and what
he demands of everybody else's kids. What Kip is doing is wrong
- and I'm 'on the side' of anyone else who agrees.
--
Allen Barnett
fallaway
http://www.delphi.com/Disciples4/messages/?msg=92.1
Allen Barnett <allen_...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:<3BC4527B...@bigfoot.com>...
Allen Barnett
>
> ...
> Geez, you'd think the admins at the Hospital for Special Surgery
> (ain't google wise to put the posting host in their headers?) wouldn't
> let their users waste time and others' privacy like this...
>
> And besides, where's the pix of cute_girl so we can be the judge of
> how cute he/she really is? Perhaps they should have chosen
> UGLY_Troll_Wi...@hotmail.com.
***
Snooker,
I suppose you are trying to make some kind of points *for the
ICC*. Or are you demonstrating how people in the ICC like to
bash others ?
Speaking of Privacy ... Is that word even in the ICC Glossary ?
The ICC condemns others -- but they all live in a 'glass house'.
Nice chatting with you - Mark.
Have a nice day !
--
Allen Barnett
fallaway
and rude... dope!
Snookerdoodle
> Snookerdoodle wrote:
> >
> > ...
>
> > Geez, you'd think the admins at the Hospital for Special Surgery
> > (ain't google wise to put the posting host in their headers?) wouldn't
> > let their users waste time and others' privacy like this...
> >
> > And besides, where's the pix of cute_girl so we can be the judge of
> > how cute he/she really is? Perhaps they should have chosen
> > UGLY_Troll_Wi...@hotmail.com.
>
> ***
>
> Snooker,
>
> I suppose you are trying to make some kind of points *for the
> ICC*. Or are you demonstrating how people in the ICC like to
> bash others ?
I suppose you're humor impaired. How in the world would this "make
points"? And since when is pointing out a troll "bashing"?
This is a troll. They won't even let him post it in the ex-icoc
support forum on Delphi.
> Speaking of Privacy ... Is that word even in the ICC Glossary ?
> The ICC condemns others -- but they all live in a 'glass house'.
Yes it is. Who condemned anyone?
> Nice chatting with you - Mark.
'Glad you brought that up. "snook" is and has been a handle of
mine for quite some time (you never really stop being a geek)
and I *usually* remember to sign my given name - more than I can
say for this person...
Nice typing to you - Allen.
Mark
fallaway
> points"? And since when is pointing out a troll "bashing"?
> This is a troll. They won't even let him post it in the ex-icoc
> support forum on Delphi.
for the record sweetheart, I am not a "he"; I am a "she."
This is hilarious! How do you know I'm a troll??! You're as paranoid
as the exicoc forum admins. i understand that they really didn't want
rumors spread, but as i say below, this info by now is the public
domain. or will be. and SHOULD be, damn it. What the heck is a troll
anyway? For all I know, you could be a troll.
OK so let's get back to a civil discussion, shall we? _Thank_ you!
I happen to know Olivia personally because we were in the same
ministry, were discipled by the same DP, and left at about the same
time. Knowing Liv, I know she could not give one sh*t about who knows
and who doesn't. Anyway, she has no freaking TIME to be on the
internet explaining her whole story because she is busy finally
getting on with her life at Harvard with the friends _she_ feels
comfortable with, and pursuing her tennis career as well, not having
to feel guilty for all the time it takes to actually achieve something
in the "world" (which many campus disciples can hardly fathom- so many
of them end up dropping out or failing out of school because of their
"commitment." _Great_) Because the point is, she's Kip's daughter, she
left, everyone she cares about knows, and it's practically public
domain info now- and if not now, it will be. The sad thing is that no
one in the church has the chance to question Kip, the leadership, and
the church about this whole thing.
So I figured we might as well get the record straight. I think members
have a right to know, and disciples too, because this is not about
Olivia- or even about Kip- but about the LEADERSHIP and destructive
culture of values this church has been perpetuating for years and how
it hurts people or just plain turns them off. Even- no, especially-
those who have been raised by top leaders in this ICC culture, those
same people who are supposed to be so "lucky" to have been raised in
the church. Lucky, my ass. Personally I don't think it's just "Kip," I
think it's those leaders and people under him who have made the system
work, perhaps even worse than he made it out to be.
> Nice typing to you - Allen.
LOLOLOL
ok, can we have some kind of a truce? i'm not trying to start a fight
or anything here, although ppl seem to love doing that here. oh well-
tony
feeling very alone and in great emotional pain, I pray she as a human being
can move on and still feel God loves her more than she can possibly imagine.
God is far bigger than the ICOC
Wings_of_eagles
----------%<
> Anyway, she has no freaking TIME to be on the
> internet explaining her whole story because she is busy finally
> getting on with her life at Harvard with the friends _she_ feels
> comfortable with, and pursuing her tennis career as well, not having
> to feel guilty for all the time it takes to actually achieve something
> in the "world" (which many campus disciples can hardly fathom- so many
> of them end up dropping out or failing out of school because of their
> "commitment." _Great_)
More power to her. Thanks for the info.
Deborah Proctor
"Wings_of_eagles" <eagle_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:300a12d1.01101...@posting.google.com...
Which still begs the question why is Kip still in leadership? I remember
when I was a member in the early 80s and having an adult child fall away
meant that leader would be taken out of leadership. Funny how now that its
Kip its different. I guess the scriptural requirements are to be applied
differently to Kip vs. others in leadership. But hey, what else is new?
Don't current members see the issue and question?
Deborah Proctor
marask...@earthlink.net
Scott James
christians. This applies to elders, which he wouldn't be allowed to be if
his daughter really isn't a christian.
scott
"Deborah Proctor" <mara...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:AIly7.18518$0Z6.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Allen Barnett
>
> I don't believe that the Bible says evangelists' children must all be
> christians. This applies to elders, which he wouldn't be allowed to be if
> his daughter really isn't a christian.
>
> scott
***
Scott - the word 'evangelist' is used three times in the NT.
They are NOT quite so important as Kip has made them to be in his
church. Elders are supposed to be selected from the good people
of the region -- not dispatched from LA by Kip.
--
Allen Barnett
Scott James
disciples. This standard is not for evangelists. Since the church is so
young, it is hard to have true elders, but they are coming. We realize
their importance.
Scott
"Allen Barnett" <allen_...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:3BCAB968...@bigfoot.com...
Allen Barnett
>
> All I'm saying is that only elders have to have children who are all
> disciples. This standard is not for evangelists. Since the church is so
> young, it is hard to have true elders, but they are coming. We realize
> their importance.
>
> Scott
***
Scott,
The ICC is certainly a very confusing church. Some members would
have one to think that the ICC is the 'one true remnant of First
Century christianity'. Here you explain the 'lack of Elders
problem' by telling me that the ICC *is so young* that it cannot
have Elders according to biblical instructions.
In Biblical times - Churches were formed by selecting Elders -
wise, honorable and trustworthy men - from the surrounding area.
They also had a Preacher or a Minister. The Elders oversaw the
day to day operation of the church and some even assisted with
the teaching. Are you telling me that the ICC cannot find Men
who fit these requirements?
Kip McKean has this to say about the role of Elders and
Evangelists in his church:
"The evangelist without elders in the congregation is the
authority of God in the congregation. The only time he is not to
be obeyed is when he calls you to disobey Scripture or disobey
your conscience, and even if he calls on you to do something that
disobeys your conscience, you still have an obligation to study
it out and prayerfully change your opinion so that you can be
totally unified." (Kip McKean, 'Why Do You Resist the Spirit?',
World Mission Seminar 1987)
Scott -- do you agree with Kip on the above ?? What does your
Bible say ??
--
Allen Barnett
Scott James
unreasonable.
I'm glad you used this quotation again. Notice that Kip says, "The
evangelist WITHOUT elders in the congregation is the authority of God in the
congregation." Please don't misunderstand what he is saying. He is saying
that if there is a congregation without elders, then the evangelist is in
charge. Obviously, if there are elders, then the elders are in charge. I
think he pretty well states that fact that we understand the role of elder.
Yes, the church is young. This means that there aren't a WHOLE lot of wise,
trustworthy, married men whose children are disciples. I'm pretty sure that
we just follow the plan for elder that was laid out for Timothy.
Scott
"Allen Barnett" <allen_...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:3BCB91EE...@bigfoot.com...
Allen Barnett
Comments Inline !
***
Scott James wrote:
>
> Yes. I do agree with him. I seem to agree with anything that you deem
> unreasonable.
In RE:
"The evangelist without elders in the congregation is the
authority of God in the congregation. The only time he is not to
be obeyed is when he calls you to disobey Scripture or disobey
your conscience, and even if he calls on you to do something that
disobeys your conscience, you still have an obligation to study
it out and prayerfully change your opinion so that you can be
totally unified." (Kip McKean, 'Why Do You Resist the Spirit?',
World Mission Seminar 1987)
> I'm glad you used this quotation again. Notice that Kip says, "The
> evangelist WITHOUT elders in the congregation is the authority of God in the
> congregation." Please don't misunderstand what he is saying. He is saying
> that if there is a congregation without elders, then the evangelist is in
> charge. Obviously, if there are elders, then the elders are in charge. I
> think he pretty well states that fact that we understand the role of elder.
{gasp} -- "the elders are in charge" ... where ??
> Yes, the church is young. This means that there aren't a WHOLE lot of wise,
> trustworthy, married men whose children are disciples. I'm pretty sure that
> we just follow the plan for elder that was laid out for Timothy.
Pretty sure is not good enough ! The leaders of the ICC have
made many mistakes.
> Scott
***
Scott,
I hate to be the one to break this Bad News to you - but the
statement I quoted, vintage 1987, is one of a number of 'biblical
truths' once held by Kip McKean that have been taken back as he
continues to 'study his bible' - just like the rest of us are
supposed to be doing. I'm not surprised to hear that the ICC is
still promoting attitudes and teachings that result in your
thinking like you do. Some disciplers never got the message to
preach the bible - and leave out the control !!
