Why people are turning to the ICC?
Scott W. Schreiber
wes...@ionet.net (WestOK) wrote:
>"Why are people turning to the ICC?"
> I think it is because people are struck with the need for a
>Christianity that goes beyong attending Sunday morning worship, but a real,
>vibrant faith.
I think it's because they are young folks with no prior knowledge of
the Bible, or faith, and they are in vulnerable, lonely situations,
like first year at college.
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
Scott W. Schreiber (sco...@nhr.com) wrote:
: wes...@ionet.net (WestOK) wrote:
So why do older people, mature married couples, college graduates, and
those who have seen a dozen different churches find themselves attracted
to the ICC?
Fact is, the ICC does not just baptize homesick college students who are
"vulnerable" (Vulnerable to what? An invitation to church is not a
leading cause of lung cancer), but people from all walks of life, races,
and backgrounds that are looking for genuine Christianity.
Roger Poehlmann
member, SF Church of Christ
(International Church of Christ)
Ian Euguene Charleton
On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, Roger/Michelle Poehlmann wrote:
> Fact is, the ICC does not just baptize homesick college students who are
> "vulnerable" (Vulnerable to what? An invitation to church is not a
> leading cause of lung cancer), but people from all walks of life, races,
> and backgrounds that are looking for genuine Christianity.
An invitation to a church is not a leading cause of anything bad as far
as I can tell. But, a deceptive invitation to a manipulitive,
controlling sect is something else. Any group that produces the number
of emotional wrecks as the ICC does is certainly the leading cause of
*something*. And there has to be *something* inside the group that is
causing it to happen. That *something* is not the God I worship. Just
because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't happen and just
because you don't recognize it doesn mean it's not there.
--Ian
R. L. Measures
In article <4t188k$5...@ionews.ionet.net>, wes...@ionet.net (WestOK) wrote:
> Hello,
> I have been reading this group for awhile and I am struck with the
> question. . ."Why are people turning to the ICC?"
> I think it is because people are struck with the need for a
> Christianity that goes beyong attending Sunday morning worship, but a real,
> vibrant faith. I think it is because people want to be CHRISTIANS, only
> Christians.
They indeed want to be Christians, but the Christians they become are
curiously different. He who started Christianity advised us to 'judge
not', yet' that prohibition is a *requirement* in this sect. Those who
choose to 'judge not' pay a high cost.
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
Tracy Kreckman
>: > I think it is because people are struck with the need for a
>: >Christianity that goes beyong attending Sunday morning worship, but
a real,
>: >vibrant faith.
>
>: the Bible, or faith, and they are in vulnerable, lonely situations,
>: like first year at college.
>
>So why do older people, mature married couples, college graduates, and
>those who have seen a dozen different churches find themselves
attracted >to the ICC?
>
>Fact is, the ICC does not just baptize homesick college students who
are >"vulnerable" (Vulnerable to what? An invitation to church is not
a
>leading cause of lung cancer), but people from all walks of life,
races, >and backgrounds that are looking for genuine Christianity.
>
>Roger Poehlmann
>member, SF Church of Christ
>(International Church of Christ)
>
You've omitted one very important fact, Rog. If you look at an age
curve of ICC membership, it's *very* heavily slanted on the young side.
Considering the disproportionate lack of senior citizens, a warning
bell should be going off: They aren't being ministered to as they
should (and please don't brush off the problem onto them ("it's their
fault if they don't accept what we say")).
Also, I would concur with the generalization that members come from
those with little or no knowledge of the Bible. Everyone I know in the
ICC says the same thing: "I never really studied the Bible that much
before coming into the ICC". That's not a comment on the quality of
ICC Bible study, but a comment on how ill-equipped members were to
discern doctrinal errors as they were being love-bombed. I have yet to
meet a member that confesses to a solid Biblical understanding before
joining,
but everyone *thinks* they do afterward!
Vulnerable to what? How about deceptive recruiting with a conditional
friendship? Since I broke contact with the ICC, as much as I've tried to
invest in the lives of friends who are still in, it's hardly returned. I
have yet to see the kind of Christlike love that says "I don't care if
you never join, I'll still stand by you and be your friend".
Tracy
R. L. Measures
In article <rognmichD...@netcom.com>, rogn...@netcom.com
(Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:m
>
> Readers of this newsgroup should be aware that I have in the past asked
> Martin Hinves for sources and proof to back up his allegations, and he has
> not responded to my posts.
Hmmmmm'. . . . . Roger the Dodger complaining about not responding to
posts. Perhaps this is some kind of a joke?
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
karen liu
On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, Ian Euguene Charleton wrote:
>
> An invitation to a church is not a leading cause of anything bad as far
> as I can tell. But, a deceptive invitation to a manipulitive,
> controlling sect is something else. Any group that produces the number
> of emotional wrecks as the ICC does is certainly the leading cause of
> *something*. And there has to be *something* inside the group that is
> causing it to happen. That *something* is not the God I worship. Just
> because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't happen and just
> because you don't recognize it doesn mean it's not there.
another group you will have to recognise would be the colleges and the
universities out in the world, who incidentally, have the highest rate of
suicide. now does that stop people from trying to get into college and
university? i don't think it's fair to single out icc to be a controlling
sect that create emotional wrecks because in the same way, schools can
then be considered to be controlling sects (things like peer pressure and
pressure from parents to do well in school, as well as to gain the
almighty high marks). just wanted to point that out.
karen
Martin Hinves
>Roger wrote:
>>Fact is, the ICC does not just baptize homesick college students who
>are >"vulnerable" (Vulnerable to what? An invitation to church is not
>a
>>leading cause of lung cancer), but people from all walks of life,
>races, >and backgrounds that are looking for genuine Christianity.
>>
>>Roger Poehlmann
>>member, SF Church of Christ
>>(International Church of Christ)
>>
Sorry but I have to point out you are wrong Roger.
I have seen them baptise people who did not understand what baptism
ment !
I have seen your leaders plan how to reach the vulnerabilities of
prospective members to make them receptive to joining out of guilt !
I have seen mentally ill people exploited !
I have seen them lie to present a picture that the ICC is without
problems or faults ?
I have talked to the person charged with recruiting me and he told me
that he was told "to use any means necessary and to do what it took to
get me into the church" - now that's biblical is it not ?
IHave you read shinning like stars which tells you how to pick on
vulnerable college/university students recently ?
Sorry but this does not sound like the Christianity they told me they
represented.
It suddenly changed after I joined, I mean can you justify telling a
new member "to stop being selfish and looking for Love within the
church - there is only so much Love to go around and what their is, is
for the unsaved" or " Faith is the number of people you convert" or
"Evangelism heals" or " If you do not make this quota you are
unspiritual".
Martin
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
Ian Euguene Charleton (iec...@jove.acs.unt.edu) wrote:
: On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, Roger/Michelle Poehlmann wrote:
: > Fact is, the ICC does not just baptize homesick college students who are
: > "vulnerable" (Vulnerable to what? An invitation to church is not a
: > leading cause of lung cancer), but people from all walks of life, races,
: > and backgrounds that are looking for genuine Christianity.
: An invitation to a church is not a leading cause of anything bad as far
: as I can tell. But, a deceptive invitation to a manipulitive,
: controlling sect is something else. Any group that produces the number
: of emotional wrecks as the ICC does is certainly the leading cause of
: *something*. And there has to be *something* inside the group that is
: causing it to happen. That *something* is not the God I worship. Just
: because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't happen and just
: because you don't recognize it doesn mean it's not there.
The International Churches of Christ has taken heat when any disciple,
anywhere in the world, says something harsh, gives questionable dating
advice, gets frustrated, angry, or falls into sin. While neither Jesus
nor the ICC leadership condones sin, something bad happened, it was a
disciple (be it a new convert or an old-time member) and so that is
something that brings shame to us all. Likewise, when we see great
things happening: many people turning to God and becoming Christians,
HOPE worldwide projects meeting physical needs around the world, and
people changing individually to get drugs, alcoholism, bitterness, sexual
immorality, jealousy, prejudice, lying, pride, and selfishness out of
their lives, that is a good thing. The ICC is not so much deserving of
the "credit", because we are who we are by the grace of God, so we credit
God with anything good that we sinners are able to accomplish.
Likewise, I credit those who work to get people to leave the ICC with the
fruit of their labors. Just as ICC disciples labor and strive to make
disciples and keep them faithful, some ex-members work hard to get those
same people to abandon their commitment to God's kingdom and to return to
the previous life that discouraged and frustrated them. These
"emotionally wrecked" individuals ARE NOT CURRENT MEMBERS OF THE ICC.
Come to an ICC service and see for yourself that the disciples are joyful
men and women with their own convictions and opinions, and who are
seeking excellence in every area of their life. The "emotionally wrecked"
are some fraction of ex-members (and of course, those who have never
heard of the ICC), the fruit of the message of the ex-members that the ICC
is a "manipulative, controlling sect" and all sorts of other terrible things.
Just as we disciples are blamed for every problem that occurs around the
world, so you must take the blame for the destroyed lives of those who
listen to your constant pounding for them to leave the ICC, read your
stories, and show contempt for the genuine love of ICC members and
leaders.
If I find someone passed out in the street, carry them to the hospital,
and they find he is a diabetic and give him insulin, save his live and send
him home, I have done something good. As a non-Christian I might not have
done it, so I give God the credit for it. Now on the way home, he bumps
into someone who says insulin is bad, that the doctors are just out for
the bucks and don't really care, that I only helped him legalistically,
and that insulin comes from sheep and he should stop taking it. He calls
the doctor, and the doctor expresses concern, and urges him to stay with
the shots, and not to listen to those anti-insulin people. But he is
convinced; the doctor admitted to that sheep part, and doggone it, who
does he think he is to judge people as a 'diabetic' anyway. Do Not Judge!
So the man stops taking the insulin, goes into insulin shock, and dies.
You can tell people that insulin is bad for diabetics. You can tell them
the ICC is a terrible place and not to go there. I support your right of
free speech to say dumb things that are harmful to people. But when
people listen to you; when they stop taking their insulin, when they stop
reading the Bible, stop coming to church, stop sharing their faith, and
stop following the other Scriptures that were changing their lives for
the better--then you take responsibility for the fruit of your message.
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
Tracy Kreckman (t...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Also, I would concur with the generalization that members come from
: those with little or no knowledge of the Bible. Everyone I know in the
: ICC says the same thing: "I never really studied the Bible that much
: before coming into the ICC". That's not a comment on the quality of
: ICC Bible study, but a comment on how ill-equipped members were to
: discern doctrinal errors as they were being love-bombed. I have yet to
: meet a member that confesses to a solid Biblical understanding before
: joining, but everyone *thinks* they do afterward!
Doctrinal errors?! When I studied the Bible with friends from the ICC,
we looked at Scripture after Scripture. If there was a question, we
looked at a Scripture. If I read it differently, or if my trusty KJV
read differently, we looked at another Scripture. God doesn't make
doctrinal errors in his Bible, churches do. Things like praying to the
saints, praying Jesus into your heart, infant baptism--none of these are
"doctrinal errors"?
I can't say I had a "solid Biblical understanding" of every topic in the
Bible, then or now. I knew (then and now) what repentance was, what
Jesus said about who was a disciple and who wasn't, what the Bible said
about baptism, etc. Did I know that Gehenna, Sheol, Abaddon, Tartarus,
and Hades are all translated as "hell" in the Bible? No...but I did know
I didn't want to go there! That was not my motivation for wanting to be
baptized, but it sure shook me out of my years of religious complacency.
I once posted that a person is justified by what he does and
not by faith alone, only to receive back a short reply that I had fallen
from grace and that thw writer would pray for my soul. While I need all
the prayer I can get, I was simply quoting James 2:24. So let us not be
too harsh with this "solid Biblical understanding" bit, Tracy, since we
can all be in error at times.
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
Martin Hinves (hin...@world.net) wrote:
: >Roger wrote:
: >>Fact is, the ICC does not just baptize homesick college students who
: >are >"vulnerable" (Vulnerable to what? An invitation to church is not
: >a
: >>leading cause of lung cancer), but people from all walks of life,
: >races, >and backgrounds that are looking for genuine Christianity.
: >>
: >>Roger Poehlmann
: >>member, SF Church of Christ
: >>(International Church of Christ)
: >>
: Sorry but I have to point out you are wrong Roger.
: I have seen them baptise people who did not understand what baptism
: ment !
Martin, if your last post was a gymnastics routine at the Olympics, I'm
afraid you'd get a 6.2. All hearsay, gossip, and rumor, with no facts to
back it up.
Which "people" did you see baptized who 'did not understand what baptism
meant'. Please identify the congregation of ICC disciples which does not
use *any* of the following Scriptures as part of its study series:
Acts 2:38
1 Peter 3:21
John 3:1-5
Matthew 28:18-20
Romans 6:1-10
Baptism is discussed in Discipleship, Light and Darkness I and II, The
Church, and The Kingdom studies as part of First Principles. Other study
series used in the past by the ICC/Boston Movement all cover baptism
extensively, as well as a other essential topics. The First Principles
series has been used here in San Francisco for many years, and people
simply do not get baptized if they have not completed all the studies.
Martin, if we are to believe what you say, we need some proof. Which ICC
congregation does not teach these Scriptures? What is the name of the
evangelist who leads that congregation so we can reach him for comment?
Roger Poehlmann
member, SF Church of Christ
(International Church of Christ)
Readers of this newsgroup should be aware that I have in the past asked
Martin Hinves for sources and proof to back up his allegations, and he has
not responded to my posts.
nancy
On Jul 30, 1996 19:18:12 in article <Re: Why people are turning to the
ICC?>, 'rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann)' wrote:
>The International Churches of Christ has taken heat when any disciple,
>anywhere in the world, says something harsh, gives questionable dating
>advice, gets frustrated, angry, or falls into sin.
is persecuted!! Ever hear of the Roman Catholic Church?
>While neither Jesus nor the ICC leadership condones sin, something bad
>happened, it was a disciple (be it a new convert or an old-time member)
and so that is something that brings shame to us all. Likewise, when we
see great
>things happening: many people turning to God and becoming Christians,
>HOPE worldwide projects meeting physical needs around the world, and
>people changing individually to get drugs, alcoholism, bitterness, sexual
>immorality, jealousy, prejudice, lying, pride, and selfishness out of
>their lives, that is a good thing.
There you go again Rog.....being the judge of the world.....again, how do
you know what evil lurks in the hearts of men(and women)?
Are you "The Shadow"???
>The ICC is not so much deserving of
>the "credit", because we are who we are by the grace of God, so we credit
>God with anything good that we sinners are able to accomplish.
>Likewise, I credit those who work to get people to leave the ICC with the
>fruit of their labors. Just as ICC disciples labor and strive to make
>disciples and keep them faithful, some ex-members work hard to get those
>same people to abandon their commitment to God's kingdom and to return to
>the previous life that discouraged and frustrated them.
Oh...the wicked sinful ways of the ex members...beware..."The Shadow
Knows"!!!(wicked laughter)
>These "emotionally wrecked" individuals ARE NOT CURRENT MEMBERS OF >THE
ICC. Come to an ICC service and see for yourself that the disciples are
>joyful men and women with their own convictions and opinions, and who are
>seeking excellence in every area of their life.
As long as their discipler says its okay!
The "emotionally wrecked"
>are some fraction of ex-members (and of course, those who have never
>heard of the ICC), the fruit of the message of the ex-members that the ICC
>is a "manipulative, controlling sect" and all sorts of other terrible
things.
<snip>
>If I find someone passed out in the street, carry them to the hospital,
>and they find he is a diabetic and give him insulin, save his live and
send
>him home, I have done something good. As a non-Christian I might not have
>done it, so I give God the credit for it.
So, let's see, a Jew, Muslim, atheist, etc, wouldn't do the same thing? Boy
you don't give God much credit at all!!!
<snip comparison between the ICC and insulin>
>Roger Poehlmann
>member, SF Church of Christ
>(International Church of Christ)
nancy
Tracy Kreckman
In <rognmichD...@netcom.com> rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle
Poehlmann) writes:
>
>Which "people" did you see baptized who 'did not understand what baptism
>meant'. Please identify the congregation of ICC disciples which does not
>use *any* of the following Scriptures as part of its study series:
>
>Acts 2:38
>1 Peter 3:21
>John 3:1-5
>Matthew 28:18-20
>Romans 6:1-10
>
>Baptism is discussed in Discipleship, Light and Darkness I and II, The
>Church, and The Kingdom studies as part of First Principles. Other
study >series used in the past by the ICC/Boston Movement all cover
baptism
>extensively, as well as a other essential topics. The First
Principles
>series has been used here in San Francisco for many years, and people
>simply do not get baptized if they have not completed all the studies.
Is it just me, or does this look like the incredible power of the Holy
Spirit, capable of working in the heart of anyone on the planet without
bounds, no matter what one's lifestyle, experience or background, all
nicely boiled down into a few favorite verses and cookie cutter studies
that *must* be taken before given a human go-ahead that one is allowed
to be saved (by ICC standards)?
