Local Church Discussions - View Single Post

Cal · 09-26-2013, 07:31 AM

I think it's interesting that Kangas chose to call Steve Isitt a "man of death." Why didn't he call him a "man of sin?" Because if he did that he'd have to specify his sin, and he can't do it because there is none.

What, exactly, is Steve doing wrong? As aron said, who said WL, or RK, or anyone else are the only ones authorized to speak? Steve is speaking as a prophet according to his conscience. He claims seem reasonable and well-thought-out. Kangas is obligated to take them seriously and address another Body member's concerns with respect. He has no right to act as if he is above reproof. What is so troubling about Kangas and other Recovery officials is how they are seemingly devoid of genuine Christian humility.

But by categorizing Steve (and those here for that matter) as sources of "death," the accusation becomes nebulous, feel-oriented and arbitrary. It's simply mud-slinging.

Drop the vague "death" language, Ron Kangas, and specify Steve's sin. Then we can discuss it as the Body. My money is on the fact that you can't specify a sin, and would lose any discussion about one if you did. That is why you are resorting to feeble "death" claims.

09-26-2013, 07:31 AM	#38
Cal Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: USA Posts: 4,333	Re: An Epidemic of Lawless speaking I think it's interesting that Kangas chose to call Steve Isitt a "man of death." Why didn't he call him a "man of sin?" Because if he did that he'd have to specify his sin, and he can't do it because there is none. What, exactly, is Steve doing wrong? As aron said, who said WL, or RK, or anyone else are the only ones authorized to speak? Steve is speaking as a prophet according to his conscience. He claims seem reasonable and well-thought-out. Kangas is obligated to take them seriously and address another Body member's concerns with respect. He has no right to act as if he is above reproof. What is so troubling about Kangas and other Recovery officials is how they are seemingly devoid of genuine Christian humility. But by categorizing Steve (and those here for that matter) as sources of "death," the accusation becomes nebulous, feel-oriented and arbitrary. It's simply mud-slinging. Drop the vague "death" language, Ron Kangas, and specify Steve's sin. Then we can discuss it as the Body. My money is on the fact that you can't specify a sin, and would lose any discussion about one if you did. That is why you are resorting to feeble "death" claims.