The Evangelist, Elder or your 'discipler' in the ICC has NO
Authority to do anything more than advise you. There should be
NO dating rules, NO tithing rules, NO attendance rules, NO rules
unique to the ICC --- there should be nothing going on in the ICC
not clearly stated in the Bible. There should be NO Pressure to
comply.
However; THIS is what the ICC does !!
"I believe that we should be silent where the Bible speaks and
speak where the Bible is silent. In other words, a Christian
should simply obey where the Bible speaks and only speak (have
opinions) where the Bible is silent. In building a life, a church
or a 'system' for a movement, we are 'free' to do anything the
Scriptures do not specifically, by command, by example or by
necessary inference prohibit (Colossians 2:6-23)." (Kip McKean,
Revolution Through Restoration, 1992)
The job of the leader in any church is to Preach the Gospel of
Jesus Christ ... NOT to make rules for you and others to follow.
Where is your conscience - where is your ability to decide when
you as you have done agree that leaders in your church have a
responsibility to be the authority in your life. Here is another
quote - and I'll give the link for verification.
"We keep adjusting until we get it right-on. In these four areas
- (discipleship, authority, advice, imitation} - there are some
things that I, and others, have taught that I am now convinced
were off the mark. This article is a readjustment in the aim.
Mistakes and errors in previous articles and speeches were
certainly not intentional, and I am sorry that we missed the
center. Religious movements throughout history have died because
leaders were too proud to admit error and change; let us never
give Satan that chance to destroy us, but always seek to put the
truths of God and his Word into practice in our lives. This
article is the result of much prayer, study, discussion and
observation over the past few years. It is an attempt to readjust
what was previously taught with the prayer of achieving a more
biblical view. It will prayerfully enable us to be better
disciples and to more effectively make disciples who will last."
"... A disciple who has been given advice needs to think and pray
about the advice to decide if it is what Jesus would do or what
Jesus would want him to do. Blind, unthinking obedience can be
very dangerous. A brother being discipled by Kip McKean said, "If
Kip says, ‘Brother, you do this,’ I say, ‘Okay.’ I don’t argue, I
don’t question; I do it. Why? Because I want to be more effective
for God." That brother has long ago repented of such thinking."
Scott, ... as to whether or not you and your church represent
'what Jesus would do' ... Please see the comments provided by MM
in another thread here at a.r.c.b-c: [part of it follows] You
never replied - I do hope you are thinking about what MM said !!
"Did you just say, essentially, that you think it is your duty to
represent the primal supernatural power in the universe (Christ)
on the planet Earth, and that there are many others like yourself
with the same duty ? Do you fervently believe that this group's
leaders possess the key to having a personal relationship with
Christ before and after death, and that your faith in this
belief, as strictly defined by your leaders, is the key to what
happens to you after your physical body dies?
Do these leaders, in the ICC, require you to urge others to
subscribe to their group's beliefs and make financial
contributions? Do they call into question your suitability for a
relationship with Christ if you do not perform as they direct?
Are you convinced that you must have unconditional faith in this
process, because you are convinced these "leaders" are to be
obeyed as higher representatives of Christ than yourself? Is it
necessary that you follow their guidance if you are to have a
chance at a favorable relationship with this power after the
death of your physical body? Is a large portion of your time,
money, and thoughts directed towards complying with this
guidance? When this "leadership" condemns certain people, do you
believe it affects those people after their death, or that your
leaders have knowledge or authority sufficient to interpret what
is going to happen to those people after death? Have they lead
you to fear any alternative to their guidance, lest discarding it
ruin your chances for a happy death? Are you committed a process
of reasoning that is defined by those same people who (mis)guide
you?"
[more]
--
Allen Barnett
Scott James
I am content to do what someone else says, as long is it doesn't contradict
scripture. If you aren't then that's your shortcoming.
I've read this article you referenced, and MM's posting. I still believe we
are supposed to represent Christ on Earth-simply in the context of 2
Corinthians 5:19-21. I don't think that we're supposed to heal the sick and
forgive sins, of course.
I listen to my evangelist because he is my leader. We are organized. It's
just like a soldier following his commanding officer. I don't understand
what is wrong with this. I am flat cranking fired up to be a tool my
evangelist, and I feel no shame in doing what he says.
Scott
"Allen Barnett" <allen_...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:3BCBBC02...@bigfoot.com...
Allen Barnett
>
> Without making this lengthy-
>
> I am content to do what someone else says, as long is it doesn't contradict
> scripture. If you aren't then that's your shortcoming.
Then I suggest you learn to consider - perhaps even accept 'other
interpretations' of Scripture - not just how a single distorted
vision is pounded into you by the methodology of Kip McKean's
ICC. Look at other information - look at what others say the ICC
has interpreted wrong. A good place for that is a new article I
would like for you to read. Link follows - perhaps you would
learn to *not judge* others 'for their shortcomings' - in the
eyes of the ICC ... IF you just understood !
>
http://rightcyberup.org/emphasis.html
> I've read this article you referenced, and MM's posting. I still believe we
> are supposed to represent Christ on Earth-simply in the context of 2
> Corinthians 5:19-21. I don't think that we're supposed to heal the sick and
> forgive sins, of course.
Step back from the bible - get away from focusing on individual
ICC selected verses. A dozen verses before the verse(s) you
referred - the bible tells us: v.9 'So we make it our goal to
please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it.'
Scott - this verse tells you that you are to 'please him' ... not
the leaders of the ICC. Try telling your leaders that you will
be 'pleasing him' next Sunday by visiting the sick and the poor
and contributing your money to other worthy causes -- instead of
at home with their body. What happens to you - [as a member of
the ICC] - IF you follow the Bible ... using different verses ??
> I listen to my evangelist because he is my leader. We are organized. It's
> just like a soldier following his commanding officer. I don't understand
> what is wrong with this. I am flat cranking fired up to be a tool my
> evangelist, and I feel no shame in doing what he says.
Yes it is !! There are many people in a far-away land [I hope]
doing exactly this at this time. They are following their
leaders. They are acting and doing what Osama says. He has
explained their religion to them -- and they understand
perfectly. The problem is -- Osama and the Taliban has preached
Islam wrong.
Scott - don't be a tool for the wrong cause !!
--
Allen Barnett
Deborah Proctor
"Scott James" <jam...@purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:9qfk3v$jug$1...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu...
> All I'm saying is that only elders have to have children who are all
> disciples. This standard is not for evangelists. Since the church is so
> young, it is hard to have true elders, but they are coming. We realize
> their importance.
>
> Scott
Scott,
But when Kip puts evangelists over elders don't you think the standard
should be the same?
The ICC isn't practicing what the Bible states in relation to
elders/evangelists. Why is that? Two words: Kip McKean.
Irregardless of what you state it was true that even evangelists had to have
faithful adult children before being appointed by Kip as an evangelist in
the early 80s. Why has this changed?
Deborah Proctor
marask...@earthlink.net
Deborah Proctor
> Without making this lengthy-
>
> I am content to do what someone else says, as long is it doesn't
contradict
> scripture. If you aren't then that's your shortcoming.
>
> I've read this article you referenced, and MM's posting. I still believe
we
> are supposed to represent Christ on Earth-simply in the context of 2
> Corinthians 5:19-21. I don't think that we're supposed to heal the sick
and
> forgive sins, of course.
>
> I listen to my evangelist because he is my leader. We are organized.
It's
> just like a soldier following his commanding officer. I don't understand
> what is wrong with this. I am flat cranking fired up to be a tool my
> evangelist, and I feel no shame in doing what he says.
>
> Scott
Scott,
Then why does the Bible teach that the elders are over the evangelist but in
the ICC its reversed?
Deborah Proctor
marask...@earthlink.net
Scott James
congregations, the evangelist is in charge. This is why Kip made the
distinction between congregations with elders and the type of congregation
he would later discuss.
Scott
"Deborah Proctor" <mara...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:mA5z7.5036$SU2.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Scott James
You mean regardless, not irregardless. If what you say is true about
Evangelists in the early 80's, then they changed it because, to the best of
my knowledge, the Bible does not specify that Evangelists must have
Christian children. If they operated under this rule, then it was merely a
man-made convention, like the idea of disciplers, that they decided to quit
following. If someone can assure me that the Bible says Evangelists must
have Christian children, and that Kip's daughter is not a disciple, then I
will call Him up and rebuke Him myself.
(I threw the upper-case "H" in there to give you guys a spin ;) )
Allen Barnett
>
> ...
> Irregardless of what you state it was true that even evangelists had to have
> faithful adult children before being appointed by Kip as an evangelist in
> the early 80s. Why has this changed?
>
> Deborah Proctor
***
Perhaps Kip realized that sometimes, just sometimes ... teenage
daughters challenge their Dads to wits end. Once Kip realized
that he had a daughter who would be raised mostly as a 'disciple'
[but God willing - perhaps with her own mind] - maybe he got
really worried about the 'children who are disciples rule' - as
it might be applied to him toward the late 90's.
IF I ran my own church like Kip does - and had free use of the
word 'disciple' like Kip does - and could single out certain
lines of Scripture to cite for specific 'biblical' rules for all
disciples to obey - I would focus on specific scripture to make
rules applicable to my female teenagers *before* I myself, got
caught breaking them.
One thing about Kip's church you must notice ... all of his
distorted theology works best for HIM. After all - the rest of
us are going to Hell - unless we agree with HIM.
At least Kip doesn't rule that his women must wear a blue cloth
bag over their head in public.
--
Allen Barnett
Allen Barnett
>
> It's not reversed. There are congregations without elders. In these
> congregations, the evangelist is in charge. This is why Kip made the
> distinction between congregations with elders and the type of congregation
> he would later discuss.