Just asking,
Tracy
Starr
wes...@ionet.net (WestOK) wrote:
>Hello,
> I have been reading this group for awhile and I am struck with the
>question. . ."Why are people turning to the ICC?"
> I think it is because people are struck with the need for a
>Christianity that goes beyong attending Sunday morning worship, but a real,
>vibrant faith. I think it is because people want to be CHRISTIANS, only
>Christians. People are sick and fed of with the evils of denominationalism and
>are looking for the truth.
<snip>
The "evils" of denominationalism...whoooo boy.
<keeping my mouth shut.....>
<for once>
:)
Tracy Kreckman
>
>: Also, I would concur with the generalization that members come from
>: those with little or no knowledge of the Bible. Everyone I know in the
>: ICC says the same thing: "I never really studied the Bible that much
>: before coming into the ICC". That's not a comment on the quality of
>: ICC Bible study, but a comment on how ill-equipped members were to
>: discern doctrinal errors as they were being love-bombed. I have yet to
>: meet a member that confesses to a solid Biblical understanding before
>: joining, but everyone *thinks* they do afterward!
>
>Doctrinal errors?! When I studied the Bible with friends from the
ICC,
>we looked at Scripture after Scripture. If there was a question, we
>looked at a Scripture. If I read it differently, or if my trusty KJV
>read differently, we looked at another Scripture. God doesn't make
>doctrinal errors in his Bible, churches do. Things like praying to
the
>saints, praying Jesus into your heart, infant baptism--none of these
are
>"doctrinal errors"?
Yep, they are (though I might call "praying Jesus into your heart" a
less than perfect expression of "the indwelling of the Holy Spirit"),
and I'd disagree with those as much as I disagree that baptism is any
more than symbolic.
>I can't say I had a "solid Biblical understanding" of every topic in
the
>Bible, then or now. I knew (then and now) what repentance was, what
>Jesus said about who was a disciple and who wasn't, what the Bible
said
>about baptism, etc. Did I know that Gehenna, Sheol, Abaddon,
Tartarus,
>and Hades are all translated as "hell" in the Bible? No...but I did
know >I didn't want to go there! That was not my motivation for
wanting to be
>baptized, but it sure shook me out of my years of religious
complacency.
What I'm talking about is that I have yet to personally meet any
leadership in the ICC that has, for example, a post graduate degree
from any accredited seminary. They don't have any more knowledge of
Greek, Hebrew, hermeneutics, etc. than I do. True, you don't need an
advanced degree to preach the word, but if *nobody* in the group has
formal training (as Paul, for example, did), there is no basis for
trust that difficult passages are being interpreted and analyzed any
more correctly than I could on my own. Whenever I've talked to anyone
in the ICC about a difference between what they believe and what I've
been taught by someone
with more formal training than both of us combined, they'll *always* side
with the ICC viewpoint rather than that of higher scholarship. Why?
>I once posted that a person is justified by what he does and
>not by faith alone, only to receive back a short reply that I had fallen
>from grace and that thw writer would pray for my soul. While I need all
>the prayer I can get, I was simply quoting James 2:24. So let us not be
>too harsh with this "solid Biblical understanding" bit, Tracy, since we
>can all be in error at times.
>
>Roger Poehlmann
>member, SF Church of Christ
>(International Church of Christ)
>
We're not talking about relatively minor things like "should I spend 45
minutes or an hour for my quiet time today" or something like that. We're
talking major heaven or hell doctrinal misunderstandings. Going beyond
what the scriptures *say* on the surface and understanding the author's
true intended *meaning* might someday be the difference in whether someone
is saved or not.
BTW, I'm even more interested in your response to my allegations of a lack
of unconditional love in the ICC from the part of my post you left out.
Tracy
Chris Garland
karen liu <e0fk...@credit.erin.utoronto.ca> wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, Ian Euguene Charleton wrote:
>>
>> as I can tell. But, a deceptive invitation to a manipulitive,
>> controlling sect is something else. Any group that produces the number
>> of emotional wrecks as the ICC does is certainly the leading cause of
>> *something*. And there has to be *something* inside the group that is
>> causing it to happen. That *something* is not the God I worship. Just
>> because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't happen and just
>> because you don't recognize it doesn mean it's not there.
>
>universities out in the world, who incidentally, have the highest rate of
>suicide. now does that stop people from trying to get into college and
>university? i don't think it's fair to single out icc to be a controlling
>sect that create emotional wrecks because in the same way, schools can
>then be considered to be controlling sects (things like peer pressure and
>pressure from parents to do well in school, as well as to gain the
>almighty high marks). just wanted to point that out.
>karen
HELLO!!!! Ok, Karen -- let's hash this out. What college or university
today is telling you whom to date, WHEN to date them, what time you
should go to bed at night, when you should have sex with your spouse, how
your budget should be worked out, and what college or university is using
your sin against you?
Most importantly, what college or university today is telling you you are
damned and going to hell if you refuse to do everything they command?
Wake up, child!
Smlleecat6
Roger wrote:
>Tracy, on this same thread you were complaining that "I have yet to meet
>a member who confesses to have a solid Biblical understanding before
>joining". And here we are, taking the time to study through not just the
>Scriptures mentioned above, but dozens of verses to teach them about
>God's love, Jesus's sacrifice on the cross, sin, repentance, baptism,
>discipleship, prayer, etc. etc. etc. straight from the Bible, where "men
>spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit"?
Although I can't be sure, I think Tracy was saying that there are very few
members of the ICC who, before they were ever approached by ICC members,
had solid biblical knowledge. Therefore they go for whatever the ICC
feeds them. They don't know how to study things out for themselves so
they believe what sounds good.
Smlleecat6
Roger wrote:
>I am personally unimpressed by someone who has a Masters in Divinity and
>yet is on his third divorce and the church he's been leading for 16 years
>has not grown significantly.
Name this person. I mean we need names in order to check out these
stories you write. You could very well be exaggerating.
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
Tracy Kreckman (t...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <rognmichD...@netcom.com> rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle
: Poehlmann) writes:
: >
: >Which "people" did you see baptized who 'did not understand what baptism
: Just asking,
: Tracy
Tracy, on this same thread you were complaining that "I have yet to meet
a member who confesses to have a solid Biblical understanding before
joining". And here we are, taking the time to study through not just the
Scriptures mentioned above, but dozens of verses to teach them about
God's love, Jesus's sacrifice on the cross, sin, repentance, baptism,
discipleship, prayer, etc. etc. etc. straight from the Bible, where "men
spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit"?
Just answering,
Ian Euguene Charleton
On Tue, 30 Jul 1996, Roger/Michelle Poehlmann wrote:
> something that brings shame to us all. Likewise, when we see great
> things happening: many people turning to God and becoming Christians,
> HOPE worldwide projects meeting physical needs around the world, and
> people changing individually to get drugs, alcoholism, bitterness, sexual
> immorality, jealousy, prejudice, lying, pride, and selfishness out of
> their lives, that is a good thing. The ICC is not so much deserving of
Agreed. I do rejoice with those people who come to faith in the ICC,
even though they are unwittingly supporting a manipulative system. I believe
that God, in His unlimited power can use ANY situation to His benefit.
>
> Likewise, I credit those who work to get people to leave the ICC with the
> fruit of their labors. Just as ICC disciples labor and strive to make
> disciples and keep them faithful, some ex-members work hard to get those
> same people to abandon their commitment to God's kingdom and to return to
> the previous life that discouraged and frustrated them. These
Are you specially trained to push my buttons, Roger? I know of no
ex-members who have tried to get any current members to abandon God or
His Kingdom. I know my share. I know of no ex-members who advocate the
return to drunkeness, immorality, or any other sin. The simple fact that
you lump anyone who wishes to make informed consent available to an ICC
member into the same category as a heretic is absolutely appalling.
I am more offended than words can express right now. How dare you accuse
ME of wanting people to abandon God. Who do you think you are?! How do
you know that everyone outside of the ICC is in the sin that you described?
Informed consent is a dangerous thing. When the truth is put up against
lies of any variety the lies pale by comparison. An amazing thing
happens when the truth is revealed about a manipulative sect like the
ICC. People usually feel intense anger at the system they were
supporting. Some people feel spiritually raped. My list of adjectives
could go on and on.
> "emotionally wrecked" individuals ARE NOT CURRENT MEMBERS OF THE ICC.
I would beg to differ here. I know personally a woman who was in the ICC
for nearly 10 years and when she left she was suicidal and basically out
of her mind. She left not over doctrinal reasons, but because she could
not take the pressure that was being applied to her psychologically. Are
you meaning to say that her state of mental undoing started the instant
she left fellowship with the church and never before?
Through someone else on this newsgroup (who will remain anonymous until
s/he chooses to identify him/herself) I know of a woman who is,
believing she is serving God, inflicting injury upon herself and getting
in trouble with the law. She, at last check, still was a member. I may
be mistaken here.
Another close friend of mine who left about a year before I did was in
psychological therapy after she left the ICC. Did her emotional problems
suddenly begin when she left the fellowship of the ICC?
Is there jsut some bizarre outside force that causes these people who
remain faithful to God to suddenly become the aforementioned "emotional
wrecks." Pardon me, I forgot, if you leave the ICC you leave God don't
you? How much sense does this make? I'll save my comments on this area
for another time.
> Come to an ICC service and see for yourself that the disciples are joyful
> men and women with their own convictions and opinions, and who are
> seeking excellence in every area of their life. The "emotionally wrecked"
I needen't go. I lived it.
> are some fraction of ex-members (and of course, those who have never
I would agree that a minority of the people wo do leave the ICC are as
the people I have described above, but I don't know of many who left
under any circumstance who did not suffer some abnormal psychological or
emotional stress.
> heard of the ICC), the fruit of the message of the ex-members that the ICC
> is a "manipulative, controlling sect" and all sorts of other terrible things.
Did you ever bother to give any thought to the fact that some of these
acusations might actually be true?
> Just as we disciples are blamed for every problem that occurs around the
> world, so you must take the blame for the destroyed lives of those who
> listen to your constant pounding for them to leave the ICC, read your
> stories, and show contempt for the genuine love of ICC members and
> leaders.
How rude can you get?! I really couldn't believe that I read this right
when I read it the first time. Why must I take the blame for the
destroyed lives that come out of the ICC when I was not the one that
caused it? Roger, I'm absolutely astounded at what you have said.
>
> You can tell people that insulin is bad for diabetics. You can tell them
> the ICC is a terrible place and not to go there. I support your right of
> free speech to say dumb things that are harmful to people. But when
> people listen to you; when they stop taking their insulin, when they stop
> reading the Bible, stop coming to church, stop sharing their faith, and
> stop following the other Scriptures that were changing their lives for
> the better--then you take responsibility for the fruit of your message.
If I ever stop someone from taking their spiritual vitamins, their
spiritual "insulin" or what have you,I sincerely hope that God will judge
me swift and sure. Roger, if you have truth, what do you or any ICCer
have to fear by letting us babble this so-called nonsense? If you really
have the truth why do people who read our accounts or listen to the
material that we may present leave at all? Your truth should be
powerful enough to withstand any of what "lies" we lob your way....
unless you mean to say that Satan is more powerful than God.
Is the ICC the sole provider of spiritual insulin?
Show me what harmful things I have said and I will publicly appologize.
My conscience is perfectly clear about any effort I have made to share my
exerience with anyone, or to make informed consent available to them.
--Ian
Mudpies
>another group you will have to recognise would be the colleges and the
>universities out in the world, who incidentally, have the highest rate of
>suicide. now does that stop people from trying to get into college and
>university?
There's a big difference between going to college and inadvently joining a
cult. If I had known what I know now about the ICC I would have never
joined. Al Baird, when asked the question about the suicide rate the
church, he said that their statistics were lower than the national
average. My question is why does a "church" have suicide stats in the
first place?
i don't think it's fair to single out icc to be a controlling
>sect that create emotional wrecks because in the same way, schools can
>then be considered to be controlling sects (things like peer pressure and
>pressure from parents to do well in school, as well as to gain the
>almighty high marks). just wanted to point that out.
Again, one has the freedom to choose to go to college or not, but if one
is to not join the ICC they are told they are going to hell. Think about
the mental aspects that can put someone through. If some joins the ICC
and then decides to leave, they are told that they are failures, decieved,
and leaving God. The blame is put on the *person* leaving. When I went
to college I knew what I was getting into. Their was no hidden agenda.
When I joined the ICC I didn't know I was being indoctrinated into a
pride-based pecking order of discipleship, that I would learn to twist the
scriptures, and that I would learn to dispense another person's existence
if they didn't go along with the program. The most important difference
between going to college and joining a controlling sect is FREEDOM to
chose without being manipulated.
>newsbf01.news.aol.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!news-e2a.gnn.com!howland.rest
on.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!erin.utoron
to.ca!tuzo.erin!e0fknehg
>From: karen liu <e0fk...@credit.erin.utoronto.ca>
>Newsgroups: alt.religion.christian.boston-church
>Subject: Re: Why people are turning to the ICC?
>Date: Tue, 30 Jul 1996 17:23:32 -0400
>Organization: Erindale College, University of Toronto, Canada
>Lines: 21
>Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.94.960730...@tuzo.erin>
>References: <4t188k$5...@ionews.ionet.net> <4t8r3o$4...@madrid.visi.net>
><rognmichD...@netcom.com>
><Pine.SOL.3.91.96072...@jove.acs.unt.edu>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: tuzo.erin
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
>X-Sender: e0fk...@tuzo.erin
>In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOL.3.91.96072...@jove.acs.unt.edu>
>
>
Michelle Campbell -
"A heart held humble will level and light your way"
Ian Euguene Charleton
On Wed, 31 Jul 1996, Roger/Michelle Poehlmann wrote:
> Baptism is discussed in Discipleship, Light and Darkness I and II, The
> Church, and The Kingdom studies as part of First Principles. Other study
> series used in the past by the ICC/Boston Movement all cover baptism
> extensively, as well as a other essential topics. The First Principles
> series has been used here in San Francisco for many years, and people
> simply do not get baptized if they have not completed all the studies.
If baptism is necessary for salvation as the ICC teaches, and "Disciple's
Baptism" at that, how is this not trying to earn your salvation? You
quoted Acts 2:38 up there (sorry I snipped it), Did Peter really say
"Repent and be baptized after you've completed the studies." My bible
must be very inaccurate.
Did those 3000 converts of Acts 2 at Pentecost go through a protracted
study series? I don't really think so. Why is it different today? What
gave the ICC the authority to require this protracted study series prior
to baptism?
--Ian
Raymond Tam
Tracy Kreckman (t...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
<snip>
: What I'm talking about is that I have yet to personally meet any
: leadership in the ICC that has, for example, a post graduate degree
: from any accredited seminary. They don't have any more knowledge of
: Greek, Hebrew, hermeneutics, etc. than I do. True, you don't need an
: advanced degree to preach the word, but if *nobody* in the group has
: formal training (as Paul, for example, did), there is no basis for
: trust that difficult passages are being interpreted and analyzed any
: more correctly than I could on my own. Whenever I've talked to anyone
: in the ICC about a difference between what they believe and what I've
: been taught by someone
: with more formal training than both of us combined, they'll *always* side
: with the ICC viewpoint rather than that of higher scholarship. Why?
<snip>
Dr. Marty Wooten, one of the appointed "teachers" in the ICOC,
does have a post graduate degree, but I can't remember
from which seminary. I know that he is currently studying for another
advanced degree in the Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA. He
is supposedly knowledgable about several languages, although I can't
verify that because I don't speak those languages.
raymond
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time or die by suicide."
-Abraham Lincoln
Scott W. Schreiber
t...@ix.netcom.com(Tracy Kreckman ) wrote:
>What I'm talking about is that I have yet to personally meet any
>leadership in the ICC that has, for example, a post graduate degree
>from any accredited seminary.
To this Roger has responded, and I expect he will again respond with
"Jesus didn't have a college degree" which I think is absolutely
absurd.
Martin Hinves
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>Ian Euguene Charleton (iec...@jove.acs.unt.edu) wrote:
>: On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, Roger/Michelle Poehlmann wrote:
>: > Fact is, the ICC does not just baptize homesick college students who are
>: > "vulnerable" (Vulnerable to what? An invitation to church is not a
>: > leading cause of lung cancer), but people from all walks of life, races,
>: > and backgrounds that are looking for genuine Christianity.
>: An invitation to a church is not a leading cause of anything bad as far
>: as I can tell. But, a deceptive invitation to a manipulitive,
>: controlling sect is something else. Any group that produces the number
>: of emotional wrecks as the ICC does is certainly the leading cause of
>: *something*. And there has to be *something* inside the group that is
>: causing it to happen. That *something* is not the God I worship. Just
>: because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't happen and just
>: because you don't recognize it doesn mean it's not there.
>The International Churches of Christ has taken heat when any disciple,
>anywhere in the world, says something harsh, gives questionable dating
>advice, gets frustrated, angry, or falls into sin. While neither Jesus
>nor the ICC leadership condones sin, something bad happened, it was a
>disciple (be it a new convert or an old-time member) and so that is
>something that brings shame to us all.
Ah so we have ICC Strategy Defences Number 1 - The disciple is to
blame.