>
> Scott
***
Scott,
Help me find just One ICC congregation with biblically qualified
Elders ... where the Elders are in charge - and over Kip's
evangelizer. This might go a long way toward proving that the
ICC is the church of the bible. Make this a top priority project
!! Ask everybody you know.
Just one church where the Elders 'are in charge' ... Be Specific
! According to the 'Growth Chart' at icoc.org ... you have 407
congregations to choose from.
--
Allen Barnett
Allen Barnett
>
> Evangelists lead Elders where there are no Elders!
>
> You mean regardless, not irregardless. If what you say is true about
> Evangelists in the early 80's, then they changed it because, to the best of
> my knowledge, the Bible does not specify that Evangelists must have
> Christian children. If they operated under this rule, then it was merely a
> man-made convention, like the idea of disciplers, that they decided to quit
> following. If someone can assure me that the Bible says Evangelists must
> have Christian children, and that Kip's daughter is not a disciple, then I
> will call Him up and rebuke Him myself.
>
> (I threw the upper-case "H" in there to give you guys a spin ;) )
>
> Scott
***
Hello Scott ... We have a problem !
The Bible mentions 'evangelists' three times.
Philip was one. Jesus made most of them. Kip McKean seems to
have 'hand picked' the rest.
I guess it's only fair though - that IF you have your own church
like Kip does -- you can pick any dude you want to run it. I'm
sure they all agree with him. Perhaps you would like to read the
exit Resume of one who left Kips' Kingdom - and WHY ?
>
http://www.reveal.org/library/stories/people/dmedrano.html
I don't see how Kip comes off giving them biblical authority. Do
you ??
Exactly where do you get your 'biblical knowledge' ??
--
Allen Barnett
M.Reindl
No not all ICOC members are rude, just like not all muslims are terrorists. And
hummm..I don't recall seeing on there a signature that says hey I am an ICOC
member. Are you sure that is a disciple or someone just pretending to be one?
Deborah Proctor
> It's not reversed. There are congregations without elders. In these
> congregations, the evangelist is in charge. This is why Kip made the
> distinction between congregations with elders and the type of congregation
> he would later discuss.
>
> Scott
Scott,
I know there are congregations without elders and it is unBiblical.
Deborah Proctor
marask...@earthlink.net
Deborah Proctor
> Evangelists lead Elders where there are no Elders!
>
> You mean regardless, not irregardless. If what you say is true about
> Evangelists in the early 80's, then they changed it because, to the best
of
> my knowledge, the Bible does not specify that Evangelists must have
> Christian children. If they operated under this rule, then it was merely
a
> man-made convention, like the idea of disciplers, that they decided to
quit
> following. If someone can assure me that the Bible says Evangelists must
> have Christian children, and that Kip's daughter is not a disciple, then I
> will call Him up and rebuke Him myself.
>
> (I threw the upper-case "H" in there to give you guys a spin ;) )
>
> Scott
Exactly, what the ICC was practicing while I was in membership was not
Biblical and it still isn't.
Deborah Proctor
marask...@earthlink.net
Deborah Proctor
No. But I've known women who married men they didn't know or love because
the Church pushed them down the aisle, not much difference if you ask me.
Deborah Proctor
marask...@earthlink.net
Scott James
that lacks elders. Prove that it is.
Scott
"Deborah Proctor" <mara...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:SFoz7.9473$cy.7...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Scott James
are the kinds of claims that make others seem very unbelievable.
Scott
Allen Barnett
>
> There are, but it's not unbiblical to simply have a congregation somewhere
> that lacks elders. Prove that it is.
>
> Scott
***
Scott,
I'm still waiting for you to tell me where we can find an ICC
congregation where the Elders are 'in charge' over the
evangelizer.
This scenario is 'biblical' - where can we find it happening in
the ICC?
--
Allen Barnett
Deborah Proctor
> That's a flat out lie. No disciple can force another to get married!
These
> are the kinds of claims that make others seem very unbelievable.
>
> Scott
Scott,
No its not. I know a lot of women where this was the case.
Deborah Proctor
marask...@earthlink.net
Deborah Proctor
> There are, but it's not unbiblical to simply have a congregation somewhere
> that lacks elders. Prove that it is.
>
> Scott
Scott,
Have you ever read the Book of Acts? In the Book of Acts there were several
passages where the disciples went to a city just to have congregations
select elders. Why was that?
Deborah Proctor
marask...@earthlink.net
Scott James
I had no idea that this happened in Acts, but it doesn't surprise me either.
I wish there were enough people in the church to function as Elders, but
that's the way it is. I pray to God that there will be soon.
Scott
"Deborah Proctor" <mara...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:hPLz7.1391$J12.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Mike Spurgeon
>
> That's a flat out lie.
Then you're a flat out fool. You need to get out more.
Simply dismissing something as a lie shows a considerable lack of
objectivity and rational thought processes.
> No disciple can force another to get married! These
> are the kinds of claims that make others seem very unbelievable.
I'm sure Deborah can back up her claims.
I'm equally sure you can't...
Allen Barnett
>
> Yes, I have read the book of Acts, but that doesn't make me an expert on it.
> I had no idea that this happened in Acts, but it doesn't surprise me either.
> I wish there were enough people in the church to function as Elders, but
> that's the way it is. I pray to God that there will be soon.
>
> Scott
***
Scott, ... what does make someone an expert on the Bible ?
It seems to most of us that most of the 'evangelizers' in the ICC
have little or no real training in Theology, Leadership,
Counseling, Finances ... you name it ! They are just following
their worldly leader(s) -- all the way to the top = Kip McKean.
In his letter upon resigning his prominent 'evangelist' position
with the ICC - David Medrano said:
" ... After I (David) did the First Principles studies, I
distinctly remember being told that with the knowledge I had
acquired in those initial days, I was equipped (2Tim 3:17) to
teach people what I had learned, and that I probably knew more
about the Bible than the average religious person out there in
the world. ..."
Scott -- *This is where you are right Now.*
"We now realize we have presumed to be teachers all these years
(James 3:1). We have taught discipleship, repentance and total
commitment to many interested in Christianity. We have done this
with zeal and conviction, reassuring ourselves with the passage
of time that if no one else teaches what we teach, we must be
God's movement. Like the proverb teaches, though, the first man
seems right until someone else presents his case."
More of the letter at:
>
http://www.reveal.org/library/stories/people/dmedrano.html
--
Allen Barnett
Deborah Proctor
"Mike Spurgeon" <mi...@spurgeon.net> wrote in message
news:3BCFD6C3...@spurgeon.net...
> Scott James wrote:
> >
> > That's a flat out lie.
>
> Then you're a flat out fool. You need to get out more.
>
> Simply dismissing something as a lie shows a considerable lack of
> objectivity and rational thought processes.
>
> > No disciple can force another to get married! These
> > are the kinds of claims that make others seem very unbelievable.
>
> I'm sure Deborah can back up her claims.
>
> I'm equally sure you can't...
Scott,
How could someone know the person they are marrying when they are only
allowed to spend 3-4 hours a week never alone with each other and date them
for three months' time?
Deborah Proctor
marask...@earthlink.net
Deborah Proctor
> Yes, I have read the book of Acts, but that doesn't make me an expert on
it.
> I had no idea that this happened in Acts, but it doesn't surprise me
either.
> I wish there were enough people in the church to function as Elders, but
> that's the way it is. I pray to God that there will be soon.
>
> Scott
Scott,
The ICC has been around for twenty something years right. The early church
began at penecost right. Shortly after penecost, Christ's own disciples
were able to recruit members to become elders in the Book of Acts in several
congregations. If the early church was able to do it in less than 20 years
than why can't the ICC? Doesn't the ICC proclaim themselves to be modeled
after the early church?
Deborah Proctor
marask...@earthlink.net
Scott James
Church. It's fine that he thinks that way. However, I don't think that
way. I don't think that I need to be an expert in the Bible to relay many
important messages of the Bible. There are things that I do know for sure,
and those things I am confident in telling others. Yet, if someone asked me
a question about why the disciples went around placing elders in different
churches, I might give my opinion, but I certainly could not tell them that
I know for sure. I do not think that the sharing of biblical knowledge by
people who are short of a degree in biblical studies is wrong.
But, he's right that it's important to know what you're teaching.
That's one of the reasons why we have set "studies". This way, we have
principles that we know are true, that we can feel confident in sharing.
Yes, I have read the analysis on reveal.org.
I look at Acts 8:1-4 and notice that even those who were not Apostles,
those who scattered under persecution, preached the word wherever they went.
I want to be one of "those".
Scott
"Allen Barnett" <allen_...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:3BD026A7...@bigfoot.com...
Deborah Proctor
> I read that letter by Mr. Medrano, and what Ed Powers said to the Indy
> Church. It's fine that he thinks that way.
Well it obviously wasn't fine with Kip because Ed was disfellowshipped.
>However, I don't think that
> way. I don't think that I need to be an expert in the Bible to relay many
> important messages of the Bible. There are things that I do know for
sure,
> and those things I am confident in telling others. Yet, if someone asked
me
> a question about why the disciples went around placing elders in different
> churches, I might give my opinion, but I certainly could not tell them
that
> I know for sure.
They why do you obey the Bible at all? You just can't pick and choose what
teachings the Bible gives, remember in the OT entire cities were destroyed
by God for exactly that reason alone.
>I do not think that the sharing of biblical knowledge by
> people who are short of a degree in biblical studies is wrong.
What exmember has stated this?
> But, he's right that it's important to know what you're teaching.
> That's one of the reasons why we have set "studies". This way, we have
> principles that we know are true, that we can feel confident in sharing.
> Yes, I have read the analysis on reveal.org.
Do you believe the early christians became christians after being given a
set Bible study? That is why the ICC is wrong in their practices. The
issue of believing is between God and one's heart with no interference or
interpretation of such along other humans.
My husband was not allowed membership just because he didn't cry during the
sin study by the ICC. Do you believe this right? In other words, the ICC
condemned my husband to hell just because he didn't emit a human emotion
that they were looking for, not what God was looking for as indicated in the
Bible.