And why pray tell is the disciple to blame ?
As Roger would say the person who did the wrong thing was not
trained/did not have enough experience (and with the ICC cockroach
theory of leadership this is their own fault) OR there was some sin in
their life they have not dealt with (as if man could deal with sin)
I prefer to look at it as lack of accountability and responsibility by
those ICC leaders in charge.
Remember it is a poor tradesman who blames his tools .. just as it is
a poor leader who blames those he is in charge of.
>Likewise, when we see great
>things happening: many people turning to God and becoming Christians,
>HOPE worldwide projects meeting physical needs around the world, and
>people changing individually to get drugs, alcoholism, bitterness, sexual
>immorality, jealousy, prejudice, lying, pride, and selfishness out of
>their lives, that is a good thing. The ICC is not so much deserving of
>the "credit", because we are who we are by the grace of God, so we credit
>God with anything good that we sinners are able to accomplish.
Ah so it's works orientation again ...
Funny how you say that quota's are necessary to get people do do
things (shame and guilt work just fine too - they really get people
motivated). Yet you place such an emphasis on your works as a measure
of your spirituality that you forget the Grace of God.
Most of my sermons I attended were about how bad we were as
christians, never was Grace preached or mentioned.
Just works, money, do not think, do not question, do not seek answers
outside the ICC, only ICC people can be trusted, obey everything your
discipler tells you, there is no such thing as a matter of opinion,
the iCC is the only true church, the 3 page booklet on how to date,
and now that I remember it ex members are the spawn of Satan ... that
type of thing.
>Likewise, I credit those who work to get people to leave the ICC with the
>fruit of their labors. Just as ICC disciples labor and strive to make
>disciples and keep them faithful, some ex-members work hard to get those
>same people to abandon their commitment to God's kingdom and to return to
>the previous life that discouraged and frustrated them. These
>"emotionally wrecked" individuals ARE NOT CURRENT MEMBERS OF THE ICC.
True they left your church in this state.
As I have said many times you and your leaders care nothing for these
people.
As I have said before you and your leaders refuse to acknowledge any
responsibility for what happened to them whilst they were part of your
church.
True christian love - eh ?
>Come to an ICC service and see for yourself that the disciples are joyful
>men and women with their own convictions and opinions, and who are
>seeking excellence in every area of their life.
I would like to but because of what I know about your churches
unbiblical teachings, crimes, fraud and abuses your leaders do not
want me to talk to the general congregation.
After all I might tell the truth about an incident which would be
different than what the congregation was told <G>.
After all I might say something that would have people check out their
bibles and look at what they had been taught with an inquiring mind
<G>.
Or I could just be arabble rouser <VBG>
>The "emotionally wrecked"
>are some fraction of ex-members (and of course, those who have never
>heard of the ICC), the fruit of the message of the ex-members that the ICC
>is a "manipulative, controlling sect" and all sorts of other terrible things.
Ah so you will admit that ex-members are sometimes "emotionally
wrecked" - now if you would accept that your churches teachings and
forced actions made them so ....
(well you can always hope that they will <G>)
>Just as we disciples are blamed for every problem that occurs around the
>world, so you must take the blame for the destroyed lives of those who
>listen to your constant pounding for them to leave the ICC, read your
>stories, and show contempt for the genuine love of ICC members and
>leaders.
I refuse to accept your logic here.
I have met many people who have left the ICC and are hurt because of
what it taught.
Some had no contact with any ex-members until after they left.
So your logic has gaping holes in it I am afraid.
There are over 2 million ex-ICC members world wide (if my maths is
correct).
That is the testimony to your church's teaching.
So let me get this straight if I talk to someone and they listen to
what I have to say, and they make up their mind to leave the ICC (they
also could have made up their mind to stay - did you think about that)
then if something "destroys" their life I am to blame ?
Ah I get it I have caused them to SIN by leaving the One true church
<G>.
So if people listen to me and leave the ICC I am to blame - what utter
rot !
I
>If I find someone passed out in the street, carry them to the hospital,
>and they find he is a diabetic and give him insulin, save his live and send
>him home, I have done something good. As a non-Christian I might not have
>done it, so I give God the credit for it. Now on the way home, he bumps
>into someone who says insulin is bad, that the doctors are just out for
>the bucks and don't really care, that I only helped him legalistically,
>and that insulin comes from sheep and he should stop taking it. He calls
>the doctor, and the doctor expresses concern, and urges him to stay with
>the shots, and not to listen to those anti-insulin people. But he is
>convinced; the doctor admitted to that sheep part, and doggone it, who
>does he think he is to judge people as a 'diabetic' anyway. Do Not Judge!
>So the man stops taking the insulin, goes into insulin shock, and dies.
So what you have said here is that the ICC is the only true Christian
church ?
That's what you are telling me here.
I am not judging you as you judge me.
I know you veiw diversity as disunity= deviseness.
IMany of us ex-members have never preached christian untruths
(deviseness) so how can you say we pull people away from God and
Christianity.
All we ask is that they look, listen and learn in essence.
It is still there choice to stay or leave if they so wish.
I know many ICC members who know the church is rotten to the core but
still stay.
I may not like it, but I respect and understand it.
I would like to talk to them about it <G>.
But it is still their choice.
But you would have your members have no choice at all.
You restrict critical information, you character assassinate persons
who could shine a light on the dark depths of ICC activity and you
have the nerve to say that we are responsible when we present the
truth to ICC members or prospective members and they decide to leave ?
Ah so it is our fault if they leave...
I see the ICC is still without blame <G>.
What arrogance, what pride you have.
I pray for you Roger, you really don't see that you are as much a
victim of the ICC system as those ex-members who are hurt by it.
>You can tell people that insulin is bad for diabetics. You can tell them
>the ICC is a terrible place and not to go there. I support your right of
>free speech to say dumb things that are harmful to people.
Just as I support your right to say dumb harmful things too. <G>
What I do not support is your assumption that what many of us exmebers
say as "dumb and harmful" how can pointing out sin in an organisation
be dumb ? How can pointing out the abuses that such an organisation
commits (those I have documented for you in the past) be harmful ?
How can giving people information or telling them the truth about your
church - thereby allowing them to make an informed choice be wrong ?
> But when
>people listen to you; when they stop taking their insulin, when they stop
>reading the Bible, stop coming to church, stop sharing their faith, and
>stop following the other Scriptures that were changing their lives for
>the better--then you take responsibility for the fruit of your message.
Roger I have never asked people to stop reading the Bible, stop coming
to church, stop sharing their faith, and stop following the
Scriptures. This is precisely what I wish they would do - be a bereen
and see how unbiblical some of the ICC teachings are; to see how
unethical immoral and hurtful some of their practises are.
Just as you carry on about SIN in the world - so do I say there is SIN
in the ICC that is undealt with that YOU and other leaders refuse to
do anything about !
I have said I am in favour of people "checking" out the ICC.
But they should make an informed choice - their choice.
They should know the other side of the coin.
You should not prevent them from that.
]If knowing both sides of the coin they choose to stay - that is their
choice and I will respect that.
However I expect them to be able to debate and explain the
inconsistancies that I and others see in the ICC.
Just as I am expected to debate these topics and point out what I see
as unbiblical behaviour through my faith - so should they.
A Christian is a responsible, accountable human being remember that.
>Roger Poehlmann
>member, SF Church of Christ
>(International Church of Christ)
Martin Hinves
ex member ICC
(and definately not a spawn of Satan last time I checked <G>)
Ian Euguene Charleton
On Tue, 30 Jul 1996, Roger/Michelle Poehlmann wrote:
> Tracy Kreckman (t...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> : Also, I would concur with the generalization that members come from
> : those with little or no knowledge of the Bible. Everyone I know in the
> : ICC says the same thing: "I never really studied the Bible that much
> : before coming into the ICC". That's not a comment on the quality of
> : ICC Bible study, but a comment on how ill-equipped members were to
> : discern doctrinal errors as they were being love-bombed. I have yet to
> : meet a member that confesses to a solid Biblical understanding before
> : joining, but everyone *thinks* they do afterward!
>
> Doctrinal errors?! When I studied the Bible with friends from the ICC,
> we looked at Scripture after Scripture. If there was a question, we
> looked at a Scripture. If I read it differently, or if my trusty KJV
> read differently, we looked at another Scripture. God doesn't make
> doctrinal errors in his Bible, churches do. Things like praying to the
> saints, praying Jesus into your heart, infant baptism--none of these are
> "doctrinal errors"?
I would agree that churches do make doctrinal errors. The ICC is no
different. I would be more than happy to show you how Kip's example of
"Disciple's Baptism" proof texted from Matthew 28:18-20 is grammatically
incorrect... not a question of interpretation. If you want to see the
ICC's classic doctrinal error, just ask. If you do not ask, I might be
inclined to believe that you have no real interest in seeking the truth,
or testing the truth if you believe you have it. If you have the truth,
noting I say *can* hurt you.
--Ian
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
Tracy Kreckman (t...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <rognmichD...@netcom.com> rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle
: Poehlmann) writes:
: >
: >
: >: before coming into the ICC". That's not a comment on the quality of
: >: ICC Bible study, but a comment on how ill-equipped members were to
: >: discern doctrinal errors as they were being love-bombed. I have yet to
: >
: ICC,
: >we looked at Scripture after Scripture. If there was a question, we
: >looked at a Scripture. If I read it differently, or if my trusty KJV
: Yep, they are (though I might call "praying Jesus into your heart" a
: less than perfect expression of "the indwelling of the Holy Spirit"),
: and I'd disagree with those as much as I disagree that baptism is any
: more than symbolic.
I once met a guy on campus who was a leader in one of the Christian
fellowships. We got to talking about baptism, and he parrotted the line,
"baptism is an outward sign of an inward grace" and I took out my Bible
and asked him to tell me where that verse was. To my surprise, he picked
it up and started paging through it! However, a few minutes later he
gave up and said, "Well, I can't find it right now." I asked him, "Well
can I show you a Scripture about what baptism really is?" and we turned
to Romans 6:1-10. Whether you agree or disagree, you gotta admit that
the ICC opens up the Bible. Now sure, you can probably find some ICC
disciple who can rattle off that baptism is participation in the death,
burial, and resurrection of Jesus, and when you ask him where it is, he
chokes and can't tell you it's in Romans 6. That's not a good thing, and
that's why we do Scripture memory, First Principles classes, seminars,
etc. But Romans 6 *is* in the Bible, and "outward sign of an inward
grace" isn't in there.
: >I can't say I had a "solid Biblical understanding" of every topic in
: the
: >Bible, then or now. I knew (then and now) what repentance was, what
: >Jesus said about who was a disciple and who wasn't, what the Bible
: said
: >about baptism, etc. Did I know that Gehenna, Sheol, Abaddon,
: Tartarus,
: >and Hades are all translated as "hell" in the Bible? No...but I did
: know >I didn't want to go there! That was not my motivation for
: wanting to be
: >baptized, but it sure shook me out of my years of religious
: complacency.
: What I'm talking about is that I have yet to personally meet any
: leadership in the ICC that has, for example, a post graduate degree
: from any accredited seminary. They don't have any more knowledge of
: Greek, Hebrew, hermeneutics, etc. than I do. True, you don't need an
: advanced degree to preach the word, but if *nobody* in the group has
: formal training (as Paul, for example, did), there is no basis for
: trust that difficult passages are being interpreted and analyzed any
: more correctly than I could on my own.
What about Douglas Jacoby, Preston Shepherd, etc.? I can't get you to
"personally meet" these people and show you their diplomas, though.
I am personally unimpressed by someone who has a Masters in Divinity and
yet is on his third divorce and the church he's been leading for 16 years
has not grown significantly. Seems like the "untrained, ordinary men" of
the Bible were able to do much more with their simple faith and the power
of God. And history repeats itself, 1979-1996.
LeMel HW
Roger wrote:
> Just as ICC disciples labor and strive to make
> disciples and keep them faithful, some ex-members work hard to get those
> same people to abandon their commitment to God's kingdom and to return
to
> the previous life that discouraged and frustrated them.
<snip>
> But when
> people listen to you; when they stop taking their insulin, when they
stop
> reading the Bible, stop coming to church, stop sharing their faith, and
> stop following the other Scriptures that were changing their lives for
> the better--then you take responsibility for the fruit of your message.
I stopped coming to your church because *your evangelist* insisted that I
stop.
I did not use this (wrongful, unbiblical) ousting as an excuse to return
to my non-christian life, but continue to go to church, share my faith,
and be discipled by other christian men more mature than myself.
Does *your evangelist* fit your description of "working hard" to get me to
leave?
-----
I really don't want anyone to use any of the legitmate critisism of the
ICC that I post here as an excuse to return to an immoral, lost life.
I myself, however, was ousted by your "San Francisco Church of Christ"
unfairly (i.e., without a biblical basis). I point to your own church's
well-kept records as witness to this.
It is my hope that those who are treated badly in your church will
understand that ICC does not have to be the end of their spiritual
journey.
Tracy Kreckman
In <rognmichD...@netcom.com> rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle
Poehlmann) writes:
>
>Tracy Kreckman (t...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>: In <rognmichD...@netcom.com> rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle
>: Poehlmann) writes:
>
>: >
>: >meant'. Please identify the congregation of ICC disciples which does not
>: >use *any* of the following Scriptures as part of its study series:
>: >
>: >Acts 2:38
>: >1 Peter 3:21
>: >John 3:1-5
>: >Matthew 28:18-20
>: >Romans 6:1-10
>: >
>
>: >Church, and The Kingdom studies as part of First Principles. Other
>: study >series used in the past by the ICC/Boston Movement all cover
>: baptism
>: >extensively, as well as a other essential topics. The First
>: Principles
>: >series has been used here in San Francisco for many years, and people
>: >simply do not get baptized if they have not completed all the studies.
>
>: Spirit, capable of working in the heart of anyone on the planet without
>: bounds, no matter what one's lifestyle, experience or background, all
>: nicely boiled down into a few favorite verses and cookie cutter studies
>: that *must* be taken before given a human go-ahead that one is allowed
>: to be saved (by ICC standards)?
>
>: Just asking,
>: Tracy
>
>Tracy, on this same thread you were complaining that "I have yet to meet
>a member who confesses to have a solid Biblical understanding before
>joining". And here we are, taking the time to study through not just the
>Scriptures mentioned above, but dozens of verses to teach them about
>God's love, Jesus's sacrifice on the cross, sin, repentance, baptism,
>discipleship, prayer, etc. etc. etc. straight from the Bible, where
"men
>spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit"?
>
>Just answering,
>
>member, SF Church of Christ
>(International Church of Christ)
My apologies. As I just mentioned in the previous post, one of the
strengths of the ICC is the amount of time and effort devoted to Bible
study. Quantity does not always equal quality, however.
The point I was trying to make here, though, is that the Holy Spirit
can speak to the hearts of people in as many different ways as there
are people, yet the studies are uniform and regimented. What's more,
in the ICC, you can't be "saved" unless you've been given the go-ahead
by another person that you've finished your studies to human
satisfaction.
Tracy
Scott W. Schreiber
t...@ix.netcom.com(Tracy Kreckman ) wrote:
>Don't forget
>that these "untrained, ordinary men" were hand picked by Christ, trained
>personally by Him for three years, and later included well educated folks
>like Paul who helped keep them from doctrinal error (Gal 2:11).
If that ain't "higher education" nothing is.
WestOK
In article <4togn1$9...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, smlle...@aol.com says...
>
>Roger wrote:
>
>>Tracy, on this same thread you were complaining that "I have yet to meet
>>a member who confesses to have a solid Biblical understanding before
>>joining". And here we are, taking the time to study through not just the
>
>>Scriptures mentioned above, but dozens of verses to teach them about
>>God's love, Jesus's sacrifice on the cross, sin, repentance, baptism,
>>discipleship, prayer, etc. etc. etc. straight from the Bible, where "men
>>spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit"?
>
>Although I can't be sure, I think Tracy was saying that there are very few
>members of the ICC who, before they were ever approached by ICC members,
>had solid biblical knowledge. Therefore they go for whatever the ICC
>feeds them. They don't know how to study things out for themselves so
>they believe what sounds good.
>
>
There is alot of truth to this, however this is something that is happening
everywhere. Most people don't read the Bible for themselves, and if they do,
they think they have to let some preacher interpret it for them.
If you want to find out for your self about the bible, without relying on any
kind of denomination, cult (i.e. the ICC), or any one else except the Holy
Spirit, then I encourage you to check out http://clever.net/westok.net/WBS
(URL is case-sensitive). This site is about a self-directed, Bible-based,
non-denominational, Bible Correspondence course.
Check it out for your self and see. . .if you dare to join "The Great
Adventure" of living the life of the redeemed!
Jani A Heinonen
>What about Douglas Jacoby, Preston Shepherd, etc.? I can't get you to
>"personally meet" these people and show you their diplomas, though.
There are ~5 people with theological degrees that I know of in the ICC.
That's not too bad out of 70,000, is it? Of course, none of them are in
the highest leadership positions.
>I am personally unimpressed by someone who has a Masters in Divinity and
>yet is on his third divorce and the church he's been leading for 16 years
>has not grown significantly.
Could you name this person you are talking about? Or is this *gasp*
rumors, hearsay and - my, my, my - PERSECUTION against other denominations?
>Seems like the "untrained, ordinary men" of
>the Bible were able to do much more with their simple faith and the power
>of God. And history repeats itself, 1979-1996.
Some of them were "untrained and ordinary". But I think the New
Testament would be a lot shorter without Paul of Tarsus, a theologian.
--
Jani Heinonen | A wanna-be (al)chemist at the University of Helsinki
jzhe...@rock.helsinki.fi | Finger for public PGP key
Jani A Heinonen
>Tracy, on this same thread you were complaining that "I have yet to meet
>a member who confesses to have a solid Biblical understanding before
>joining". And here we are, taking the time to study through not just the
>Scriptures mentioned above, but dozens of verses...
SPIRITUAL PORNOGRAPHY WARNING! THE FOLLOWING MIGHT CAUSE YOU TO "STRUGGLE"!
Hey, if you ever care to look, there are more verses in the Bible that
are included in the First Principles series. IMHO going through a couple
of Bible verses with a twisted interpretation does not guarantee a
"solid Biblical understanding".
Martin Hinves
sco...@nhr.com (Scott W. Schreiber) wrote:
>wes...@ionet.net (WestOK) wrote:
>>"Why are people turning to the ICC?"
>> I think it is because people are struck with the need for a
>>Christianity that goes beyong attending Sunday morning worship, but a real,
>>vibrant faith.
>I think it's because they are young folks with no prior knowledge of
>the Bible, or faith, and they are in vulnerable, lonely situations,
>like first year at college.
If it is vibrant faith to commit unbiblical, unethical, immoral and
sometimes criminal acts because
1) The end justifies the means :-
" These people out there in the world are not saved they are under the
power of Satan so we must do what we have to to save them, if we do
something wrong or hurt them it's for their own good. The main thing
is to get them saved - INTO THE BOSTON MOVEMENT" I was told by an
Evangelist.
2) Your discipler says so and you must obey your leaders in everything
3) "Faith is the number of people you convert"
4) You have forgotten about the Grace of God and Jesus's sacrifice for
you and you are caught up in a works based measurement of
spirituality.
THen I prefer to serve the Lord elsewhere <G>
In God's Grace
Martin Hinves
Carol2180
In article <rognmichD...@netcom.com>, rogn...@netcom.com
(Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) writes:
major snippage ....
>You can tell people that insulin is bad for diabetics. You can tell them
>the ICC is a terrible place and not to go there. I support your right of
>free speech to say dumb things that are harmful to people. But when
>people listen to you; when they stop taking their insulin, when they stop
>reading the Bible, stop coming to church, stop sharing their faith, and
>stop following the other Scriptures that were changing their lives for
>the better--then you take responsibility for the fruit of your message.
Yes, you can tell people that insulin is bad for diabetics, but if a
diabetic doesn't check out the truth of that statement and goes off their
insulin, then they will die. The point is that telling them that insulin
is bad for them is a lie, not the truth. I'm diabetic, Roger -- I know
what will happen to me if I go off my insulin (and by the way, I won't die
of insulin shock -- shock is when there is too much insulin present and a
diabetic needs to take in some sugar to conteract the low blood sugar).
And I do take responsibility for the work I have done to help people find
freedom in Christ. YOU SAY they stop reading their Bibles, stop sharing
their faith, stop going to church -- not necessarily true. Witness the
good, solid Christians on this newsgroup who are simply not going to YOUR
church any longer. You paint a black and white picture, Roger. But it's
not accurate.
Carol2180
>: I think it's because they are young folks with no prior knowledge of
>: the Bible, or faith, and they are in vulnerable, lonely situations,
>: like first year at college.
Roger responded:
>So why do older people, mature married couples, college graduates, and
>those who have seen a dozen different churches find themselves attracted
>to the ICC?
>Fact is, the ICC does not just baptize homesick college students who are
>"vulnerable" (Vulnerable to what? An invitation to church is not a
>leading cause of lung cancer), but people from all walks of life, races,
>and backgrounds that are looking for genuine Christianity.
Scott was describing just one normal transition time in a person's life
when they are more vulnerable to undue influence than at other times --
these are the times when people of all ages, races, economic status, etc.,
etc., usually get involved in cults...transition periods in life.
Vulnerable to what? Vulnerable to the social and psychological influence
techniques used to recruit and hold members in cults -- also known as
thought reform or mind control. But I think you know that already, Roger
-- you've been reading.
Jani A Heinonen
>Readers of this newsgroup should be aware that I have in the past asked
>Martin Hinves for sources and proof to back up his allegations, and he has
>not responded to my posts.
Roger, it's just because your questions are not valid. I recall asking
you a question in email and you refused to answer because my question
was not "legitimate". Would this be a case of the pot calling the kettle
black?
g...@mars.superlink.net
In <rognmichD...@netcom.com>, rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) writes:
>Tracy Kreckman (t...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
>: Also, I would concur with the generalization that members come from
>: those with little or no knowledge of the Bible. Everyone I know in the
>: ICC says the same thing: "I never really studied the Bible that much
>: ICC Bible study, but a comment on how ill-equipped members were to
>: meet a member that confesses to a solid Biblical understanding before
>: joining, but everyone *thinks* they do afterward!
>
>we looked at Scripture after Scripture. If there was a question, we
>looked at a Scripture. If I read it differently, or if my trusty KJV
>doctrinal errors in his Bible, churches do. Things like praying to the
>saints, praying Jesus into your heart, infant baptism--none of these are
>"doctrinal errors"?
>
>Bible, then or now. I knew (then and now) what repentance was, what
>Jesus said about who was a disciple and who wasn't, what the Bible said
>about baptism, etc. Did I know that Gehenna, Sheol, Abaddon, Tartarus,
>and Hades are all translated as "hell" in the Bible? No...but I did know
>I didn't want to go there! That was not my motivation for wanting to be
>baptized, but it sure shook me out of my years of religious complacency.
>
>not by faith alone, only to receive back a short reply that I had fallen
>from grace and that thw writer would pray for my soul. While I need all
>the prayer I can get, I was simply quoting James 2:24. So let us not be
>too harsh with this "solid Biblical understanding" bit, Tracy, since we
>can all be in error at times.
Ver. 24. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, &c.]
Not as causes procuring his justification, but as effects declaring it;
for the best works are imperfect, and cannot be a righteousness
justifying in the sight of God, and are unprofitable in this respect;
for when they are performed in the best manner, they are no other
than what it is a man's duty to perform, and therefore cannot justify
from sin he has committed: and besides, justification in this sense
would frustrate the grace of God, make void the death of Christ,
and encourage boasting in men. Good works do not go before
justification as causes or conditions, but follow it as fruits and effects:
g...@mars.superlink.net
In <4tmatk$2...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>, t...@ix.netcom.com(Tracy Kreckman ) writes:
>In <rognmichD...@netcom.com> rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle
>Poehlmann) writes:
>>
>>Tracy Kreckman (t...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>>
>>: Also, I would concur with the generalization that members come from
>>: those with little or no knowledge of the Bible. Everyone I know in the
>>: ICC says the same thing: "I never really studied the Bible that much
>>: before coming into the ICC". That's not a comment on the quality of
>>: ICC Bible study, but a comment on how ill-equipped members were to
>>: discern doctrinal errors as they were being love-bombed. I have yet to
>>: meet a member that confesses to a solid Biblical understanding before
>>: joining, but everyone *thinks* they do afterward!
>>
>>Doctrinal errors?! When I studied the Bible with friends from the
>ICC,
>>we looked at Scripture after Scripture. If there was a question, we
>>looked at a Scripture. If I read it differently, or if my trusty KJV
>>read differently, we looked at another Scripture. God doesn't make
>>doctrinal errors in his Bible, churches do. Things like praying to
>the
>>saints, praying Jesus into your heart, infant baptism--none of these
>are
>>"doctrinal errors"?
>
>less than perfect expression of "the indwelling of the Holy Spirit"),
>and I'd disagree with those as much as I disagree that baptism is any
>more than symbolic.
>
>the
>>Bible, then or now. I knew (then and now) what repentance was, what
>>Jesus said about who was a disciple and who wasn't, what the Bible
>said
>>about baptism, etc. Did I know that Gehenna, Sheol, Abaddon,
>Tartarus,
>>and Hades are all translated as "hell" in the Bible? No...but I did
>know >I didn't want to go there! That was not my motivation for
>wanting to be
>>baptized, but it sure shook me out of my years of religious
>complacency.
>
>leadership in the ICC that has, for example, a post graduate degree
>from any accredited seminary. They don't have any more knowledge of
>Greek, Hebrew, hermeneutics, etc. than I do. True, you don't need an
>advanced degree to preach the word, but if *nobody* in the group has
>formal training (as Paul, for example, did), there is no basis for
>trust that difficult passages are being interpreted and analyzed any
>in the ICC about a difference between what they believe and what I've
>been taught by someone
>with more formal training than both of us combined, they'll *always* side
>with the ICC viewpoint rather than that of higher scholarship. Why?
Isn't it amazing that all the hundred of thousands of people professing
Christ, people who have died for Him literally, are all lost because they
didn't understand the Bible the way the ICC does? Isn't it also amazing
that the very comentaries they quote are all written by people they
think are not even Christains? Isn't is amazing that the people who wrote
most of the songs they sing are not even Christians by their doctrines?
I don't think its amazing, I think it ludicrious!
The ICC denies the very heart of the Gospel of Christ. That Jesus
Christ is the SAVIOUR! They put in his place their "correct and proper"
teaching about how to be saved! The only ones deceived by their
teaching are those whose eyes have not been opened! Don't trust in
Christ for your salvation, trust rather in these men? Trust in your own
understanding? Trust in the water?
To those of you who are trusting in your 5 steps: What if you havn't
correctly understood every thing? According to your faith, your lost!
I have read literally hundreds of posts on this group, but have not yet
read even one praising the Lord Jesus!
Look at the JW's, they have many more churches, members, and growth!
And yet, they are wrong at the very core of their doctrine.
The originators of the CoC were Alexander Campbell Barton W. Stone.
While AC believed that Jesus was God, BS did not, and yet he was received
into the CoC as a leader. Another great leader was Roy Wallace, who attacked
the "Baptist" doctrine that Christ was "very God of very God".
Such are your historical roots.
39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life:
and they are they which testify of me.
40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.
By your focus on things other than Christ, you are missing the
essential ingredient!
Gary
>
>>I once posted that a person is justified by what he does and
>>not by faith alone, only to receive back a short reply that I had fallen
>>from grace and that thw writer would pray for my soul. While I need all
>>the prayer I can get, I was simply quoting James 2:24. So let us not be
>>too harsh with this "solid Biblical understanding" bit, Tracy, since we
>>can all be in error at times.
>>
>>Roger Poehlmann
>>member, SF Church of Christ
>>(International Church of Christ)
>>
RICK & SARAH BAUER
jzhe...@cc.helsinki.fi (Jani A Heinonen) wrote:
>
> In <rognmichD...@netcom.com> rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) writes:
> >yet is on his third divorce and the church he's been leading for 16 years
> >has not grown significantly.
>
> Could you name this person you are talking about? Or is this *gasp*
> rumors, hearsay and - my, my, my - PERSECUTION against other denominations?
Yes, I'd like to know who you are talking about Roger.
I'm aware of a man who has a Masters in Divinity, and was lifted up
by Kip McKean and the top leaders of the ICC. He was a leader in
the movement for over 15 years, and has only been married once.
Please don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Sarah
R. L. Measures
In article <rognmichD...@netcom.com>, rogn...@netcom.com
(Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
snip
And history repeats itself, 1979-1996.
>
The discipling movement began in the early 1970s. The Boston Movement
phase of the discipling movement began in 1979.
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
g...@mars.superlink.net
In <4tnpuf$c...@news.aus.world.net>, hin...@world.net (Martin Hinves) writes:
>rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>
>>Ian Euguene Charleton (iec...@jove.acs.unt.edu) wrote:
>>: On Mon, 29 Jul 1996, Roger/Michelle Poehlmann wrote:
>
>Some had no contact with any ex-members until after they left.
>So your logic has gaping holes in it I am afraid.
>There are over 2 million ex-ICC members world wide (if my maths is
>correct).
How's that possible? I read on their web site that there are
about 250,000 members?
gary
Starr
>Likewise, I credit those who work to get people to leave the ICC with the
>fruit of their labors. Just as ICC disciples labor and strive to make
>disciples and keep them faithful, some ex-members work hard to get those
>same people to abandon their commitment to God's kingdom and to return to
>the previous life that discouraged and frustrated them. These
>"emotionally wrecked" individuals ARE NOT CURRENT MEMBERS OF THE ICC.
>Come to an ICC service and see for yourself that the disciples are joyful
>men and women with their own convictions and opinions, and who are
>seeking excellence in every area of their life. The "emotionally wrecked"
>are some fraction of ex-members (and of course, those who have never
>heard of the ICC), the fruit of the message of the ex-members that the ICC
>is a "manipulative, controlling sect" and all sorts of other terrible things.
>Just as we disciples are blamed for every problem that occurs around the
>world, so you must take the blame for the destroyed lives of those who
>listen to your constant pounding for them to leave the ICC, read your
>stories, and show contempt for the genuine love of ICC members and
>leaders.
<snip>
Roger, you are full of garbage. You have absolutely no idea of what
you are talking about. How many people with "wrecked lives" (who have
left the ICC) have you met with, talked to, taken an interest in
trying to heal their "wrecked lives"? I would venture to say the
answer is a big fat zero. Correct me if I'm wrong. You are
absolutely the most egotistical, self-righteous, self-aggrandizing,
self-indulgent poor excuse of a so-called Christian that I have ever
come across - in this newsgroup or otherwise.
You claim that the ICC (aka God) "cures" people's lives of alcoholism,
drug addiction, etc. Maybe it does. But then again, maybe it just
substitutes one addiction for another. They are all the same thing,
if you've studied psychology you'd know that. Drugs, alcohol, food,
sex, gambling, shopping, church-hopping, looking for salvation, it's
all flip sides of the same coin: Compulsive behavior. If you don't
address the underlying reason for the compulsive behavior, you don't
solve the addiction. For some people, church may be the answer. For
others, AA or NA or Gambler's Anonymous or a good therapist. They may
be faithful church-going "disciples" all their lives and never have a
moment's relapse or regret. Hooray. I'm glad and grateful that it
worked for them. For others, they realize that church was just a
*substitute* and the underlying problem is still there. So they
leave, often going back to the same or a worse addiction than they had
when they joined. Join that with a destroyed faith in a God who they
looked to as the be-all, cure-all, end-all, and you have a dangerous
situation. For you to blame that on "critics" or anyone except that
*person*, who has to take responsibility for their *own* healing, is
ignorant at best and could kill someone at worst.
I wonder if you ever truly read your posts and realize how
self-righteous you sound.
TriciaAZ
In article <4tuhn5$o...@earth.superlink.net>, g...@mars.superlink.net
writes:
<snip>
>I have read literally hundreds of posts on this group, but have not yet
>read even one praising the Lord Jesus!
>
<snip>
I've read more than one post on this group that praised the Lord Jesus.
Sorry you missed them. They were great.
Chris Garland
>>read even one praising the Lord Jesus!
So start a "praise the Lord" newsgroup. Jeez -- how self-righteous can
you get?
Martin Hinves
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>Martin Hinves (hin...@world.net) wrote:
>: >Roger wrote:
>: >>Fact is, the ICC does not just baptize homesick college students who
>: >are >"vulnerable" (Vulnerable to what? An invitation to church is not
>: >a
>: >>leading cause of lung cancer), but people from all walks of life,
>: >races, >and backgrounds that are looking for genuine Christianity.
>: >>
>: >>Roger Poehlmann
>: >>member, SF Church of Christ
>: >>(International Church of Christ)
>: >>
>: Sorry but I have to point out you are wrong Roger.
>: I have seen them baptise people who did not understand what baptism
>: ment !
>Martin, if your last post was a gymnastics routine at the Olympics, I'm
>afraid you'd get a 6.2. All hearsay, gossip, and rumor, with no facts to
>back it up.
May 1992 - a Spanish male who could hardly speak english was baptised
by a Zone Leader.
This was later confirmed by Zone leader's Mark Maguire was one and two
members PN, DL.
Emma Hogkins who was a women's leader also confirmed this.
If you would care to contact Mark Maguire of the Sydney Church of
Christ he should confirm that in 1992 I left the ICC over allegations
of people being treated as numbers.
Since I went to him with evidence and support of another ICC member
Paul Neale we discussed the matter and he said that it was a problem
in the church and we discussed further the matter.
I at that time agreed to return to the ICC and help stop this and
other abuses that were happening.
>Which "people" did you see baptized who 'did not understand what baptism
>meant'. Please identify the congregation of ICC disciples which does not
>use *any* of the following Scriptures as part of its study series:
>Acts 2:38
>1 Peter 3:21
>John 3:1-5
>Matthew 28:18-20
>Romans 6:1-10
The Guard the Gospel was taught at that time.