> I look at Acts 8:1-4 and notice that even those who were not Apostles,
> those who scattered under persecution, preached the word wherever they
went.
> I want to be one of "those".
Good luck. In the ICC you will do as they say. You may feel this is how
God is calling you and they mostly likely won't.
Deborah Proctor
marask...@earthlink.net
Allen Barnett
>
> I read that letter by Mr. Medrano, and what Ed Powers said to the Indy
> Church. It's fine that he thinks that way. However, I don't think that
> way. I don't think that I need to be an expert in the Bible to relay many
> important messages of the Bible. There are things that I do know for sure,
> and those things I am confident in telling others. Yet, if someone asked me
> a question about why the disciples went around placing elders in different
> churches, I might give my opinion, but I certainly could not tell them that
> I know for sure. I do not think that the sharing of biblical knowledge by
> people who are short of a degree in biblical studies is wrong.
> But, he's right that it's important to know what you're teaching.
> That's one of the reasons why we have set "studies". This way, we have
> principles that we know are true, that we can feel confident in sharing.
> Yes, I have read the analysis on reveal.org.
> I look at Acts 8:1-4 and notice that even those who were not Apostles,
> those who scattered under persecution, preached the word wherever they went.
> I want to be one of "those".
>
> Scott
***
Scott -- how do you *know* what the ICC is teaching is *true* ?
It seems to differ greatly in many key points - when compared to
the Bible and how other denominations of Christianity view the
same exact scriptures. Is it possible that you have been
convinced it is true - only because those around you have been
told that it is true and know better than to question their peers
about alternate interpretations?
People in the ICC have practically NO Chance to discuss alternate
interpretations of the Scriptures. To present a different view
amounts to social suicide. You would be called a 'fallaway' -
you might even get sent to 'Spiritual Recovery'.
It is important to realize also - that the ICC is the only church
that requires all of their potential recruits to attend a Study
Series - written by a leader of the church. First Principles is
presented as if it were 'additional chapters in the Bible' -
where in fact it is no more than a carefully orchestrated
psychological series designed and fine-tuned to solicit agreement
with the Theology of Kip McKean and the Doctrine of his ICC
church. It is conducted by several members of the ICC - most
often against a single recruit who has no real chance to
dis-agree without being lambasted by all of the teachers. First
Principles is strictly an ICC thing. Nowhere in the Bible will
you find a similar example ... or will you?
--
Allen Barnett
Allen Barnett
>
> I read that letter by Mr. Medrano, and what Ed Powers said to the Indy
***
Scott,
How can you read these accounts without comprehending what these
people have written against the ICC church. Do you take the ICC
leaders' [Kip McKeans'] - official statement that these people
are lying and against God -- or do you take what they have
written as a 'heart felt' warning to others against the
'direction', 'theology' and 'doctrine' of the ICC ?
Scott - in due time - three out of four people leave your
church. The above letter and story are very good examples of
WHY.
--
Allen Barnett
VidEOshiro
"Allowed?" I'm assuming you're refering to the average Saturday date time.
Well, there's also phone calls, e-mail, fellowship at services and events, etc.
There are those couples who have known each other for years and it's taken
them that long to develop an interest. There are those who date for years
before deciding to marry. There are those who get to know each other through
co-leading.
I am not disputing that you know people with those experiences. I am, however,
disputing the implication that such experiences are the norm.
VidEOshiro
Elders are a concept that had been in effect since (at least) Moses' time. No
doubt there were qualifed elders in the Hebrew faith who were equally qualifed
to serve as Christian elders following their conversion. We don't have such a
large experienced pool to draw upon today.
To say that having a church without elders is unBiblical is untrue, as far as I
can tell. Churches were not planted by elders. Elders were appointed once
churches (or congregations) were established.
True, we attempt to model ourselves after the early church, but it is primarily
just a guideline. Where the Bible dictates standards, we hold to those
standards. Where the Bible provides examples, we attempt to imitate those
examples, in spirit if not in act. For instance, the early church evangelized
from Jerusalem outward throughout the Mediterranian. Our mission remains the
same, to preach the Word to all nations, but our circumstances dictated
different starting points and subsequent missions. Our resources at this time
do not permit the appointing of elders in a number of our congregations. In
time, this wiil change, but until then, it does not exclude us from being a
legitimate church.
VidEOshiro
>"Scott James" <jam...@purdue.edu> wrote in message
>news:9qsbj6$628$1...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu...
<snip>
>> But, he's right that it's important to know what you're teaching.
>> That's one of the reasons why we have set "studies". This way, we have
>> principles that we know are true, that we can feel confident in sharing.
>> Yes, I have read the analysis on reveal.org.
>
>Do you believe the early christians became christians after being given
>a
>set Bible study? That is why the ICC is wrong in their practices. The
>issue of believing is between God and one's heart with no interference or
>interpretation of such along other humans.
The early Christians became so because the message of the Gospel was shared
with them and testified to, and they responded to it. We have their testimony
in writing. That is the only difference. Otherwise, we still share by word of
mouth. One's choice to enter a relationship with God is, as you said, between
them and God. But God works through people, plain and simple fact. I do not
consider such actions "interference."
>My husband was not allowed membership just because he didn't cry during
>the
>sin study by the ICC. Do you believe this right? In other words, the ICC
>condemned my husband to hell just because he didn't emit a human emotion
>that they were looking for, not what God was looking for as indicated in
>the
>Bible.
"The ICC" did not study the Bible with your husband. Some members did, but
that does not prove any sort of norm.
FWIW, "...all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." (Romans 3:23)
The ICC did not condemn your husband to hell. He was as destined for it as any
other person on Earth. Perhaps he was denied membership for spurious reasons,
but the ICC does not pass eternal judgement on people. To do that would
require that we kill them and send them on their way to the afterlife. I
promise you, if that ever happens, I will leave, but I sincerely doubt it will.
>> I look at Acts 8:1-4 and notice that even those who were not Apostles,
>> those who scattered under persecution, preached the word wherever they
>> went. I want to be one of "those".
>
>Good luck. In the ICC you will do as they say. You may feel this is how
>God is calling you and they mostly likely won't.
Although if God wills it, who can stand in his way?
VidEOshiro
>
>
>Scott -- how do you *know* what the ICC is teaching is *true* ?
>It seems to differ greatly in many key points - when compared to
>the Bible and how other denominations of Christianity view the
>same exact scriptures. Is it possible that you have been
>convinced it is true - only because those around you have been
>told that it is true and know better than to question their peers
>about alternate interpretations?
It's possible. Then again, it's also possible that the wide road is the road
to destruction, no?
>People in the ICC have practically NO Chance to discuss alternate
>interpretations of the Scriptures. To present a different view
>amounts to social suicide. You would be called a 'fallaway' -
>you might even get sent to 'Spiritual Recovery'.
No chance to discuss? That's a little extreme. No chance to form a group of
those differing in opinion and separate from the rest of the church? That's a
little more accurate. But then, dissentions and factions are sins, and we
can't be sanctioning sin, now can we?
>It is important to realize also - that the ICC is the only church
>that requires all of their potential recruits to attend a Study
>Series - written by a leader of the church. First Principles is
>presented as if it were 'additional chapters in the Bible' -
>where in fact it is no more than a carefully orchestrated
>psychological series designed and fine-tuned to solicit agreement
>with the Theology of Kip McKean and the Doctrine of his ICC
>church. It is conducted by several members of the ICC - most
>often against a single recruit who has no real chance to
>dis-agree without being lambasted by all of the teachers. First
>Principles is strictly an ICC thing. Nowhere in the Bible will
>you find a similar example ... or will you?
Christians quoting scripture to convince people of the Gospel? No, you won't
find that. And certainly not in the account of Pentecost...or will you?
VidEOshiro
>Scott - in due time - three out of four people leave your
>church. The above letter and story are very good examples of
>WHY.
Sometimes I wish we knew what percentage of people left the First Century
church. Perhaps it would be far greater numbers. Or perhaps far less. But
it's all for the best, I suppose. It would be too tempting to hold one's self
to such human standards and statistics instead of God's will that not a single
person be lost.
fallaway
jr
"membership" or baptism, how is that not condemnation?
hey, we have the only way to heaven, and you can't have it. but we don't
condemn you.
"VidEOshiro" <video...@aol.comSPAMTHIS> wrote in message <SNIP>
> "The ICC" did not study the Bible with your husband. Some members did,
but
> that does not prove any sort of norm.
>
> FWIW, "...all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." (Romans
3:23)
> The ICC did not condemn your husband to hell. He was as destined for it
as any
> other person on Earth. Perhaps he was denied membership for spurious
reasons,
> but the ICC does not pass eternal judgement on people. To do that would
> require that we kill them and send them on their way to the afterlife. I
> promise you, if that ever happens, I will leave, but I sincerely doubt it
will.
<SNIP>
Deborah Proctor
"VidEOshiro" <video...@aol.comSPAMTHIS> wrote in message
It was common in San Diego at the time I was in the ICC to marry after just
meeting someone in three months's time; especially so if both singles were
in leadership because it was felt they were somehow more spiritual and could
handle marriage easier than just the common folk single in membership.
Phone calls: Yeah a five minute conversation to follow up on date plans
with your discipler within hearing range in the household.
Fellowship at service: Yeah when your entire energy is expended being
visitors and sitting in your geographic zone.
Even one experience makes it bad for the entire church because just one
example corrupts it.
Deborah Proctor
marask...@earthlink.net
Deborah Proctor
"VidEOshiro" <video...@aol.comSPAMTHIS> wrote in message
What is the difference? By denying someone baptism or eternal salvation as
the ICC teaches does that not in effect equal the same result?