I never said the congregation did not teach baptism.
I said that people were baptised without understanding it.
There is a difference.
People were in 1992 often rushed through the studies to get the
baptism recorded.
People were also rebaptised - some even more than once at ICC request.
It was decided they had not repented of certain sins and must be
rebaptised again.
>Baptism is discussed in Discipleship, Light and Darkness I and II, The
>Church, and The Kingdom studies as part of First Principles. Other study
>series used in the past by the ICC/Boston Movement all cover baptism
>extensively, as well as a other essential topics. The First Principles
>series has been used here in San Francisco for many years, and people
>simply do not get baptized if they have not completed all the studies.
>Martin, if we are to believe what you say, we need some proof. Which ICC
>congregation does not teach these Scriptures? What is the name of the
>evangelist who leads that congregation so we can reach him for comment?
The evangelist of Sydney at that time was Mike Fontinot.
There were constant leadership "abuses" in that it was common
knowledge that people were being baptised without the proper study and
preparation.
At some times the ICC person studying with the person had to tell them
to get baptised.
It was known as a numbers game ...
>Roger Poehlmann
>member, SF Church of Christ
>(International Church of Christ)
>Readers of this newsgroup should be aware that I have in the past asked
>Martin Hinves for sources and proof to back up his allegations, and he has
>not responded to my posts.
We've been over this ground before Roger.
I have offered to send you stat decs but you have not asked for them.
They are not legal in your country from mine <G>.
Ihave given you names where I am able.
To satisfy your over emphasis on proof I willnot reveal the names of
those people who do not want me to, or who are still suffering from
their ICC experience.
I am a Justice of the Peace.
I also a christian.
If my word is not good enough for you I cannot help your paranoia.
If you ask me to break my word to people I trust, who also trust me,
I cannot. I will not be responsible for more hurt being placed upon
those who have been through the ICC experience who request anonymity.
I can give you names of still serving ICC members responsible for
certain actions - who have even been rewarded but what is the point ?
You would not contact them, if you did they would not tell you the
truth (they don't here so why when you contact them from US of A would
things change ?).
Some ICC people have left...
I don't have tape recordings - I have diary records of verbatim
conversations. To tape someone without their knowledge is illegal
here, and the one time I did have permission to tape the machine broke
<G>.
Sure I could name names and places and times but what would you do
with that information ?
(if you assume I've made it up then you must assume that these may be
false too)
Would you contact these people if possible - some of them are
ex-members now Roger ?
If I gave you their names and contact details would you beleive what
they say or would you demand proof off them.
Would you accept without question what an ICC person said and demand
proof from someone who had left ?
(I ask this as I have had this discussion with many ICC members when I
say that Ican give them names)
I am aware of law and the biblical directive that we should tell the
truth.
If you knew me as a person you would understand I cannot lie.
So I ask you Roger what type of proof do you require ?.
Also I note Roger how you have abruptly changed the topic from the
issues at hand to ME.
How very ICC-ish.
I have become the issue and my credibility.
Not the matters I raise.
I have been through many of these type of discussions with you
compatriots over here.
My answer is that I must trust you here as you trust me.
WE both want the same things but we are in different camps.
We both want a christianity that is worth living and being part of.
We both want to see the world evangelised.
WE both have much in common.
Just as I trust and beleive what you say.
(You say you have a non-ICC freind - I accept that. It is unusual for
ICC members to do so from my experience but I can handle this
revelation <G>.) It is the truth as you see it.
Conversely you owe it to me, and yourself to at least see what I have
to say - and to accept that what I say is the truth as I see it.
I freely admit the Sydney ICC was different in many ways from the
church you know. There were and still are problems that need to be
addressed in it.
But what scares me is that similar events and teachings that led to
abuses here are occuring in US churches - maybe we caught them from
you. ?
Authoritarianism and legalism are a problem here - I see from your
stance on church attendance being a sin that this is a common ICC
aberation not an Australian one.
In closing is it so hard for you to accept that just as people have
had bad experiences in other churches that they have them in the ICC ?
Or that we have seen things that should not happen happen ?
Or that we ask questions you cannot answer ?
Or can the ICC do no wrong ?
If you think that then you have a problem as you have lost your
objectivety.
YOu do not shoot the messenger because the message is something you do
not want to look at. <G>
And Roger what if some of the people you want me to name have been
posting on this newsgroup and you have ignored what they have to say ?
In God's Grace
Martin Hinves
Martin Hinves
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
Tracy Kreckman (t...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <rognmichD...@netcom.com> rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle
: Poehlmann) writes:
: literally in Romans 6:3+4? Hint: are you now, or have you ever been,
: literally dead?
I was spiritually dead, not physically dead. I was never "symbolically"
dead. Spritual things are real, not merely symbolic. This is another
thread, BTW.
: >: What I'm talking about is that I have yet to personally meet any
: >: leadership in the ICC that has, for example, a post graduate degree
: >: from any accredited seminary. They don't have any more knowledge of
: >: Greek, Hebrew, hermeneutics, etc. than I do. True, you don't need an
: >: advanced degree to preach the word, but if *nobody* in the group has
: >: formal training (as Paul, for example, did), there is no basis for
: >: trust that difficult passages are being interpreted and analyzed any
: >: more correctly than I could on my own.
: >
: > What about Douglas Jacoby, Preston Shepherd, etc.? I can't get you to
: >"personally meet" these people and show you their diplomas, though.
: Shoe's kind of on the other foot, isn't it ("I've never seen the kind of
: abuses you're talking about")? I'll take your word for it, though,
: although I've never heard of these men, and I'm curious to know exactly
: what their credentials are.
It's also something that could be verified factually since Jacoby and
Shepherd (and Wooten, for that matter) are named figures in the
movement. If you were to unearth proof that Douglas Jacoby never
attended Harvard, that would have far-reaching consequences throughout
the movement. That some unnamed Bible Talk assistant in Zimbabwe advised
a sister to wear a green dress on a date and she was traumatized
emotionally for life because of it--that's a stretch of the imagination
and cannot be verified.
: >I am personally unimpressed by someone who has a Masters in Divinity and
: >yet is on his third divorce and the church he's been leading for 16 years
: >has not grown significantly.
: Roger, neither would I, but WHAT IN BLUE BLAZES does that have to do with
: anything?!?! Are you trying to imply that everyone with a seminary
: postgrad degree that disagrees with the ICC is to be discounted because
: they're all a bunch of complacent divorcees?! So typical of the way the
: ICC tears down others in the kingdom.
I'm saying that I'd rather follow a guy who's never been to college and
yet is able to build a strong family and lead others in the same way,
instead of a postgrad who hasn't figured out how to build a lasting
relationship, and yet is cast in a role teaching others to do so. Is
there a requirement in denominational churches to have a strong family or
a good life example--or even to be married, or heterosexual for that
matter? No. But that degree. Oooh, boy, gotta have that degree, yup,
priority #1.
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
Carol2180 (caro...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <rognmichD...@netcom.com>, rogn...@netcom.com
: (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) writes:
:
: >free speech to say dumb things that are harmful to people. But when
: >reading the Bible, stop coming to church, stop sharing their faith, and
: >stop following the other Scriptures that were changing their lives for
: >the better--then you take responsibility for the fruit of your message.
: Yes, you can tell people that insulin is bad for diabetics, but if a
: diabetic doesn't check out the truth of that statement and goes off their
: insulin, then they will die. The point is that telling them that insulin
: is bad for them is a lie, not the truth. I'm diabetic, Roger -- I know
: what will happen to me if I go off my insulin (and by the way, I won't die
: of insulin shock -- shock is when there is too much insulin present and a
: diabetic needs to take in some sugar to conteract the low blood sugar).
: And I do take responsibility for the work I have done to help people find
: freedom in Christ. YOU SAY they stop reading their Bibles, stop sharing
: their faith, stop going to church -- not necessarily true. Witness the
: good, solid Christians on this newsgroup who are simply not going to YOUR
: church any longer. You paint a black and white picture, Roger. But it's
: not accurate.
At last, someone willing to take responsibility for her work. Call them
"good, solid Christians" if that is the terminology you wish to use.
These same people have called me and other disciples word like "idiot",
"trained seal", "zombie", questioned the size of my genitalia, threatened
that "Kip is going to pay", compared the ICC to Nazis, called the church
a "virus that must be stamped out", used profanity, etc. etc. etc. I
don't hear disciples in the church talking like that, so where are they
getting this kind of bitterness and coarse talk from?
My experience with people who have left the ICC is that they do stop
reading their Bibles, sharing their faith, inviting friends over for
Bible studies, confessing their sins to each other, coming to church, and
serving other Christians and the poor. There are two I can think of
who sought out active involvement in another religious organization and
are very committed and working hard to help others. But most people
leave because they just don't want to be disciples anymore. They know
what it is to be a disciple, so they aren't fooled by the mediocre
commitment that many denominational churches call people to. After time,
disciples' prayer, and events happen in their life, many return and
consider giving God another chance. Some fear that we'll all line up and
say, "See, I told you so!" but that is Satan talking, and when they see
the love, acceptance, hope, and challenge that is waiting for them, many
get restored and do great spiritually.
Chris Garland
Don't forget, you called me a yahoo, of which I'm still waiting for the
apology.
The bitterness comes from being abused at the hands of the ICC.
>My experience with people who have left the ICC is that they do stop
>reading their Bibles, sharing their faith, inviting friends over for
>Bible studies, confessing their sins to each other, coming to church, and
>serving other Christians and the poor. There are two I can think of
>who sought out active involvement in another religious organization and
>are very committed and working hard to help others. But most people
>leave because they just don't want to be disciples anymore.
As has been said on this newsgroup, most people leave because they've
been abused. Then then discover that the ICC's *DEFINITION* of a
disciple (and all of the *works* enforced in that definition) is fatally
flawed. Let's do some bible study, shall we?
Show me scriptures that say *in order to define yourself as a Christian*
you must:
1) every day, read your bible
2) every day, share your faith (the way the ICC shares its faith)
3) every day, invite your friends over to bible study
4) every day, confess your sins to one another
You won't find these commands Roger. While there all good ideas, it is
rather self-righteous of the ICC and you to decide that people aren't
Christians because they don't do these things *every day* or according to
your definition and methodology.
They know
>what it is to be a disciple, so they aren't fooled by the mediocre
>commitment that many denominational churches call people to.
I can't every remember any preacher anywhere calling someone to a
"mediocre" commitment. Got some examples?
>After time,
>disciples' prayer, and events happen in their life, many return and
>consider giving God another chance.
The reality is that cult withdrawl is quite difficult and, as in most
cults, a certain number of people return for a short while. They usually
leave again.
>Some fear that we'll all line up and
>say, "See, I told you so!" but that is Satan talking, and when they see
>the love, acceptance, hope, and challenge that is waiting for them, many
>get restored and do great spiritually.
Then they again see the blind-obedience, legalism,
abuse, self-righteousness, and lack of focus on Christ and they high-tail
it out of there.
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
: > Doctrinal errors?! When I studied the Bible with friends from the ICC,
: > we looked at Scripture after Scripture. If there was a question, we
: > looked at a Scripture. If I read it differently, or if my trusty KJV
: > read differently, we looked at another Scripture. God doesn't make
: > doctrinal errors in his Bible, churches do. Things like praying to the
: > saints, praying Jesus into your heart, infant baptism--none of these are
: > "doctrinal errors"?
: I would agree that churches do make doctrinal errors. The ICC is no
: different. I would be more than happy to show you how Kip's example of
: "Disciple's Baptism" proof texted from Matthew 28:18-20 is grammatically
: incorrect... not a question of interpretation. If you want to see the
: ICC's classic doctrinal error, just ask. If you do not ask, I might be
: inclined to believe that you have no real interest in seeking the truth,
: or testing the truth if you believe you have it. If you have the truth,
: noting I say *can* hurt you.
Oh, I'm so disappointed. You are about the eighth person up to bat to
try to "prove" that grammatically. By all means, take a swing at the
Greek word matheuteuo, how prepositional phrases are handled, what the
antecedent of "them" is, yadda yadda yadda in Matthew 28:18-20. I
suppose the other earth-shattering revelation is the usage of "eis" in
Acts 2:38 really means "because of" and that all the Bibles published in
English are in error on this point.
If critics of the ICC are going to make the claim that the ICC First
Principles series has these glaring "doctrinal errors", then I'd really
like to see some irrefutable proof of that, not the same hackneyed hopeful
objections to the same verses.
LKMSIMS
In article <rognmichD...@netcom.com>, rogn...@netcom.com
(Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) writes:
:
: At last, someone willing to take responsibility for her work. Call them
"good, solid Christians" if that is the terminology you wish to use.
These same people have called me and other disciples word like "idiot",
"trained seal", "zombie", questioned the size of my genitalia, threatened
that "Kip is going to pay", compared the ICC to Nazis, called the church
a "virus that must be stamped out", used profanity, etc. etc. etc. I
don't hear disciples in the church talking like that, so where are they
getting this kind of bitterness and coarse talk from?
Roger,
Some people with in the ICC are the worse offenders in this area of
abusive talk. When I was contemplating whether to leave the church or
"repent" and try to work things out I was told that I was "a cancer that
needed to be cut out." I was decieved and that my deception was so thick I
don't even see it" and that I was "sick". A disciple, A member of the ICC
kingdom said this. By no means was I encouraged to remain faithful to the
group after hearing this.
MLC
I left my so called 'deceived heart' in San Francisco ( i.e.Church of
Christ )
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
Martin Hinves (hin...@world.net) wrote:
: May 1992 - a Spanish male who could hardly speak english was baptised
: by a Zone Leader.
: This was later confirmed by Zone leader's Mark Maguire was one and two
: members PN, DL.
: Emma Hogkins who was a women's leader also confirmed this.
Uh...Martin, hate to tell you this, but we have people in the SF Church
who "hardly speak English" and there is a ministry which translates the
sermons for them so they can participate while they are learning the
language better. It says nothing about their ability to understand the
Bible (in Spanish) or the depth of their convictions. They studied the
Bible in Spanish, gave their good confession in Spanish, and can
communicate fluently in their native language.
: People were in 1992 often rushed through the studies to get the
: baptism recorded.
Wait wait wait, so what are you saying happened (translated from the
original Spanish, of course):
Brother: "So, what does Acts 17:11 say about reading the Bible?"
Candidate: "Uh, it says we should do it toda dia--every day"
Brother: "That's right! So are you willing to read the Bible daily and
apply it to your life?"
Candidate: "Well, I don't think so...I'm kind of busy, and..nah, maybe twice
a week"
Brother: "Uh...well, I guess that'd be okay. Next Scripture..."
Like just what are you saying went on here, Martin?
: >Baptism is discussed in Discipleship, Light and Darkness I and II, The
: >Church, and The Kingdom studies as part of First Principles. Other study
: >series used in the past by the ICC/Boston Movement all cover baptism
: >extensively, as well as a other essential topics. The First Principles
: >series has been used here in San Francisco for many years, and people
: >simply do not get baptized if they have not completed all the studies.
: The evangelist of Sydney at that time was Mike Fontinot.
In 1992 again? For those unfamiliar with the ICC, when there's a
problem, we fix it. If a brother's parents throw him out on the street,
we don't say, "Gee, in four years, maybe we can give you shelter" we take
care of it that day.
: There were constant leadership "abuses" in that it was common
: knowledge that people were being baptised without the proper study and
: preparation.
There were? Haven't seen proof yet, but maybe that's why there was a
leadership change? I would say that it is of the highest importance that
we obey the Scriptures in baptizing only disciples, and if someone who is
baptized who is not ready, that is wrong, whether in 1992 or 1996, or AD 33.
: I freely admit the Sydney ICC was different in many ways from the
: church you know. There were and still are problems that need to be
: addressed in it.
There are problems in the SFCC and every church, since we are imperfect
human beings, trying to live up to a perfect standard (Jesus). But
posting what things were like 4 years ago and blaming us for the alleged
problems isn't going to effect positive change in the ICC. At best you
are just throwing mud pies.
DAnder9518
>I suppose the other earth-shattering revelation is the usage of "eis" in
>Acts 2:38 really means "because of" and that all the Bibles published in
>English are in error on this point.
Regarding Acts 2:38, no one *said* the English Bibles are in error. "Eis"
has been translated to the English word "for", which *also* has many
different meanings -- "for" does not necessarily mean "in order to".
So it's not the *translation* I disagree with, but your *interpretation*
of the translation!
----->Dave
DAnder9518
>If critics of the ICC are going to make the claim that the ICC First
>Principles series has these glaring "doctrinal errors", then I'd really
>like to see some irrefutable proof of that, not the same hackneyed
hopeful
>objections to the same verses.
>
>Roger Poehlmann
>member, SF Church of Christ
>(International Church of Christ)
Okay, I'll call.
You want to see some doctrinal errors in First Principles? Here goes. . .
#1. "Who is a candidate for baptism? Disciples." (McKean, 1993, p. 7).
Now, making substitutions from the equation disciple = Christian = saved
(Ibid., p. 6), it would follow logically to conclude:
"Who is a candidate for baptism? *Christians*", or,
"Who is a candidate for baptism? (People who are already) saved."
But these statements conflict with ICC doctrine! Also according to First
Principles, "Baptism is when we become a Christian" (Ibid., p. 26), and
"this (baptism) is the point in time a person is saved." (Ibid., p. 13).
The doctrine of disciples baptism is inconsistent, and therefore, unsound.
#2. The Kingdom Study links together biblical prophecies about the
"kingdom", culminating in the conclusion that "the church is the Kingdom
of God on earth established in approximately 33 AD." (McKean, 1993, p.
11).
The view that the church is synonymous with the Kingdom of God also
produces inconsistencies. Although the New Testament authors occasionally
refer to the kingdom in the present tense (Col 1:13, I Corinthians 4:20),
many *other* passages talk about the kingdom as something to be inherited,
presumably after this life (I Corinth. 6:9, 15:50, Gal. 5:21, James 2:5).
Acts 14:22 even depicts Paul and Barnabus instructing "disciples" that
they must "go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God." If the
church and the "kingdom" were the same thing, it would have been
incongruous for New Testament writers to imply that *members* of the
kingdom had not yet *entered* the kingdom.
#3. The Church Study says that, according to Hebrews 10: 23-25, ICC
members "must come to all services. i.e. Sunday, Wednesday, Devotionals,
Bible Talks, Retreats, Seminars, etc." (McKean, 1993, p. 27). First
Principels distorts the passage "let us not give up meeting together, as
some in the habit of doing" to mean: "Do not miss any service of the
church." (First Principles, San Antonio)
#4. The Church Study begins by drawing a stick-figure, pointing out that
Christ is the "head" of the "body", and that the "body" is the "church".
(McKean, 1993). Then, after reading scriptures which speak of "one body",
it is concluded that "The Bible teaches there is one true church." (First
Principles, San Antonio, n.d.). This conclusion results from a subtle
"twisting" of scripture. The implicit "proof" would be structured like
this:
1. Colossians 1:15-18 says the church is the body of Christ.
2. Therefore church = body.
3. Ephesians 4:4-6 and Romans 12:4-5 say there is one body.
4. Therefore, there can only be one church.
This kind of word substitution can produce illogical conclusions -- 4.
doesn't necessarily follow logically from 3. By turning verbal statements
("x is y") into equations (x = y), flawed logic and questionable theology
can result.
. . .and there's plently more where those came from.
------>Dave Anderson
Chris Garland
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>Ian Euguene Charleton (iec...@jove.acs.unt.edu) wrote:
>: On Tue, 30 Jul 1996, Roger/Michelle Poehlmann wrote:
>
>: > Doctrinal errors?! When I studied the Bible with friends from the ICC,
>: > we looked at Scripture after Scripture. If there was a question, we
>: > looked at a Scripture. If I read it differently, or if my trusty KJV
>: > read differently, we looked at another Scripture. God doesn't make
>: > doctrinal errors in his Bible, churches do. Things like praying to the
>: > saints, praying Jesus into your heart, infant baptism--none of these are
>: > "doctrinal errors"?
>
>: I would agree that churches do make doctrinal errors. The ICC is no
>: different. I would be more than happy to show you how Kip's example of
>: "Disciple's Baptism" proof texted from Matthew 28:18-20 is grammatically
>: incorrect... not a question of interpretation. If you want to see the
>: ICC's classic doctrinal error, just ask. If you do not ask, I might be
>: inclined to believe that you have no real interest in seeking the truth,
>: or testing the truth if you believe you have it. If you have the truth,
>: noting I say *can* hurt you.
>
>Oh, I'm so disappointed. You are about the eighth person up to bat to
>try to "prove" that grammatically. By all means, take a swing at the
>Greek word matheuteuo, how prepositional phrases are handled, what the
>Acts 2:38 really means "because of" and that all the Bibles published in
>English are in error on this point.
>
>Principles series has these glaring "doctrinal errors", then I'd really
>like to see some irrefutable proof of that, not the same hackneyed hopeful
>objections to the same verses.
Haven't you read Dave Anderson's Critical Analysis of the Studies? Or
have you ignored them like every other very solid point critics make?
Ovum
In article <4u8c0b$k...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, dande...@aol.com
(DAnder9518) writes:
>#4. The Church Study begins by drawing a stick-figure, pointing out that
>Christ is the "head" of the "body", and that the "body" is the "church".
<snip>
> 1. Colossians 1:15-18 says the church is the body of Christ.
> 2. Therefore church = body.
> 3. Ephesians 4:4-6 and Romans 12:4-5 say there is one body.
> 4. Therefore, there can only be one church.
>
>This kind of word substitution can produce illogical conclusions -- 4.
>doesn't necessarily follow logically from 3. By turning verbal
statements
>("x is y") into equations (x = y), flawed logic and questionable theology
>can result.
Huh? Where's the flaw? Body = Church. There is one body = there is one
church. Christ died for THE church, not "the churches." He said He would
build His church -- not "His churches."
Chris Garland
I can verify this: when I was a member in New Jersey, the zone leader at
the time forced me to "speak" to a man I was discipling and to instruct
him that he could no longer wear his jean jacket, which had a picture of
Marilyn Monroe on the back of it, because "it wasn't sharp, and people
might think he's gay." It's happening, Roger, despite how many times you
close up your ears and yell loudly to block out the truth.
DJRTX
>In article <rognmichD...@netcom.com>, rogn...@netcom.com
>(Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) writes:
>
>>If critics of the ICC are going to make the claim that the ICC First
>>Principles series has these glaring "doctrinal errors", then I'd really
>>like to see some irrefutable proof of that, not the same hackneyed
>hopeful objections to the same verses.
>>
<snip Roger's closing>
>Okay, I'll call.
Dave, I think it's an *excellent* idea to examine the doctrinal errors in
the studies . . . at least for the benefit of others. Regarding Roger, I
am not so sure.
Here are some experiences to explain what I mean about Roger:
1. He did not respond to the problems I clearly demonstrated in the ICC's
teaching on Matthew 28:18-20 back in late February or March. IMO, his lack
of response implies it was irrefutable, and perhaps he did not want to
attract attention to that fact.
If I am wrong about my conclusion on the ICC's interpretation of Matthew
28:18-20, I would like to know it. However, no one (Roger included) on or
off of the newsgroup has ever written or said anything to me indicating
there was an error in my exegesis. In fact, the ICC members with whom I
have discussed it have agreed the ICC is wrong there.
2. He attempts to dismiss any verifiable quotes made by the ICC's
leadership as unverifiable and possibly out of context.
These facts/experiences lead me to wonder if the following might apply to
Roger:
1. He ignores and does not respond to the proof provided of ICC errors
which he cannot refute.
2. Is his expression, "the same hackneyed hopeful objections" a hopeful
way out, or his way of dismissing the valid points of other posters
because the dissonance they cause is too uncomfortable for him?
Anyway, I look forward to your posts, Dave, and I'll join you if I can --
I need sit down and finish my response on the "Be all, end all baptism
thread first."
On a lighter note, perhaps the only topic Roger and I might be able to
discuss is football. After the Cowboys exhibition loss last night, I think
I'll avoid that subject for a while. ;-)
Joanne
Joanne
RICK & SARAH BAUER
lkm...@aol.com (LKMSIMS) wrote:
> In article <rognmichD...@netcom.com>, rogn...@netcom.com
> (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) writes:
> : At last, someone willing to take responsibility for her work. Call them
> "good, solid Christians" if that is the terminology you wish to use.
> These same people have called me and other disciples word like "idiot",
> "trained seal", "zombie", questioned the size of my genitalia, threatened
> that "Kip is going to pay", compared the ICC to Nazis, called the church
> a "virus that must be stamped out", used profanity, etc. etc. etc. I
> don't hear disciples in the church talking like that, so where are they
> getting this kind of bitterness and coarse talk from?
Is the pot calling the kettle black or what? Roger has spoken
similarly about former members on this NG. Yahoos comes to mind.
> Roger,
> Some people with in the ICC are the worse offenders in this area of
> abusive talk. When I was contemplating whether to leave the church or
> "repent" and try to work things out I was told that I was "a cancer that
> needed to be cut out." I was decieved and that my deception was so thick I
> don't even see it" and that I was "sick". A disciple, A member of the ICC
> kingdom said this. By no means was I encouraged to remain faithful to the
> group after hearing this.
Roger, do the ends justify the means? Is it ok to speak harshly
to someone if you're trying to convert them, or *save them from
hell?
Sarah
Scott W. Schreiber
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>Is there a requirement in denominational churches to have a strong family or
>a good life example--or even to be married, or heterosexual for that
>matter? No.
In the Lutheran church yes, you must be heterosexual. There you go
again, posting things you don't know a thing about. Here, let me
predict your response:
Roger: "I haven't seen anyone post proof that there is that
requirement. How can you document this?"
I got news Roger. I haven't seen proof that you are a man, I haven't
seen proof that you are married. I haven't seen proof that you are a
Christian...I haven't seen proof of a lot of things. Should I make
assumptions based on the lack of proof, or should I be a humble,
loving Christian and believe you?
Scott W. Schreiber
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>My experience with people who have left the ICC is that blah blah blah blah
Roger, as you have said to Martin, who? where? where is this
documented?
Scott W. Schreiber
ov...@aol.com (Ovum) wrote:
>Huh? Where's the flaw? Body = Church. There is one body = there is one
>church. Christ died for THE church, not "the churches." He said He would
>build His church -- not "His churches."
The ICC uses that to say that there is one physical, apparent, named
church, which would be the ICC (to them). I think the word church is
synonymous in the ICC with ICC.
Chris Garland
FWIW, this is not a new area of debate (nothing new under the sun).
Roman Catholics believe that there the definition of one church, with
Christ present guiding it, as the Rome-centric church, with each
congregation being a part of the whole. Orthodox Christians (help
me out Catherine) believe that each congregation is in itself the whole,
complete church, but there is only one whole church -- the collection of
churches.
This is similar to the debate on this thread, if you squint a little. Is
the body of Christ one single denomination (as the ICC and others would
have us believe), or is each believing denomination a complete, whole
church in itself, which together makeup the whole as well?
A body has many parts....evidently, some are there just to annoy us! :)
Scott W. Schreiber
In article <4uafmk$1...@news.ios.com>, chr...@village.ios.com says...
> A body has many parts....evidently, some are there just to annoy us! :)
That is how I feel....not the annoy part
The body of Christ has many parts. All of us has a part in it, none of
us can say "we alone comprise the body of Christ."
Chris Garland
>: by a Zone Leader.
>: This was later confirmed by Zone leader's Mark Maguire was one and two
>: members PN, DL.
>: Emma Hogkins who was a women's leader also confirmed this.
>
>who "hardly speak English" and there is a ministry which translates the
>sermons for them so they can participate while they are learning the
>language better. It says nothing about their ability to understand the
>Bible (in Spanish) or the depth of their convictions. They studied the
>Bible in Spanish, gave their good confession in Spanish, and can
>communicate fluently in their native language.
>
>: baptism recorded.
>
>Wait wait wait, so what are you saying happened (translated from the
>original Spanish, of course):
>
>Brother: "So, what does Acts 17:11 say about reading the Bible?"
>
>Candidate: "Uh, it says we should do it toda dia--every day"
>
>Brother: "That's right! So are you willing to read the Bible daily and
> apply it to your life?"
>
>Candidate: "Well, I don't think so...I'm kind of busy, and..nah, maybe twice
> a week"
>
>Brother: "Uh...well, I guess that'd be okay. Next Scripture..."
>
Where does the bible say we need to read the bible every day in order to
be saved?
Chris Lee
In article <4uac49$i...@madrid.visi.net>, sco...@nhr.com (Scott W. Schreiber) writes:
|> ov...@aol.com (Ovum) wrote:
|>
|> >Huh? Where's the flaw? Body = Church. There is one body = there is one
|> >church. Christ died for THE church, not "the churches." He said He would
|> >build His church -- not "His churches."
|>
|> The ICC uses that to say that there is one physical, apparent, named
|> church, which would be the ICC (to them). I think the word church is
|> synonymous in the ICC with ICC.
|>
Refreshing!
In the last 2 days, I just had a read through the Councils of Trent and Nicaea. (By the way, Deb
Flynn, an ex-member of the BCC, who 'fell away' in June 1993, is now happily married to Ed
Perkins!) Oh yes. Attending Deb's rehearsal and wedding (in which I was an usher), I got to talk
with a Catholic Priest, a Rev. Thomas Buckley of Gloucester (B.A. Harvard, mid-50's, Greek
Classics; M.A. Harvard, Divinity; Seminary school in Newton; further training in Rome). It was
cool to chat with him about a number of things.
My understanding is that church (ekklesia) refers also to kuriakon - those belonging to the Lord.
Church is a spiritual and physical object, referring to those belonging to the Lord. Now there's
a whole new hornet's nest for argument....
-Chris :)
Chris Lee MIT XVI '96
chc...@mit.edu
Home page: http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/chclee/home.html
Christian page: http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/chclee/christian.html
ICC-related internet resources:
http://www.mit.edu:8001/people/chclee/awakened.html
Mark Davis
Chris Garland <chr...@village.ios.com> wrote:
>Haven't you read Dave Anderson's Critical Analysis of the Studies? Or
>have you ignored them like every other very solid point critics make?
Didn't you know? Roger is also a member of the flat earth
society - he's had lots of practice ignoring the evidence.
(grin)
Mark Davis
Mark Davis
dj...@aol.com (DJRTX) wrote:
>1. He did not respond to the problems I clearly demonstrated in the ICC's
>teaching on Matthew 28:18-20 back in late February or March. IMO, his lack
>of response implies it was irrefutable, and perhaps he did not want to
>attract attention to that fact.
Roger does that. When he has clearly lost the argument he just
ignores you and refuses to respond. But then again - that is the
ICC way...
Mark Davis
Mark Davis
sco...@nhr.com (Scott W. Schreiber) wrote:
The ICC is the part that Jesus has to wash alot...
Mark Davis
Gintas Jazbutis
>Roger,
>
>Some people with in the ICC are the worse offenders in this area of
>abusive talk. When I was contemplating whether to leave the church or
>"repent" and try to work things out I was told that I was "a cancer that
>needed to be cut out." I was decieved and that my deception was so thick I
>don't even see it" and that I was "sick". A disciple, A member of the ICC
>kingdom said this. By no means was I encouraged to remain faithful to the
>group after hearing this.
>
I was called a "child of the devil." Much worse than the
whole trained seal thing, for which I publicly apologized.
Aouw! Aouw! (Sound of a seal.)
Gintas
Gintas Jazbutis
gin...@concentric.net
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
: >I suppose the other earth-shattering revelation is the usage of "eis" in
: >Acts 2:38 really means "because of" and that all the Bibles published in
: >English are in error on this point.
: Regarding Acts 2:38, no one *said* the English Bibles are in error. "Eis"
: has been translated to the English word "for", which *also* has many
: different meanings -- "for" does not necessarily mean "in order to".
: So it's not the *translation* I disagree with, but your *interpretation*
: of the translation!
Dave, what translation of the Bible says, "Repent and be baptized because
your sins have been forgiven. And you have received the gift of the Holy
Spirit"? If the argument is that the candidate's sins are forgiven prior
to baptism, or that this is a reference to the global availability of
forgiveness, there ought to be at least *one* translation out there that
supports this viewpoint--after all, you're saying that not just the ICC,
but the mainline Church of Christ and the Catholic Church are equally in
"doctrinal error". How the person manages to receive the Holy Spirit
prior to baptism is a whole other can of worms, but if you have a
translation which claims that that two has been received prior to baptism
(prior to repentance too?) then it'll be the first I've seen.
The NIV has "Repent and be baptized...so that your sins may be forgiven.
And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" or "Repent and be
baptized...for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the
gift of the Holy Spirit".
The KJV has "Repent, and be baptized...for the remission of sins and ye
shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost"
BTW, Strong's dictionary does not have "because of" in its definition of
"eis". I'm no Greek scholar, but if you tell me that apples is an
alternate definition for oranges, and I look it up and it'd not there,
well, what's a Berean supposed to think.
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
Mark Davis (ma...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: dj...@aol.com (DJRTX) wrote:
I responded in several posts to those (ahem) "clearly demonstrated
problems" a few months back when this came up. I often don't respond when
the thread degenerates into another topic, when other disciples are posting
the same thing I would say, and with more eloquence, or when my opponent
enters the realm of the ridiculous. For example, I didn't reply to the
post about "where does it say in the Bible that to be a Christian you have
to read your Bible every day". Like, duh.
Chris Garland
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:>: >My experience with people who have left the ICC is that blah blah blah blah
>
>: Roger, as you have said to Martin, who? where? where is this
>: documented?
>
>It's what I've seen with my own two eyes during my 7 years as a member of
>the ICC. Others, naturally, have different experiences with the ICC and
>have posted good things and bad things about the church. This is direct,
>first-hand experience. You can choose to accept Martin's 4-year-old
>memories of what the church used to be like in 1992 and assume that
>everything is the same today. Or you can accept the viewpoint of me and
>other current disciples who have attended hundreds of services since 1992
>and have more up-to-date information and perspectives.