Deborah Proctor
marask...@earthlink.net
Deborah Proctor
"jr" <gopl...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:9sp5kf$pi7$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
jr,
Just another great example of how the ICC performs it magic on their
membership with well even though this is what the Bible says, its not really
what the Bible says and many Eric's are still in membership believing it
hook line and sinker today. And ICC wonders why they are leaving in droves?
Deborah Proctor
marask...@earthlink.net
jr
>
> "jr" <gopl...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:9sp5kf$pi7$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
> > so when the ICC teaches that they are the only church, and then deny
> someone
> > "membership" or baptism, how is that not condemnation?
> >
> > hey, we have the only way to heaven, and you can't have it. but we
don't
> > condemn you.
Deborah Proctor
> yeah, i still remember.
And this is the extremely sad part: Its been nearly 14 years now since I've
left and it seems that everything is still the same. I can just see why the
"growth potential" just isn't there for the ICC.
Deborah Proctor
marask...@earthlink.net
VidEOshiro
And how long were you there, exactly? Regardless, does such a situation imply
tight control or a potentially ill-formed marriage? Perhaps God is simply
blessing those who delight themselves in Him. (Psalm 37:4)
>Phone calls: Yeah a five minute conversation to follow up on date plans
>with your discipler within hearing range in the household.
>
>Fellowship at service: Yeah when your entire energy is expended being
>visitors and sitting in your geographic zone.
Wow, what a tremendously cynical attempt at an example.
>Even one experience makes it bad for the entire church because just one
>example corrupts it.
Yeah, I know what you mean. Stinkin' Adam and Eve had to go and bring sin into
the world...punks...
...Fortunately, God has more faith in us than that. Imagine if he wrote each
of us off at the first sign of trouble. To apply one bad example to an entire
group is not only bad logic, but pretty faithless as well. (i.e., expressions
like, "Men are pigs.") Perhaps it causes some to lose faith. But for others,
it only makes them more vigilant. God can bring good out of anything "bad."
(Romans 8:28, Genesis 50:20)
VidEOshiro
>"VidEOshiro" <video...@aol.comSPAMTHIS> wrote in message
>news:20011112055812...@mb-bd.aol.com...
>> Deborah Proctor writes:
<snip>
>> "The ICC" did not study the Bible with your husband. Some members did,
>> but that does not prove any sort of norm.
>>
>> FWIW, "...all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." (Romans
>> 3:23)
>> The ICC did not condemn your husband to hell. He was as destined for
>> it as any
>> other person on Earth. Perhaps he was denied membership for spurious
>> reasons, but the ICC does not pass eternal judgement on people.
>
>What is the difference? By denying someone baptism or eternal salvation
>as the ICC teaches does that not in effect equal the same result?
(Boy, no points for even a partial concession.) The difference, as I said (but
was omitted in the quote), is that judgement does not take place until you die.
Unless the ICC physically kills people, we do not "send" anyone to Hell. God
is in control of who lives and who dies, and we have no intention of usurping
that power. Since I was not in your husband's studies, I cannot say whether he
should or should not have been baptized. If, however, it was for the sole
reason that he did not cry during the L & D study, then I clearly disagree with
that. FWIW, I didn't cry, and they still baptized me.
Allen Barnett
>
> Deborah Proctor writes:
>
> >What is the difference? By denying someone baptism or eternal salvation
> >as the ICC teaches does that not in effect equal the same result?
Video Says:
> ... Since I was not in your husband's studies, I cannot say whether he
> should or should not have been baptized.
***
IF you had been there -- would you have felt comfortable making
that decision - one way or another?
Judgment is NOT your job - Video.
--
Allen Barnett
M.Reindl
>From: video...@aol.comSPAMTHIS (VidEOshiro)
>Date: 11/12/01 5:17 AM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <20011112061731...@mb-bd.aol.com>
least 12 stayed with him. That was a start.
M. Reindl - "If a picture is worth 1000 words..what is worth 1001??"
M.Reindl
>Date: 11/12/01 12:46 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <9sp5kf$pi7$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net>
>
>so when the ICC teaches that they are the only church, and then deny someone
>"membership" or baptism, how is that not condemnation?
Matt 19:16 clearly demonstrated that some people will not like the message that
they hear. And they will just simply go away unhappy. Jesus was not above
giving someone a challenge, and then the choice was up to them whether they did
it or not. I have yet to see any of the challenges given to those who study to
be ungodly or excessive. So if the choice is in the hands of the person, how is
it that we or the church have condemned them. God is the only one to condem.
The person plays a part in that they make the decision whether or not to
repent.
>hey, we have the only way to heaven, and you can't have it. but we don't
>condemn you.
>
>"VidEOshiro" <video...@aol.comSPAMTHIS> wrote in message <SNIP>
>> "The ICC" did not study the Bible with your husband. Some members did,
>but
>> that does not prove any sort of norm.
>>
>> FWIW, "...all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..." (Romans
>3:23)
>> The ICC did not condemn your husband to hell. He was as destined for it
>as any
>> other person on Earth. Perhaps he was denied membership for spurious
>reasons,
>> but the ICC does not pass eternal judgement on people. To do that would
>> require that we kill them and send them on their way to the afterlife. I
>> promise you, if that ever happens, I will leave, but I sincerely doubt it
>will.
><SNIP>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
jr
"M.Reindl" <nimsha...@aol.com> wrote in message
<snip>> Matt 19:16 clearly demonstrated that some people will not like the
message that
> they hear. And they will just simply go away unhappy. Jesus was not above
> giving someone a challenge, and then the choice was up to them whether
they did
> it or not. I have yet to see any of the challenges given to those who
study to
> be ungodly or excessive. So if the choice is in the hands of the person,
how is
> it that we or the church have condemned them. God is the only one to
condem.
> The person plays a part in that they make the decision whether or not to
> repent.
Deborah Proctor
"VidEOshiro" <video...@aol.comSPAMTHIS> wrote in message
Is everything I stated true or not?
Deborah Proctor
marask...@earthlink.net
Deborah Proctor
"VidEOshiro" <video...@aol.comSPAMTHIS> wrote in message
> Deborah Proctor writes:
>
> >"VidEOshiro" <video...@aol.comSPAMTHIS> wrote in message
> >news:20011112055812...@mb-bd.aol.com...
> >> Deborah Proctor writes:
> <snip>
> >> "The ICC" did not study the Bible with your husband. Some members did,
> >> but that does not prove any sort of norm.
> >>
> >> FWIW, "...all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..."
(Romans
> >> 3:23)
> >> The ICC did not condemn your husband to hell. He was as destined for
> >> it as any
> >> other person on Earth. Perhaps he was denied membership for spurious
> >> reasons, but the ICC does not pass eternal judgement on people.
> >
> >What is the difference? By denying someone baptism or eternal salvation
> >as the ICC teaches does that not in effect equal the same result?
>
> (Boy, no points for even a partial concession.) The difference, as I said
(but
> was omitted in the quote), is that judgement does not take place until you
die.
So once the ICC refuses to baptize someone do you think they're gonna change
their minds?
> Unless the ICC physically kills people, we do not "send" anyone to Hell.
God
> is in control of who lives and who dies, and we have no intention of
usurping
> that power. Since I was not in your husband's studies, I cannot say
whether he
> should or should not have been baptized.
You see Eric that's exactly my whole point. YOU cannot say, not God can
say.
>If, however, it was for the sole
> reason that he did not cry during the L & D study, then I clearly disagree
with
> that. FWIW, I didn't cry, and they still baptized me.
You were just luckier I guess.
Deborah Proctor
marask...@earthlink.net
VidEOshiro
>
>Is everything I stated true or not?
I can't say, since I didn't witness your experiences. But I'll give you the
benefit of the doubt and accept your testimony as a witness as valid.
Are your experiences true? Sure.
Are they the standard? Absolutely not.
VidEOshiro
Not yet, anyway. (1 Cor. 6:1-3)
Regardless, it is up to our judgement as to who we make a member of our
fellowship. We will not choose anyone who will not follow Christ. We will not
choose those who will cause dissention in the church. Now that is not to say
that we may not make an error in judgement, but nevertheless, we must still
make a judgement in that matter.
VidEOshiro
>"VidEOshiro" <video...@aol.comSPAMTHIS> wrote in message
>news:20011119044547...@mb-ba.aol.com...
>> Deborah Proctor writes:
>>
>> >"VidEOshiro" <video...@aol.comSPAMTHIS> wrote in message
>> >news:20011112055812...@mb-bd.aol.com...
>> >> Deborah Proctor writes:
>> <snip>
>> >> "The ICC" did not study the Bible with your husband. Some members
>> >> did, but that does not prove any sort of norm.
>> >>
>> >> FWIW, "...all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God..."
>> >>(Romans 3:23)
>> >> The ICC did not condemn your husband to hell. He was as destined for
>> >> it as any
>> >> other person on Earth. Perhaps he was denied membership for spurious
>> >> reasons, but the ICC does not pass eternal judgement on people.
>> >
>> >What is the difference? By denying someone baptism or eternal salvation
>> >as the ICC teaches does that not in effect equal the same result?
>>
>> (Boy, no points for even a partial concession.) The difference, as I
>>said (but
>> was omitted in the quote), is that judgement does not take place until
>>you die.
>
>So once the ICC refuses to baptize someone do you think they're gonna change
>their minds?
So what, just because the ICC refuses to baptize someone, they're wrong? I
don't think so. There are perfectly legitimate reasons to deny someone
baptism. For instance, if they refuse to confess Jesus as Lord. The Bible has
standards to be upheld, and if we don't uphold them, then what chance do we
have of making it to heaven?
>> Unless the ICC physically kills people, we do not "send" anyone to Hell.
>>God
>> is in control of who lives and who dies, and we have no intention of
>>usurping
>> that power. Since I was not in your husband's studies, I cannot say
>>whether he should or should not have been baptized.
>
>You see Eric that's exactly my whole point. YOU cannot say, not God can
>say.
Frankly, I think your point is irrelevant. You obviously don't believe the ICC
is "the one true church," so what does it matter to you if we didn't baptize
him? You're happy about that now anyway, aren't you?
>>If, however, it was for the sole
>> reason that he did not cry during the L & D study, then I clearly disagree
>>with
>> that. FWIW, I didn't cry, and they still baptized me.
>
>You were just luckier I guess.
If you believe in luck.
Allen Barnett
***
Yep - and to determine who and who not -- you use the handy
checklist provided by Kip McKean - contained in the Appendix of
First Principles - Right?
--
Allen Barnett
Dominick Riesland
> ok, now we're back to "I've never seen it so it must not happen.>
Actually, what my sister is saying is more like, "If these things were
as common as you claim, I would expect to have seen some of them
myself."
Dominick Riesland,
"Those who will not follow are doomed to lead."
Deborah Proctor
"VidEOshiro" <video...@aol.comSPAMTHIS> wrote in message
> Deborah Proctor writes:
>
> >
> >Is everything I stated true or not?
>
> I can't say, since I didn't witness your experiences. But I'll give you
the
> benefit of the doubt and accept your testimony as a witness as valid.
Eric what benefit would there be in my lying? Anyone who knows me knows
that I am not a liar.
Deborah Proctor
marask...@earthlink.net
Deborah Proctor
"VidEOshiro" <video...@aol.comSPAMTHIS> wrote in message
How do you know that someone will or won't follow Christ? Isn't that
commitment between that person and God?
Deborah Proctor
marask...@earthlink.net
Deborah Proctor
"VidEOshiro" <video...@aol.comSPAMTHIS> wrote in message
Yes they are... Only God has that right. Only God knows a person's heart.
Deborah Proctor
marask...@earthlink.net
M.Reindl
>Message-id: <9tbhir$so5$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>
too much like doubting Thomas for my own good. But, if you have the proof I
will look it over. But, then you don't have the evidence do ya??
Doris
previously. I talked to him on the phone every day with blessing from
my disciplers, sat next to him at almost all services. You guys are
generalizing. Dating isn't always as you make it seem.
Also, I thought this thread was about Olivia falling away. Why is it
so off subject.
Evon
"Doris" <doris...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5a06abc.01120...@posting.google.com...
> In responce to ICOC dating, I dated two years someone I knew 4 years
> previously. I talked to him on the phone every day with blessing from
> my disciplers, sat next to him at almost all services. You guys are
> generalizing. Dating isn't always as you make it seem.
>
How do you know that your experiences are not unusual experiences for a
single ICC member?
Do other singles in your group have the freedom to talk to guys as often as
they wish with the
blessings of their disciplers?
(Your comment reads like there is still a requirement of permission from
one's discipler before one can
act on some things....true?)
Do the others in your group get to sit in the services with their dates
without obtaining permission from leaders?
How about dating practices like how often members can date, or how long
before they can repeat date
someone? Chaparones required?
My daughter was called on the carpet for numerous dating "no no's".
Some of the ones that stick in my mind are:
1) Inviting a male member from another sector to accompany the group on a
Sunday after church lunch.
She was accused of "weasel dating".
2) She was specifically told she could NOT date the same guy two weeks in a
row and nearly got
the guy who asked her in big trouble when she innocently mentioned that he
had asked her out again.
He wasn't even allowed to ASK her to go out again that close to having been
out with her.
She was informed that she should report this to his discipler (which she did
not do).
3) She most certainly was not allowed to sit by any guy she was dating in
the services here in Phoenix.
She caught it in the neck one Sunday over ME (her mom) sitting with her in
the service instead of with
the group of older ladies I was (evidently) suppose to be sitting with.
Seating was a very big deal here.
4) They had an alloted number of times and minutes a week that they were
allowed to talk to the guys they were dating, or any other guy they might
have an interest in for that matter. Exceptions were made for some members,
of course. Those in some leadership positions had a bit more leeway than the
average rank-n-filer.
For more info on the ridged controls on dating, you could talk to some other
people I know who
were split up because they were not THE "match" that leaders preferred. One
couple was accused of immoral behavior because they ate together at Denny's
one evening without a chaparone. This woman
was forced to stand before the congregation and confess to immorality and
was not allowed to SPEAK
to the guy she had dinner with for some time afterward.
Leaders tried very hard to push other guys onto her that she had no interest
in whatsoever and they
even sent one guy she had liked off to another ICC group to get him out of
the picture.
Dating is manipulated by leaders for their own purposes all too often in the
ICC.
If it happens anywhere, people are being manipulated and so it is happening
too much.
Reality seems to be that it is happening all over the place with regularity.
I cannot count the numbers of individuals that I have spoken to who have
made it clear that the controls
are still in place where dating is concerned.
I would ask you......were/are you in some leadership position, or the
daughter of a leader?
Your experiences do not seem to be the same as many, many other singles that
I have
talked to about their dating experiences in the ICC.
You may not have experienced it yourself, for whatever reason, or "seen it"
yourself in the
group you are in, but that certainly does not alter the fact that such
controls are routenely
placed on singles who date in the ICC in many, many places.
By the way.....generalizing IS what the ICC does best. It ignores the
individualities and differing strengths and weaknesses of it's members in
favor of "generalized" rules of behaviors that everyone must adhere to.
This is neither scripturally required, nor healthy for the spiritual and
emotional well-being of the individuals who make up the singles membership
of the ICC.
The whims and traditions of men will never successfully replace God's wisdom
in NOT creating the rigid
dating structure that the ICC and it's leadership adheres to.
I know a woman who was chastized because she sat on the floor with a guy
while looking at a photo album in a room full of people.
She was told that such behavior was causing her "brothers" to "struggle"
sexually.
Ironically she was told this by a female leader. I wonder how she knew?
Now, I was there on this particular occaision and can witness that there was
nothing remotely improper about the way this woman conducted herself and I
was shocked to hear that she had taken "flack" over it afterward.
Give me a break!
Then again...with all the ICC's "no no's" and focusing on anything and
everything that anyone might do that could possibly be relegated to some
real, or imagined sexual temptations for someone....I suppose it is not
unexpected that members should begin to feel guilty whenever anyone accuses
them of acting in an "immoral" or "improper" way (whether such behavior is
actually improper, or not).
It seems to me that this kind of constant focus on sex would make sexual
temptation almost an expected thing among members of the group and,
therefore, create a super sensitized environment where almost anything could
be misread as sexually improper.
Fear of sexual temptation, or immoral behaviors, can become so conditioned
in the minds of individuals that improper breeches are seen in almost any
interactions of opposite sex members that is not completely under the
controls of leaders. Even the most innocent of situations becomes a
stumbling block for individuals who are not guilty of doing any real wrong
at all. Guilt is thus reinforced even when there is no wrong to feel guilty
about. The focus of real sin and real guilt is lost among the many attempts
of man created and controlled actions and attitudes that members are taught
they must feel guilty about.
This is how the focus on the traditions of men, as opposed to the teachings
of God, in scriptures, becomes so warped that members soon are not able to
distinguish one from the other. All have become intertwined into one
taught"truth"...which is no more than a half truth which is often more
dangerous than a whole lie.
You cannot teach in such a way and still claim to be teaching "only the
Bible".
My daughter was made to feel like she had sinned terribly when she and a
male friend walked through a crowded mall one day between church services.
They were shamed into agreeing to never do such a thing again. They were
both adults in their twenties.
Why? What did they do wrong?
With such ridiculous emphasis on the most innocent of situations (are they
still teaching that it is sinful for a man and a woman to ride,
unchaparoned, in a car together?) it is no wonder that we are hearing more
and more about the unspoken sexual side of problems in the ICC, as time goes
on.
Guilt and shame are created in people when they are doing no wrong. This is
among the many problematic side effects of dating in the ICC and it is
culminating in an almost self-fulfilling prophecy for members who
are continually inspected for signs that they may be thinking, or doing
something immoral, or improper.
Has the ICC succeeding in "cleansing" itself of sexual sin by it's almost
obsessive focus on finding it wherever it may hide? The stories that
continue to come out of the group certainly don't lead one to believe that
the ICC leadership has succeeded in doing anything but covering up the
sexual problems and improprieties that is certainly not absent even from the
families of leaders in the ICC.
In the meantime, many people are leaving the ICC with heavy hearts and
guilts minus the accompanying actions to have truly earned them and
certainly lacking the understanding of grace which is so underemphasised in
the ICC. They have assumed guilt from those who accuse them of disobeying
God in matters that have nothing to do with God's own words. They leave,
often so spiritually shaken, or completely broken, that they can no longer
consider seeking God, or belonging to a church community to be anything but
a desire to be punished by a vengeful and unloving God.
In my opinion the dating requirements are far more harmful than just a set
of rules to follow. They illicit far too much attention from leaders to
remain as some innocuous practices that just keep people from getting into
trouble. They have, in groups like the ICC, become vehicles for leader
controls of the thoughts and actions of members that stray far from any
Biblical teaches that they claim they are based on. They are innitiations to
the mental and emotional manipulations that are intended to last the
lifetime (or the membership) of the individuals.
Weak members are often put on near permanent "idle", while two members of
leadership material may be "encouraged" together and the dating process
speeded up for the good of the group. If this aspect of the lives of members
can be successfully manipulated, there are few others that cannot be
influenced, or controlled as well.
Do I sound like I am taking it all too seriously? You may well feel that
way, but I have seen too much evidence of the long term harm done to people
who were led, by their leaders, in even the most personal areas of their
lives, to form relationships that were to their detriment, or to terminate
relationships that may have been good ones if they had been given the
chance.
No group should have this kind of control over the personal lives of it's
members.
Do I think this happens to everyone in the ICC? Yes....though I think it is
in varying degrees from far less obtrusive to extreme meglomaniac attempts
at manipulating the lives of rank-n-file singles.