>
>Direct, personal experience is very different from hearsay, "this
>Zone leader in 1992 told me that (paraphrased)" which is not a first-hand
>account. It is someone reposting someone else's opinion on an issue, and
>not using the exact words! Were that Zone leader in attendance, he/she
>might be the first to say, "Hold it, that's not what I meant..."
>
>It's also very different from saying, "the ICC does..." which implies
>that what I saw is *policy* throughout my church or throughout the
>movement. I've *seen* people have two quiet times a day in order to grow
>spiritually. I've *seen* d-groups meet at 6am every week for the quiet
>times together. Does "the ICC" teach these things across-the-board, in
>every church and every d-group? No they do not.
>
>If Martin, or you, or anyone is going to say, "the ICC teaches" or "the
>ICC believes" and ICC members dispute the point, you'd better provide
>some evidence. Is it in the First Principles series? Is it in some
>other publically available source? Is it on the ICC web page? If not,
>or it worse, if those sources refute your claim, then you don't have a
>broken leg to stand on, and you've got no business say, "the ICC teaches"
>when in fact they don't teach that at all.
>
>I personally am just a member of the ICC. I'm not its spokesman or
>official representative, I'm just one member who sees all this negative
>stuff posted about my church, and I'm not going to sit on my duff while
>my brothers and sisters in Christ are getting slandered and insulted.
Roger, you win a big, fat loaf of baloney for this post. You are the guy
who has summarily dismissed my and everyone elses "personal experiences"
because you haven't personally experienced. You are a hypocrite.
Chris Garland
That was MY POST, Roger, not Mark's or Joanne's. And you still haven't
shown me the scriptures. And the question wasn't about being a Christian,
it was about being saved. Your church WITHHOLDS SALVATION from people if
they aren't reading their bible every day. That is completely unbiblical.
In fact, it's evil. And you have the nerve to give a sarcastic answer to
it?
Scott W. Schreiber
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>Direct, personal experience is very different from hearsay,
But Martin has said "I know.." or "I have seen.." that sounds like
direct personal experience. When he did say "I know a guy who.." You
said "Who is this guy? What is his name?" etc etc. What's good for
the goose is good for the gander right?
>I personally am just a member of the ICC.
Oh, you mean a member of the laity? }:->
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
DAnder9518 (dande...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <rognmichD...@netcom.com>, rogn...@netcom.com
: (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) writes:
: >If critics of the ICC are going to make the claim that the ICC First
: >Principles series has these glaring "doctrinal errors", then I'd really
: >like to see some irrefutable proof of that, not the same hackneyed
: >hopeful objections to the same verses.
: You want to see some doctrinal errors in First Principles? Here goes. . .
Remember, these are big, glaring, irrefutable, unanswerable doctrinal
errors that no rational person could argue with, so obvious that you
could drive a truck through.
: #1. "Who is a candidate for baptism? Disciples." (McKean, 1993, p. 7).
: Now, making substitutions from the equation disciple = Christian = saved
: (Ibid., p. 6), it would follow logically to conclude:
Acts 11:26 is referring to the church in Antioch, the "disciples" all
being baptized disciples. We could look at Acts 2:38-39 where baptism is
urged on "every one of you" and "the promise is for...all whom the Lord
our God will call" to illustrate that each of these disciples in the
Antioch church was baptized. With this in mind, we could amend the FP
series to say: "Baptized Disciple = Christian = Saved".
I would opine that "Disciple=Christian=Saved" is an oversimplification
(much like the way Newton's laws of motion are an oversimplication of
kinematics, with what we know of relativity today) and should be
rephrased "Baptized Disciple=Christian=Saved".
That it does not in FP is not mimimizing the importance of baptism, but
rather focussing in on the issue of discipleship and illustrating that
there is not a double-standard for being a follower of Jesus--that if
you're going to call yourself a Christian and are depending on Jesus to
save you, you need to live like a disciple or you're going to be in for a
rude shock.
: #2. The Kingdom Study links together biblical prophecies about the
: "kingdom", culminating in the conclusion that "the church is the Kingdom
: of God on earth established in approximately 33 AD." (McKean, 1993, p.
: 11).
: The view that the church is synonymous with the Kingdom of God also
: produces inconsistencies. Although the New Testament authors occasionally
: refer to the kingdom in the present tense (Col 1:13, I Corinthians 4:20),
: many *other* passages talk about the kingdom as something to be inherited,
: presumably after this life (I Corinth. 6:9, 15:50, Gal. 5:21, James 2:5).
: Acts 14:22 even depicts Paul and Barnabus instructing "disciples" that
: they must "go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God." If the
: church and the "kingdom" were the same thing, it would have been
: incongruous for New Testament writers to imply that *members* of the
: kingdom had not yet *entered* the kingdom.
The church is God's kingdom here on earth; the NT also discusses heaven
as the future destiny of God's kingdom. For example, *Christians* are
warned in Galatians 5:19-21 that "those who live like this will not
inheirit the kingdom of God". Col 1:13 says that "He has rescued us from
the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he
loves". This is past tense. Heb 12:28 says "we are receiving a kingdom"
which is present tense, and you pointed out some future tense Scriptures.
No contradiction--just that God's kingdom has BOTH a heavenly and an
earthly part.
: #3. The Church Study says that, according to Hebrews 10: 23-25, ICC
: members "must come to all services. i.e. Sunday, Wednesday, Devotionals,
: Bible Talks, Retreats, Seminars, etc." (McKean, 1993, p. 27). First
: Principels distorts the passage "let us not give up meeting together, as
: some in the habit of doing" to mean: "Do not miss any service of the
: church." (First Principles, San Antonio)
Acts 2:42 supports the concept that disciples are to be "devoted to the
fellowship" and we see dozens of Scriptures about the unity of the
believers, contending as one man for the gospel, being perfectly united
in mind and thought. Hebrews 10:23-27 and Hebrews 3:12-13 make a great
point that missing meetings leads to spiritual weakness and even falling
away. This is confirmed by ex-members posting how they began to get in
the habit of missing services and then left the church sometime afterwards.
: #4. The Church Study begins by drawing a stick-figure, pointing out that
: Christ is the "head" of the "body", and that the "body" is the "church".
: (McKean, 1993). Then, after reading scriptures which speak of "one body",
: it is concluded that "The Bible teaches there is one true church." (First
: Principles, San Antonio, n.d.). This conclusion results from a subtle
: "twisting" of scripture. The implicit "proof" would be structured like
: this:
: 1. Colossians 1:15-18 says the church is the body of Christ.
: 2. Therefore church = body.
: 3. Ephesians 4:4-6 and Romans 12:4-5 say there is one body.
: 4. Therefore, there can only be one church.
Others have already questioned this point; the body=church relationship
is also confirmed in 1 Cor 12. Critics should take special note that
Jesus is the head of the church, not any man.
: . . .and there's plently more where those came from.
Well, bring them on!
: ------>Dave Anderson
Scott W. Schreiber
dande...@aol.com (DAnder9518) wrote:
>You want to see some doctrinal errors in First Principles? Here goes. . .
>#1. "Who is a candidate for baptism? Disciples." (McKean, 1993, p. 7).
>"Who is a candidate for baptism? (People who are already) saved."
ICC member: "Hey man, you know about Jesus, and heaven and God. It's
great aint it! DO you wanna get saved now???"
Prospect: "Yeah! Sign me up!"
ICC member: "OK. First ya gotta be saved."
Jason Place
Chris Garland wrote:
For example, I didn't reply to the
> >post about "where does it say in the Bible that to be a Christian you have
> >to read your Bible every day". Like, duh.
>
> That was MY POST, Roger, not Mark's or Joanne's. And you still haven't
> shown me the scriptures. And the question wasn't about being a Christian,
> it was about being saved. Your church WITHHOLDS SALVATION from people if
> they aren't reading their bible every day. That is completely unbiblical.
> In fact, it's evil. And you have the nerve to give a sarcastic answer to
> it?
I was thinking, when did the printing press come around? When was the
Bible compiled? Did every member of the 1st century church have a trunk
full of scrolls that they were told to read every day because God says
they had to. And when someone didn't read there scroll the
*recommended* ammount of time did they feel guilty all day?
It is a good idea to read the Bible. When you are told you need to
repent because you missed reading one time, that is not good.(we repent
of sin... what sin is it?) I told someone recently that I want to read
my Bible at night instead of in the morning because I like reading more
at night. As a result I was called divisive, dissentious, more like
Cain than Abel...I was told that if I was "cranking
spiritually"(whatever that means) then I could read my Bible at night.
I was told I'm on the computer too much(that's my job>, watch too much
TV..ect ect all this because I wanted to read the Bible at night. I
guess this teaches me that God loses his power at night or something.
My God loves me and I him. I will stand on my *personal* relationship
with God, firmly. Not of rules taught by men.
Jason
member SFCoC
BTW a week after this conversation, a brother came over to my house and
told me he heard I wasn't doing well and that I didn't think it was
important to share my faith & go to church & read the Bible & pray. All
I said was I want to read the Word at night. <sigh>
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann
Roger Poehlmann
Ian Euguene Charleton
On Thu, 8 Aug 1996, Roger/Michelle Poehlmann wrote:
> DAnder9518 (dande...@aol.com) wrote:
> : In article <rognmichD...@netcom.com>, rogn...@netcom.com
> : (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) writes:
[Snip]
> Remember, these are big, glaring, irrefutable, unanswerable doctrinal
> errors that no rational person could argue with, so obvious that you
> could drive a truck through.
>
> : #1. "Who is a candidate for baptism? Disciples." (McKean, 1993, p. 7).
>
> : Now, making substitutions from the equation disciple = Christian = saved
> : (Ibid., p. 6), it would follow logically to conclude:
>
> Acts 11:26 is referring to the church in Antioch, the "disciples" all
> being baptized disciples. We could look at Acts 2:38-39 where baptism is
> urged on "every one of you" and "the promise is for...all whom the Lord
> our God will call" to illustrate that each of these disciples in the
> Antioch church was baptized. With this in mind, we could amend the FP
> series to say: "Baptized Disciple = Christian = Saved".
So here we have discovered a fault in the ICC teaching and Roger has
ammended it. Great. Can you get this change to go through the rest of
the ICC? Also, in Matt. 28:18-20 does Jesus say to make baptized
disciples or to make disciples BY baptizing and teaching? Even if the ICC
fallacy of baptizing only disciples is true, the logic still collapses. It
is taught that (roughly) "First you make a disciple, then you baptize
them." Should it really be "First you make a baptized disciple and then
you baptize them."? Why then does Jesus only refer to "being his
disciple" instead of "being his baptized disciple" when He speaks of such
things throughout the gospels? Was Jesus in error? If it was really
that important to be a baptized disciple in order to follow Him, why
wasn't he preaching this from the beginning of his ministry? The first
time he mentions disciple and baptize in the same breath is before he
ascended. Was Jesus being deceptive by hiding his commands until the
last minute?
>
> I would opine that "Disciple=Christian=Saved" is an oversimplification
> (much like the way Newton's laws of motion are an oversimplication of
> kinematics, with what we know of relativity today) and should be
> rephrased "Baptized Disciple=Christian=Saved".
I'm impressed that you admit an "error" in your church's teaching. You
seem to believe that you have refuted the accusation by offering an
alternative. If the prior is still being taught, isn't the church still
doctrinally in error?
> : #2. The Kingdom Study links together biblical prophecies about the
> : "kingdom", culminating in the conclusion that "the church is the Kingdom
> : of God on earth established in approximately 33 AD." (McKean, 1993, p.
> : 11).
Dave Wrote:
> : The view that the church is synonymous with the Kingdom of God also
> : produces inconsistencies. Although the New Testament authors occasionally
> : refer to the kingdom in the present tense (Col 1:13, I Corinthians 4:20),
> : many *other* passages talk about the kingdom as something to be inherited,
> : presumably after this life (I Corinth. 6:9, 15:50, Gal. 5:21, James 2:5).
> : Acts 14:22 even depicts Paul and Barnabus instructing "disciples" that
> : they must "go through many hardships to enter the kingdom of God." If the
> : church and the "kingdom" were the same thing, it would have been
> : incongruous for New Testament writers to imply that *members* of the
> : kingdom had not yet *entered* the kingdom.
Roger added:
>
> The church is God's kingdom here on earth; the NT also discusses heaven
I think the point that Dave was trying to make (correct me if I'm wrong)
was that the Kingdom Study was equating the universal body of believers
with the *organization* of believers called the ICC. Nowhere in the NT
did God name His Church. Jesus just said he would build His church. He
did not name it. The one body spans all denominations and includes all
who fit the biblical model of a Christian. Salvation by association is
not mentioned in the Bible. As people on both sides have been posting
for some time, when it comes to judgment we're going to be facing God
alone. No minsters, evangelists or disciplers to be there. This leads
me to believe that just belonging to a certain organization within the
universal brotherhood does not automatically save you or, conversely,
mean that anyone outside the organization is damned. The "one true
church" the "one body of Christ" is not held in by the walls of a church
or the name a particular group of believers chooses to give itself. The
God I worship is far to strong and mighty to let that be done to Him.
> No contradiction--just that God's kingdom has BOTH a heavenly and an
> earthly part.
I think we agreed with that part, just not the fact that your church was
*THE* Kingdom of God and that everyone else was false.
> : #3. The Church Study says that, according to Hebrews 10: 23-25, ICC
> : members "must come to all services. i.e. Sunday, Wednesday, Devotionals,
> : Bible Talks, Retreats, Seminars, etc." (McKean, 1993, p. 27). First
> : Principels distorts the passage "let us not give up meeting together, as
> : some in the habit of doing" to mean: "Do not miss any service of the
> : church." (First Principles, San Antonio)
>
> Acts 2:42 supports the concept that disciples are to be "devoted to the
> fellowship" and we see dozens of Scriptures about the unity of the
> believers, contending as one man for the gospel, being perfectly united
> in mind and thought. Hebrews 10:23-27 and Hebrews 3:12-13 make a great
> point that missing meetings leads to spiritual weakness and even falling
> away. This is confirmed by ex-members posting how they began to get in
> the habit of missing services and then left the church sometime afterwards.
The Bible does talk a great amount about the fellowship and the
importance therof. I cannot degrage the importance of fellowship with
other Christians in this world. I would be a fool in the largest degree
if I did. Did the NT writers define a "service?" In I Corinthians, Paul
talks about orderly worship, but nowhere are devotionals, midweeks,
BibleTalks, retreats or seminars mentioned. Who gave a man the authority
to define what a "service" is?
As for the "unity" passage. Being unified is of the utmost importance.
Redefining "unity" as "uniformity" is not something that I can agree
with. It is possible to be united with someone in mind and thought and
yet not be exactly alike. Paul discusses these "dsiputable matters" in
Romans 14. I was taught in the ICC that "God doesn't want a whole bunch
of robots blindly worshiping him, he wants people who want to love him."
This is great and very true. However, actual experience proved
differently. They would later assert both through other teachings and
through life that in order to love God and worship God, you had to do it
as they did. Note: they accept no one else's conversion, baptism,
testimony or anything else. That sounds very much like equating unity
with uniformity.
Question. How do you know that people who have left your church have
fallen away from God?
> Well, bring them on!
>
You did a great job of explaining, but as far as refuting, hmmm.... I'm
still not convinced. You simply ammended the statement in question on
Disciple=Christian=Saved, thus in effect negating the argument with the
ICC's doctrine in ink. You didn't refute Dave's argument, just tried to
correct an error. This is valiant. But becuase in your words "I'm just
a member of the ICC" does this mean you can really change things? You
told me in a personal email that you were not the church's spokesman. If
this is so, why do you suddenly have authority to change church doctrine?
You didn't exactly answer the question posed about the kingdom, but
instead went on a different route to explain that the kingdom is in
heaven and on earth, instead of proving that the ICC is God's Kingdom as
the study series asserts.
And the meetings issues is still unresolved. I'd like to see a more
through explanation or refutation of Dave's objections to your
doctrine. I believe I can speak for the vast majority of us on the NG.
We're all interested in the truth, Roger, and we can all arrive together.
> : ------>Dave Anderson
--Ian
Scott W. Schreiber
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
> If the argument is that the candidate's sins are forgiven prior
>to baptism, or that this is a reference to the global availability of
>forgiveness, there ought to be at least *one* translation out there that
>supports this viewpoint--
Are you saying that there can be no forgiveness of sin before
baptism??
I bet God is having a hard time fitting into that box you are trying
to put Him in.
R.L. Measures
> : At last, someone willing to take responsibility for her work. Call them
>
> "good, solid Christians" if that is the terminology you wish to use.
> These same people have called me and other disciples word like "idiot",
> "trained seal", "zombie"
I seem to be the person who initally used the term zombie-eyes on arcb-c.
This was long before I had much knowledge about Roger Poehlmann. I saw
zombie-eyes on the faces of ICC members. It was claimed that the
zombie-eyes look was actually the Holy Spirit. However, I have seen
zombie-eyes on members of other neo-authoritarian abusive sects that use
thought-stopping techniques. The Holy Spirit this is not.