Could go on? Yes I could..(yadda, yadda)........but I will stop here for
now. 8^)
(And the crowd shouted..."Amen". 8^)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> Also, I thought this thread was about Olivia falling away. Why is it
> so off subject.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
Thus is the nature of usenet. We start off in one place and eventually wind
up somewhere else.
I made a change in the subject line though. 8^)
--
Evon
mev...@home.com
Allen Barnett
>
> ...
> Also, I thought this thread was about Olivia falling away. Why is it
> so off subject.
***
Hey - we don't discuss O here. However - if a hypothetical adult
kid of an actual ICC leader named Kip McKean decides upon a
different Religion than the 'traditions with which she was
raised' -- I support O completely. "Freedom of Religion" is a
basic human right guaranteed by the laws of our free society
enjoyed in America.
The ICC says:
"Our Bible is the same as everyone else's. It is possible for
anyone anywhere to read, apply God's word and become Jesus'
disciple; however, it is difficult for most people to see through
the traditions with which they were raised without someone to
help." (From an ICC WWW Article Titled "One Church" in the
Answers to Critics Section.)
Maybe O found someone 'more qualified' than her Dad to help.
At any rate - I think all of us should support: "Freedom of
Religion". I do.
Doris, ... You got a problem with that?
--
Allen Barnett
Hans Neser
My name is Hans - I am currently a member of the ICC in Perth Western
Australia.
Do you mind if I ask what city and how long ago these abuses took
place?
The churches I have been with over the past 14 years have definbately
had there share of incorrect teachings on dating and practices but
that seems to have cleared up especially over the past 4-5 years.
I am interested to see if these sort of teachings are going on the
closer you get to LA and if they are happening now or in the past.
Cheers
Hans
VidEOshiro
If you thought that lying was an acceptable means to the end of ridding the
world of the ICC, then you might.
Regardless, _I_ don't know you, and therefore my opinon of you and your
experiences is irrelevant, since I can neither confirm nor verify either
matter. That being the case, I choose to give you the benefit of the doubt, if
for no other reason than that assuming someone to be a liar is not conducive to
a productive discussion.
Doris
you have to ask "permission" to go through the various stages, dating
more frequently, going steady, engagement, marriage, and until the
point of engagement I think that it is none of anyones business and
then at engagement it should just be advice. I feel like it is just
advice, that no one will stop someone from getting engaged if they are
determined to do it, but I could be wrong.
As for phone calls and sitting, I think some people are just too
uptight and give advice that has just been taken as rules.
And know I am not a leader or leaders child. I am a "rank and file"
member in every sense of the word as you anti-ICOC people use it.
Allen Barnett
***
Hans - I'm sure that Evon will reply in due time. Actually - a
current member has asked several of us to provide help with a
'dating matter'.
But in the meantime - there are several current discussions
taking place on the Delphi Forum dealing with the exact subject
you are asking about. In one instance - a guy is telling about
how the ICC is trying to break-up him and his fiancee as he
considers a career job in another city. I know of one husband
here who suspects strongly that the ICC is trying to come between
him and his wife. I know another guy here who has suffered a
divorce largely due to an issue advanced by the ICC.
These are Current Issues. The Relationship Abuses and
un-biblical teachings are still happening everywhere.
--
Allen Barnett
Evon
Sorry it took me so long to get back to you (Thanks Allen for the "heads
up"! 8^)
The experiences of my daughter were, indeed, about 5 years ago now and I
really wish that I could say that the things I have related here were not
still happening, but they are. Even here in Phoenix, we have not long ago
heard from singles who had recently left who recomfirmed that the dating
requirements are relatively unchanged locally.
L.A. is certainly a very strong influence on what goes on here. Many of the
local leaders come directly from L.A. and countless Phoenix leaders have
been sent to L.A. for further indoct....er.... for "retraining" ;^)
I have, since posting my original response, been in contact with a former
member in Tucson who left just a couple of years ago under the most
unbelievable circumstances. Her experiences in dating would knock the socks
right off of any rational, clear thinking individual.
I am hoping she will join us here to discuss some of her dating stories. She
has never "done" newsgroups before and I just finished getting an e-mail off
to her on setting up her news server and accessing this newsgroup, so I hope
she will be able to join in this conversation as soon as she is able to.
I think her first hand information may carry more weight than the
second-hand stories I can share and which we continue to hear from singles
leaving the ICC.
--
Evon
mev...@home.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------
"Hans Neser" <nes...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f3171611.0112...@posting.google.com...
Deborah Proctor
"VidEOshiro" <video...@aol.comSPAMTHIS> wrote in message
Okay, so I've met the test of truthfulness... How about a response.
Deborah Proctor
marask...@earthlink.net
Hans Neser
Are you able to give me the link to the Delphi Forums you are talking
about or am I inelidgible as I would still be considered a current
member?
Cheers
Hans
(Nes...@yahoo.com)
Hans Neser
I would be glad to hear her testimony first hand.
I have come to a conclusion that the closer you get to LA the more
harsh the teachings and practices become where as those of us on the
outer edge, sheltered by 4 or 5 levels of leadership take a much
milder approach.
The Perth Church (60 disciples) does not have these kind of problems
and there is much more open discussion about the church having input
into decision etc. Unfortunately this can lead to an Osterich approach
and people bury their heads and say everything is alright here.......
With time and patience I am hoping to be able to help bring about
changes - my biggest goal is to have the church openly fellowshipping
with other Mainline Churches of Christ.
Cheers
Hans
Mark Matthews
> Hi Allan,
>
> Are you able to give me the link to the Delphi Forums you are talking
> about or am I inelidgible as I would still be considered a current
> member?
>
Hans,
Here is a link to Delphi Forum on the ICoC:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/ICC_discussion/messages
You would NOT be inelidgible, in fact, several current
member post there daily. Consider yourself welcome :)
And here is a quote from the 'Start' page.
>>Freely discuss topics relevant to the International
>>Churches of Christ, a Christian church, in this forum.
>>Here are the basic guidelines for discussion:
>>
>>Anyone is welcome to join, post, or lurk
>>
>>Open Speech prevails, so say what you want
>>
>>Please avoid Offensive Language such as vulgarisms,
>>obscenities, and indecent language
>>
>>We try to KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid), so that's it
>>
>>These are exciting times in the public discussion about
>>the International Churches of Christ; this forum intends
>>to make free and open discussion possible.
>>
>>Open speech is, in the view of this forum, an inalienable right.
>>That right is extended by God, and is not rightly withdrawn by
>>other people.
>>
>>That is why this forum, unlike other forums that are interested
>>in similar topics, is committed to permitting free and open speech.
>>That includes, but is not limited to, silly speech, poorly constructed
>>speech, improper speech, irreverent speech, and even mean speech.
>>
>>This forum also accepts and welcomes speech that is kind, well-reasoned,
>>grateful, humble, appropriate, and spiritual.
Mark Matthews
>
> Are you able to give me the link to the Delphi Forums you are talking
> about or am I inelidgible as I would still be considered a current
> member?
>
Sorry, I posted the wrong info.
the correct URL is:
http://forums.delphiforums.com/ICCdiscussion/start
(without the underscore)
After I posted that other link, I saw the name of
the owner and TO MY HORROR it read K*lly Graph*m.
I will try to remove my pervious post if I can.
It would be a shame to send anyone to that forum
by mistake :)
/mark
P.S. KG is THE one person forbidden from post on the
orginial forum, so apparently he set up his own.
anun@mass
Hi,
I hope I am not out of order here. :-)
First may I state that I am neither an ICC member, nor an ex-member.
I simply started reading this thread and trying to follow the ideas
and comments, and I was curious about the sentence you wrote
quoted below:
On Sun, 09 Dec 2001 23:41:38 GMT, "Evon" <mev...@home.com> wrote:
>Dating is manipulated by leaders for their own purposes all too often in the
>ICC.
I understand the idea that there are a lot of dating rules in this
church, but could you or anyone else reading this tell me what
you think are the purposes of the leaders as regards manipulating
dating? I don't understand what you are implying about any
benefit to individual leaders or this church as a whole.
Thank you,
seth
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! ==-----
Allen Barnett
>
> Hi,
> I hope I am not out of order here. :-)
> First may I state that I am neither an ICC member, nor an ex-member.
> I simply started reading this thread and trying to follow the ideas
> and comments, and I was curious about the sentence you wrote
> quoted below:
>
> On Sun, 09 Dec 2001 23:41:38 GMT, "Evon" <mev...@home.com> wrote:
>
> >Dating is manipulated by leaders for their own purposes all too often in the
> >ICC.
>
> I understand the idea that there are a lot of dating rules in this
> church, but could you or anyone else reading this tell me what
> you think are the purposes of the leaders as regards manipulating
> dating? I don't understand what you are implying about any
> benefit to individual leaders or this church as a whole.
>
> Thank you,
> seth
***
The ICC *hates* for critical information to be presented or
discussed from 'outside the church' with members within. They
call any and all critical information 'Spiritual Pornography',
lies or half-truths.
Quite obviously - unless the ICC can split members away from
their Family or individuals away from their friends and peer
group associates ... including guys or girls who may [on their
own] choose to date outside the church - they have a huge
problem.
Most of us who have friends or family members who have joined the
ICC - begin to see serious and negative changes within our loved
ones. Mostly - we see an inordinate dedication to the ICC and
the distorted theology they teach and preach. The ICC condemns
all other denominations and all other Christians -- and they
expect their members to promote this. The ICC doesn't NOT
recognize any other belief as valid.
The easiest way for the ICC to make this work in their favor
[especially for the younger recruits] - is to establish mandatory
dating rules, insuring that each member will have nothing but
another member to confide in. It's a 'control tactic' used by
many cults.
As to why leaders promote this -- simple, they are under the
control of the ICC machine which put them in their elite
position. Growth and maintenance of the flock is their duty.
They will go to extreme lengths to grow their congregation and
keep members dedicated to the goals of upper leadership in LA.