, questioned the size of my genitalia, threatened
> that "Kip is going to pay"
He has seriously messed up a lot of families, Roger. That's why he
travels under a false name and uses bodyguards.
>compared the ICC to Nazis,
The NSDAP/Nazis did use a form of one-over-one discipling, Roger. The ICC
uses one-over-one discipling. Are you saying that Satan recognized this
comparison and pointed it out to his ICC critics?
>called the church
> a "virus that must be stamped out",
Any organization that teaches people to deceive people can't be all that
good, Roger.
...snip...
--Rich--
805-386-3734
Clinton Williams
>Didn't you know? Roger is also a member of the flat earth
>society - he's had lots of practice ignoring the evidence.
>Mark Davis
>
I was just thinking, as I do that quite a few of us have admitted our
mistakes. We have changed. We have changed the church and we push for change
on an ongoing basis. We are successful! What about us.
When I was a new Christian, I was tricked by certain elements into a study
whose purpose was to push me out of the church. I was told by the leader then
and many times over the years that they would be happy only when I had
considered their materialand knew all the bits and pieces. I now know
far more about us than they will ever learn and there is still no releif!
It reminds me of a good friend who went to his preacher and they talked about
a good church and what it should have and do. So my friend went looking and
found an ICC congregation. He went back with the good news and the preacher
didn't want to know. Ideals and goals are often talked about but very few
will actually get out of their chair. A long journey starts with the first
step.
Clint.
Gintas Jazbutis
>BTW a week after this conversation, a brother came over to my house and
>told me he heard I wasn't doing well and that I didn't think it was
>important to share my faith & go to church & read the Bible & pray. All
>I said was I want to read the Word at night. <sigh>
I remember a time when, due to chronic lack of sleep, but still hungry for
the word, I undertook to read in the evening--prime time, as it were. I
was chastised by a brother for using such good evangelism time for doing
something, uh, less worthy (I suppose).
Gintas
Gintas Jazbutis
gin...@concentric.net
Chris Garland
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>: #3. The Church Study says that, according to Hebrews 10: 23-25, ICC
>: members "must come to all services. i.e. Sunday, Wednesday, Devotionals,
>: Bible Talks, Retreats, Seminars, etc." (McKean, 1993, p. 27). First
>: Principels distorts the passage "let us not give up meeting together, as
>: some in the habit of doing" to mean: "Do not miss any service of the
>: church." (First Principles, San Antonio)
>
>Acts 2:42 supports the concept that disciples are to be "devoted to the
>fellowship" and we see dozens of Scriptures about the unity of the
>believers, contending as one man for the gospel, being perfectly united
>in mind and thought. Hebrews 10:23-27 and Hebrews 3:12-13 make a great
>point that missing meetings leads to spiritual weakness and even falling
>away. This is confirmed by ex-members posting how they began to get in
>the habit of missing services and then left the church sometime afterwards.
I don't recall anyone every posting to this newsgroup that they left the
ICC because they started missing services. Would you mind reposting them,
Roger? Or, to make it easier, would anyone who left the ICC because they
missed some services please post here and let us know?
Ian Euguene Charleton
On 9 Aug 1996, Chris Garland wrote:
> Thanks for sharing that Jason. One of the biggest problems I have with
> the ICC is heaping requirements on people for salvation that aren't
> biblical requirements; like making sure they read their bible every day
> before baptizing them, making sure they commit to the tithe before
> baptizing them, making sure they are already coming to everything before
> they are baptized. I don't see any of this as a precedent in scripture.
> In fact, people were baptized FIRST (after a short message), THEN they
> were devoted to the fellowship, the breaking of bread, prayer...etc.
> Seems the ICC has it backwards. Who has the right to withhold salvation
> from people?
Interesting food for thought here. If, as the ICC teaches, you recieve
the gift of the Holy Spirit at baptism, how can you be expected to do
things that are greatly influenced by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?
How can a non-repentant, non-Christian, non-Holy Spirit-filled sinner have
the desire to read the bible? How can they understand the importance of
tithing? How can they share their faith if faith is a gift of the Spirit?
In short, how can a non-Christian be expected to behave as a Christian.
Since when do you have to be a Christian to become one?
--Ian
Chris Garland
>told me he heard I wasn't doing well and that I didn't think it was
>important to share my faith & go to church & read the Bible & pray. All
>I said was I want to read the Word at night. <sigh>
Thanks for sharing that Jason. One of the biggest problems I have with
the ICC is heaping requirements on people for salvation that aren't
biblical requirements; like making sure they read their bible every day
before baptizing them, making sure they commit to the tithe before
baptizing them, making sure they are already coming to everything before
they are baptized. I don't see any of this as a precedent in scripture.
In fact, people were baptized FIRST (after a short message), THEN they
were devoted to the fellowship, the breaking of bread, prayer...etc.
Seems the ICC has it backwards. Who has the right to withhold salvation
from people?
Are you a member of the same church Roger is a member of? How come he
doesn't see the same things going on that you do?
Gintas Jazbutis
In article <320B77...@macmail.sonicsys.com>, ja...@macmail.sonicsys.com wrote:
>My friend Jeff Payne(awesome brother) says he and his wife
>Theresa(awesome sister) know Roger.
>
>Jason
>Member SFCoC
Are you in awe of these people? Awe-struck? Star-struck? Do you
know what you're saying?
Gintas
Gintas Jazbutis
gin...@concentric.net
Jason Place
Chris Garland wrote:
>
> Are you a member of the same church Roger is a member of? How come he
> doesn't see the same things going on that you do?
Roger, your part of the Bayside sector right? That's up north. I'm
down in Silicon Valley. We're going up to the city tonight for a
meeting. I'm sure you'll be there Roger. Let's look for each other.
Mark Davis
rogn...@netcom.com (Roger/Michelle Poehlmann) wrote:
>I personally am just a member of the ICC. I'm not its spokesman or
>official representative, I'm just one member who sees all this negative
>stuff posted about my church, and I'm not going to sit on my duff while
>my brothers and sisters in Christ are getting slandered and insulted.
>Roger Poehlmann
>member, SF Church of Christ
>(International Church of Christ)
On that note Roger - I have a question for you... it is a very simple
and direct question. It requires no doublespeak or evasion, can do
without twisting the facts, and can probably be answered in almost
a one word response. In other words, I'm after the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth here:
Has anyone (who you consider to be above you in the leadership
hierarchy of the church) asked/encouraged/discipled you to
participate in this newsgroup? If so - what were those
instructions/advice/orders?
Mark Davis
Clayton Lane
Roger/Michelle Poehlmann (rogn...@netcom.com) wrote:
: Mark Davis (ma...@mindspring.com) wrote:
: : dj...@aol.com (DJRTX) wrote:
: :>1. He did not respond to the problems I clearly demonstrated in the ICC's
: :>teaching on Matthew 28:18-20 back in late February or March. IMO, his lack
: :>of response implies it was irrefutable, and perhaps he did not want to
: :>attract attention to that fact.
: :Roger does that. When he has clearly lost the argument he just
: :ignores you and refuses to respond. But then again - that is the
: :ICC way...
: I responded in several posts to those (ahem) "clearly demonstrated
: problems" a few months back when this came up.
This is simply not true, Roger. I have the entire thread about Mat 28
saved, and I have read the newsgroup regularly ever since. You never
responded to either of Joanne's careful, well-thought posts, that clearly
demonstrated problems in the ICC's interpretation of Mat 28, and you have
*never* directly addressed the issues presented in that thread.
You have presented your own view in regard to Mat 28:18-20, but you have
not respond to the sound criticisms that refuted your position. Instead,
in other threads you have simply re-presented your original position,
refuting none of the criticisms that so clearly demonstrated flaws in your
argument.
I often don't respond when
: the thread degenerates into another topic, when other disciples are posting
: the same thing I would say, and with more eloquence, or when my opponent
: enters the realm of the ridiculous. For example, I didn't reply to the
: post about "where does it say in the Bible that to be a Christian you have
: to read your Bible every day". Like, duh.
Unlike many threads on this newsgroup, the thread in question stayed
*very* much on topic -- never strayed, for 20+ posts. It never
degenerated, and it never entered the realm of ridiculous. In fact, the
meat of it was quite scholarly. And no ICC member ever responded
(eloquence or no eloquence) to the well-thought position that Joanne
presented.
I just assumed that you just missed those posts, Roger -- by Joanne,
Sarah, Scott, and several others. Logically, the other possibility is
that you ignored them. In either case, *please* do not say you responded.
You did not.
Clayton
: Roger Poehlmann
DAnder9518
> There are two I can think of
>who sought out active involvement in another religious organization and
>are very committed and working hard to help others.
So are these two people who left still Christians? And if not, why not?
---->Dave
EOshiro
This thing was too long. It's in 2 parts. Go back to the original post
to see what I'm talking about.
(*1*)That sounds awfully partial, but here's what I thought the case was:
You have to have the *heart* of a disciple to be baptized. Having the
heart of a disciple essentially means that you believe 100% in Jesus.
Without the belief, baptism has absolutely no point. (Mark 16:16; Acts
8:36-37(footnote)) Baptism is the fulfilment of the beliefs that you
already have.
(*2*)I think you might be misinterpreting things here. The quote reads,
"the church is the Kingdom of God on earth..." I take that to mean that,
on Earth, the church is God's kingdom. Not that the full extent of God's
kingdom is on Earth. Certainly God rules over heaven, which is his
kingdom other than Earth. I think he also rules over those who follow him
on Earth.
On a similar issue, what is the kingdom of Satan? When Jesus said, "A
kingdom divided against itself cannot stand," there seemed to be some sort
of implication that it was here on Earth. Does Satan rule over Hell, or
Earth, or is Earth neutral ground, or what?
(*3*)For the most part, you shouldn't have any reason to miss church. You
know why you should be there. To encourage others. To learn. To be
encouraged. We're supposed to encourage one another daily, Hebrews 3:13.
And I think the majority of people you ask would find a phone call in
place of seeing you at church less encouraging than if you did show up.
But I think the main reason this scripture is pointed out is because
countless people believe you can be a Christian without going to church
(yet they claim to be members of a congregation.) There are also those
who go only on Christmas and/or Easter.
(Now, will I receive a rebuking for picking on "how other people choose to
worship?" Or does anyone else think that those people have "given up
meeting together?")
(SEE NEXT POST)
ROBBIN VUGRNICK
>And I think the majority of people you ask would find a phone call in
>place of seeing you at church less encouraging than if you did show
up.
>But I think the main reason this scripture is pointed out is because
>countless people believe you can be a Christian without going to
church
>(yet they claim to be members of a congregation.) There are also
those
>who go only on Christmas and/or Easter.
>
>(Now, will I receive a rebuking for picking on "how other people
choose to
>worship?" Or does anyone else think that those people have "given up
>meeting together?")
>
year visits) and a system which demands attendance at all church
services through guilt, retribution, etc. I love attending church and
worshipping God. But if I go because there is a system in place that
makes me feel guilty if I even think of missing a service, or if I go
because I feel I must submit to my discipler, than I have lost my
reason for going... my love for God.
In Christ
Rob Vugrnick
(Just a Christian)
R. L. Measures
> dj...@aol.com (DJRTX) wrote:
>
>
> >1. He did not respond to the problems I clearly demonstrated in the ICC's
> >teaching on Matthew 28:18-20 back in late February or March. IMO, his lack
> >of response implies it was irrefutable, and perhaps he did not want to
> >attract attention to that fact.
>
> Roger does that. When he has clearly lost the argument he just
> ignores you and refuses to respond. But then again - that is the
> ICC way...
>
The ICC way bears a curious resemblence to the 'extra bold' 'Prophet'
McKean's way
Alas, poor Roger. Perhaps on Judgement Day the Lord will give Roger a
logic unit that has not been damaged by the dreaded throught-stopping
virus.
--Rich-- (805) 386 3734
EOshiro
PART 2
(*4*)Of course you fail to mention that divisions are absolutely
unbiblical. (1 Cor. 1:10-17) If you want to talk logic, consider that if
there are 2 opposing veiws, they cannot both be right. Either one is
wrong, or both are. There is only one truth. Now comes the $64,000
question: if it is not the truth, is it always a lie, or is it a
forgiveable misconception? If you take the former, then several churches
are out of the running due to incorrect doctrine. If you take the latter,
then any church who claims to be Christian is so. But you also lose all
sense of standards. It only matters if you seek the truth, not if you
find it. Almost makes the Bible pointless. Also doesn't give you much to
have faith in. Also give you no reason to post on this newsgroup.
Another thing I think must be clarified is what is the definition of "the
church?" (Aside from the definition of "the body.) I think a vague
enough definition would be "Jesus' disciples on Earth." (Any
disagreements there?) (Now work with me at least hypothetically here.)
So if there was an entire congregation made up of disciples, that you knew
about, would it not be in your best interest to join them? And if the
congregation you were currently in (assuming you were) showed absolutely
no intention of doing disciple-like thing, yet claimed to be disciples,
would it also not be in your best interest to join the real disciples?
And if you knew they were disciples, yet did not join their fellowship,
would you be in sin?
Now of course, most of you are thinking, "That's ICC loaded; he's talking
about the ICC." Well, I believe the ICC is a congregation of disciples.
But that's me. You need to decide for yourself if you agree with the
above paragraph, NOT inserting "ICC members" for "disciples." (You know
what you think a disciple is.) I think the real issue is doctrinal
*standards.* But of course, that issue is a no-win situation. You hold
strongly to the Bible's standards, and you get accused of legalism. You
leave things open, and there's disunity and "mushiness."
You can do what you want, but I'm going to stick with the group I think is
the most right and the most united.
LeMel HW
Eoshiro said:
> You hold strongly to the Bible's standards, and you get
> accused of legalism.
LeMel says:
Eoshiro, what is your definition of legalism?
DAnder9518
In article <4u9k2i$7...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, ov...@aol.com (Ovum) writes:
>Huh? Where's the flaw? Body = Church. There is one body = there is one
>church. Christ died for THE church, not "the churches." He said He
would
>build His church -- not "His churches."
Oh, boi.
To start with, I have a problem with taking a parenthetical statement like
"the church, which is the body of Christ" (paraphrased), and making it
into an *equation* like Body = Church, and *then* substiting it into
*other* scriptures at the risk of distorting their meaning. Here is a
(comical!) example of a false "proof" which makes the same logical error:
God is Love.
Love is Blind.
Ray Charles is Blind.
Therefore, RAY CHARLES IS GOD.
(an oldie but a goodie ; )
Notice that each sentence is correct it it's verbal form, but when we
convert them into *equations* and make *substitutions*, the result is some
pretty bad theology!!
Furthermore, we have to consider what "the church" means. The Equipping
Class for Young Disciples, Greater Philadelphia COC, 1991 defines the
Greek Word for church (ekklesia) as "the called out - people belonging to
a special purpose." However, as you know, the Church Study and the Kingdom
Study try to equate the church/ekklesia with an ORGANIZATION (the ICC).
Notice that even the ICC's *own* definition of ekklesia is not
organizationally specific!
IMO, "the church" spoken of in the New Testament is a reference to all the
believers, wherever they may be. So, you and I are in agreement that
there is only one *ekklesia* (those Christ has called out). But if you
assert that only one *organization* can follow God, then I've got a real
problem with that.
-------->Dave Anderson
Scott W. Schreiber
eos...@aol.com (EOshiro) wrote:
>(*1*)That sounds awfully partial, but here's what I thought the case was:
>You have to have the *heart* of a disciple to be baptized.
Where's that verse?
>Having the heart of a disciple essentially means that you believe 100% in Jesus.
Oh, you mean....being a disciple.
>Without the belief, baptism has absolutely no point. (Mark 16:16; Acts
>8:36-37(footnote))
Agreed
>Baptism is the fulfilment of the beliefs that you already have.
What is "fulfilment of the beliefs?" I don't quite understand. It
sounds like you are saying baptism is symbolic of your faith, which,
according to Bret, is not what the ICC teaches {hopefully you will
accept this, without calling it hearsay}.
Ovum
In article <4ujh9m$1...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, dande...@aol.com
(DAnder9518) writes:
>To start with, I have a problem with taking a parenthetical statement
like
>"the church, which is the body of Christ" (paraphrased), and making it
>into an *equation* like Body = Church, and *then* substiting it into
>*other* scriptures at the risk of distorting their meaning. Here is a
>(comical!) example of a false "proof" which makes the same logical error:
>
>God is Love.
>Love is Blind.
>Ray Charles is Blind.
>Therefore, RAY CHARLES IS GOD.
Dave, stick to the word. God Himself says Christ's body = His Church.
One head, one body, one church. Why do you have a problem with this?
<snip>
>IMO, "the church" spoken of in the New Testament is a reference to all
the
>believers, wherever they may be. So, you and I are in agreement that
>there is only one *ekklesia* (those Christ has called out). But if you
>assert that only one *organization* can follow God, then I've got a real
>problem with that.
I'm not talking about "an organization." Anyone is a member of the body
of Christ whom God has added to His church. Obediance to God is the
deciding factor, not the name on the door of the building where the church
meets.