Of course this doesn't work ... historically - the ICC has lost 3
out of 4 of their members. This 3/4 statistic is more than a
year old -- many of us have 'inside information' indicating that
the loss figure may have jumped to the next level - ie., 4 out
5. The ICC has no more than slightly over 100,000 members
worldwide.
--
Allen Barnett
VidEOshiro
>
>Okay, so I've met the test of truthfulness... How about a response.
I'm sorry, I lost track of what we were talking about. A response to what,
now?
Deborah Proctor
"VidEOshiro" <video...@aol.comSPAMTHIS> wrote in message
Me too. You clip too much.
Deborah Proctor
marask...@earthlink.net
VidEOshiro
>VidEOshiro wrote:
<snip>
>>
>> Regardless, it is up to our judgement as to who we make a member of our
>> fellowship. We will not choose anyone who will not follow Christ. We
>>will not
>> choose those who will cause dissention in the church. Now that is not
>>to say
>> that we may not make an error in judgement, but nevertheless, we must
>>still make a judgement in that matter.
>
>***
>
>Yep - and to determine who and who not -- you use the handy
>checklist provided by Kip McKean - contained in the Appendix of
>First Principles - Right?
Yes, it is a handy reference to BIBLE SCRIPTURES, which will be used to judge
us in the end (John 12:48), so we might as well use it now.
VidEOshiro
>"VidEOshiro" <video...@aol.comSPAMTHIS> wrote in message
>news:20011126053919...@mb-mm.aol.com...
<snip>
>> Regardless, it is up to our judgement as to who we make a member of our
>> fellowship. We will not choose anyone who will not follow Christ. We
>>will not
>> choose those who will cause dissention in the church. Now that is not
>>to say
>> that we may not make an error in judgement, but nevertheless, we must
>>still make a judgement in that matter.
>
>How do you know that someone will or won't follow Christ? Isn't that
>commitment between that person and God?
Yes. But their words and actions can be clear indications of their choices.
VidEOshiro
>"VidEOshiro" <video...@aol.comSPAMTHIS> wrote in message
>news:20011126054550...@mb-mm.aol.com...
<snip>
>> So what, just because the ICC refuses to baptize someone, they're wrong?
>> I don't think so.
>
>Yes they are... Only God has that right. Only God knows a person's heart.
Only God _entirely_ knows a person's heart. But that doesn't mean that people
can't know parts of it. (Read Proverbs 20:5) If it were strictly between a
person & God, he wouldn't have added baptism to the process and instructed his
followers to do it.
Would you baptize someone who doesn't think they need to repent of immorality?
Or lying? Or bigotry?
Deborah Proctor
"VidEOshiro" <video...@aol.comSPAMTHIS> wrote in message
But you are the one who is still doing the judging instead of God.
Deborah Proctor
marask...@earthlink.net
Deborah Proctor
"VidEOshiro" <video...@aol.comSPAMTHIS> wrote in message
You see that's the problem. The ICC picks out which sins they think are the
worst and make human judgments as how bad they are and try to persuade
people to stop doing this and that rather than using the word of God to
change a person's heart to real repentence because of a person's love for
God.
Deborah Proctor
marask...@earthlink.net
Evon
"VidEOshiro" <video...@aol.comSPAMTHIS> wrote in message
> Deborah Proctor writes:
>
> >"VidEOshiro" <video...@aol.comSPAMTHIS> wrote in message
> >news:20011126054550...@mb-mm.aol.com...
> <snip>
> >> So what, just because the ICC refuses to baptize someone, they're
wrong?
> >> I don't think so.
> >
> >Yes they are... Only God has that right. Only God knows a person's
heart.
>
> Only God _entirely_ knows a person's heart.
But that doesn't mean that people
> can't know parts of it.
-------------------
At least we, as "non-God" human beings, can make assumptions (in our own
"exceedingly deceitful" hearts), which may sometimes be correct and
sometimes may be way off base entirely. Other times we may simply apply
incorrectly interpreted beliefs and/or man created traditions to actions of
individuals, incorrectly THINKING this is what God wants, or requires and
claim the results to be a sure fire indication of unrepentant sin.
As a result...we MAY refuse baptism to people that God is calling to
himself.
This is, IMO, so seriously wrong that such practices equate to shutting the
doors of heaven in the faces of people who are seeking God and more sinful
than some of the things that the ICC refuses to baptise people for doing.
One such "mistake" is one too many when we are talking about the eternal
salvations of individuals.
When we make the "mistake" of baptising someone who is NOT truly
repentent...what is the worst that can happen?
God will step in, when it is time, and sort the wheat from the chaff. He
will do so in absolute certainty that he knows their WHOLE hearts and is
making the absolutely just decision. No one who is seeking truly after him
will be unjustly turned away in error.
The ICC seems to have trouble trusting God to be able to do this without
their "help".
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
(Read Proverbs 20:5) If it were strictly between a
> person & God, he wouldn't have added baptism to the process and instructed
his
> followers to do it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------
What does God tell us about baptising others?
Does he tell us to turn ANYONE away who comes to him seeking to be baptised?
IT IS strictly between man and God.
God reserves, unto himself, the right to judge who will and who will not be
saved. He has not relinquished that authority, or duty to any group, or
individual to judge in his stead.
Our "job" is to do what he has told us to do. One of those things is to
BAPTISE others....NOT to WITHHOLD baptism from others.
We are charged with performing the act....not of judging who is righteous
enough and/or deserving enough to BE baptised.
Do you not see the difference here?
You are reading into God's call to baptise, some right of judgement which
does not exist in scripture...it simply is NOT THERE. This is what the ICC
routenely does and this is one of its most damning practices, IMO, for a
church that claims to be "teaching and practicing ONLY the Bible".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Would you baptize someone who doesn't think they need to repent of
immorality?
> Or lying? Or bigotry?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where in the Bible does God demand perfection before someone can be
baptised? You seem to see baptism as the END of the line instead of the
beginning of a long spiritual journey in our relationship with God.
The ICC refuses to even baptise people over issues of obedience to leaders,
money, dating rules, etc.
You are ignoring the obvious in your desire to defend the indefensible.
How many people have gone through the studies and asked forgiveness for sins
and been told, by ICC leaders, that THEY were not sufficiently convinced of
their repentence to allow them to continue on to being baptised. WAY too
many...I can tell you that for fact, Eric.
We are not talking about hard cases who refuse to acknowledge what is true
and what is not. We are talking about people who are trying their hardest
and yet are being spit out of the ICC's mouth for not being "ICC" enough to
suit leaders who think they have some right to play God with the salvations
and lives of individuals.
Such practices are in direct opposition to what the Bible teaches about
salvation, baptism and God as the sole judge of the eternal destinies of
individuals.
You really NEED to care more about these things, Eric. If you think people
can be turned from baptism for such things as the ICC's leaders have
practiced, you may want to consider whether God may not take the ignorance
of those who choose NOT to know the truth more seriously than you think.
As Christians we have a greater responsibility to seek out the truth than
others have. WE are suppose to know the true source of truth and be willing
to search dilligently for it........at any cost.
What do you think? Can error in doctrine, due to self imposed ignorance, be
overlooked when the time for judgement comes.....even as the ICC carefully
screens the hearts of people in determining who they will ALLOW to be
baptised and who they will turn away?
Very scary, shakey ground there...if you are wrong.
Personally, I would rather let God be God...... and as for me..... I just
want to love, witness and minister where I can in hopes that experiencing
such things will open doors for people to see God, not men, as the answer
and truth.
Men can practice many harmful and destructive things, in the name of God,
out of their own deceitful hearts and selfish, self serving minds. In
matters of salvation....we must leave God to BE God and not try to take on
roles we are simply not authorized, or equipped to perform. Other wise we
risk turning the hearts of men away from God and jeopardizing our own place
in God's eternal plan.
Just my O
--
Evon 8^)
mev...@home.com
--------------------------------------------------------------
R. L. Measures
<mev...@home.com> wrote:
> "VidEOshiro" <video...@aol.comSPAMTHIS> wrote in message
> news:20011219153148...@mb-mq.aol.com...
> > Deborah Proctor writes:
> >
>>> .... ...
> >
> > Only God _entirely_ knows a person's heart. But that doesn't mean
that people
> > can't know parts of it.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------------
>
> At least we, as "non-God" human beings, can make assumptions (in our own
> "exceedingly deceitful" hearts), ... ...
> The ICC seems to have trouble trusting God to be able to do this without
> their "help".
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ... ... ...
€ It is my opinion that "Prophet" McKean (Manilla,1994) has a problem
with lust of dominion.
- J. H. von Döllinger, was a Professor of Church History in Munich,
Germany. Von Döllinger used the pen-name ³Janus². He wrote:
³All absolute power demoralizes its possessor. To that all history bears
witness. And if it be a spiritual power which rules men¹s consciences,
the danger is only so much greater, for the possession of such a power
exercises a specially treacherous fascination, while it is peculiarly
conducive to self-deceit, because the lust of dominion, when it has become
a passion, is only too easily in this case excused under the plea of zeal
for the salvation of others.²
J. H. von Döllinger was excommunicated from the Roman Catholic church
by his archbishop in 1871.
cheers, Evon.
€ Who's Olivia McKean?
--
Rich, 805-386-3734, www.vcnet.com/measures
Evon
"R. L. Measures" <2...@vc.net> wrote in message
news:2-2712010...@port93.dial.vcnet.com...
> In article <WiuW7.84296$Wd.25...@news1.rdc1.az.home.com>, "Evon"
> <mev...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > "VidEOshiro" <video...@aol.comSPAMTHIS> wrote in message
> > news:20011219153148...@mb-mq.aol.com...
<Snipped >
> cheers, Evon.
>
> € Who's Olivia McKean?
------------------------------------------
Hello Rich! Wonderful to hear from you! 8^)
Olivia is Kip McKean's daughter who has recently left the ICC. Rumor is that
his son is following suit.
--
Evon
mev...@home.com