[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

.

Plz note what Paul does not do in Ro14.

-He does not here teach on holy days or on foods. His purpose in referencing them is only to use them as examples of the main thought he wishes to convey in Ro14; 15.1-7. He is using them to teach a principle.

-What he could do, is to tell these NT saints that those scriptures are OT, that they don't apply to the Gentile or the NT. But he doesn't.

-You should also notice another thing. He does not tell those who have differing opinions on these two topics, what it is they should be believing about them. In other words, though seeing these two opinions on these topics differ (perhaps even from his), he does not provide the correct understanding, if he thought them wrong. 'Why not?' needs an answer. The answer is why I wrote this thread.

Paul has great understanding of all things OT, the source of the two topics. He also has Apostolic authority. He no doubt has formulated opinions/doctrines on these topics. If Paul truly believes all singular topics in scripture show only one possible correct doctrine, then he leaves one or both of them in the lurch holding false doctrine, when he tells them both they are OK to hold their views. Both views can't be right when differing. They can both be wrong. But instead, he leaves them both thinking they are both right.

Reading the text of Ro14 sees him telling them they are both OK to believe what they believe, even though they believe differently.The correct obvious conclusion is that Paul sees God communicating some things which can have multiple conclusions. This had rubbed my previously-held theology the wrong way, but I'll dare not contradict Paul. He doesn't use either his Apostolic authority or his great OT knowledge to straighten out differences in the doctrine of these others, strangely. Instead, he tells all that it is OK to have two views on the same topic/scripture, (potentially, even if differing from his own views). Hypothetically, if two are seen by Paul as OK, then more than two would also be acceptable.

Plz do not think that I believe every scriptural topic can have multiple correct conclusions. See the link in post 1 for my explanation on this.

If these conclusions are wrong, then show how. Or instead, like Dom does, 'call me names'. Pick one: wacky bonkers twisted. There are many others and you could even make one up.

*************

Dom says:

The Apostle isn't teaching that the church is to be piloted by each one's opinion. Of course. Agreed. God/the Word pilots the Church, not individuals. Everyone knows this. The subject matter is a "weak brother" translated as immature convert who isn't at the level of his brethren. Nothing in the text says anything about immaturity. Thus, the principle that he teaches applies to every maturity level. One individual is eating nothing but vegetables because of his fear of not wanting to eat meat offered to idols. Does the text say this?

I would not argue with anyone who agrees with Dom in the above paragraph. But I will point out that this is 'reading between the lines', to better understand what Paul says. It makes sense to see it say this, but it is conjecture, using knowledge of history and other scripture to make sense of what Paul says here. It highlights the need to know history to better understand scripture. But those reading history will often see conflicting reports of history, leading to different conclusions.

Days are observed in ritualistic fashion by those "weak" in the faith. Paul, would rather have the stronger brethren tolerate the weaker instead of beating the snot out of them. Until those weaker brothers come to the fullness of truth in time. Where does it say this? It doesn't. These exterior thoughts are ascribed into the text, which doesn't necessarily mean it is a wrong conclusion. The logic of believing it this way would lead to seeing Paul telling the weak one that it is OK to temporarily believe in false doctrine, until he becomes mature enough to believe true doctrine. Paul is smart enough not to do it this way, for this sees an immature one forming a foundation which later will need to be dismantled. Smart builders such as Paul start with a good foundation and build up from there. This idea is dumb on many levels.

When Paul tells all to accept and not reject others holding contrary conclusions on some topics, he makes no indication at all that they must later accept the true doctirne. He indicates he accepts both as good. It is a strained effort to explain Ro14 the way Dom has described. But it is refreshing to see he makes efforts to make theological arguments.

This by no means sets a precedence for everyone to do what they believe to be right in their own mind. Right...you want to have your cake and eat it too. But, taking the opposing side, this is in the Word of God we are refering to. Anyone reading for the first time with understanding, then set precedence in their mind. God's Word is unchanging. You as an Evangelist hope to be believed when you present conclusions based on the Word, don't you. You can't say 'it is so' this time and then turn around and later say 'it isn't always so'. God's Word doesn't work like that - no shadow of turning, forever settled. Good logic does not lead to such statements as you have just made.

If a pastor, and elders are teaching what they believe to be truth. You'll need to be more specific. It is not known what you refer to here.

You have another revelation? You see something they aren't seeing? Then present it to them. If they are open to defend their position, while with an open mind considering your's, then may the Lord bless it. Well, here I am in AFF, presenting it to Apostolics. Why do you tell me to do something elsewhere, which I am already doing here?

But, if you cannot present your case logically, and Biblically. This is itself an illogical sentence.

If you present your case which creates more questions than it answers. Then don't expect anyone to consider any matter you present. Lofty allusions to my errors, Dom, without providing specifics which can have a defence of them presented. Are these allusions an example of the clarity you say I should use?

Don't get me wrong, I fully understand that there are individuals out and about who lied on their resumé when it comes to being a preacher, pastor, leader of men. Who know only what was "told" to them from over a pulpit. Who when challenged on a one on one in a locked office, couldn't punch their way out of a paper bag concerning theology, or any other ology for that matter. Yet, that isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about brethren who know book, chapter, and verse. But, I don't want to repeat myself. Don, you sound like a guy who had an epiphany, brought it to the front of the class, and everyone threw paper airplanes at you followed by some spit balls. Beautiful analogy again, Dom, as is usual from you.

But plz, how does this relate to Ro14? How does this provide reasons from logic or scripture to refute the contention that Ro14 isn't heeded in some ways in some Apostolic pulpits? How does the absence of any ology arguments disprove my presentation? Why doesn't your great (I'm not being facetious) knowledge, of scripture and the world, serve up something which is related to Ro14? I will predict that your future comments will claim that what (hasn't been here and now said) are the arguments you supposedly gave, which had refuted my contentions. But what you have said thus far falls far short of refuting.

The organization deals with their preachers on a case to case basis. No matter what the teaching may be. Different districts may let a Preterist bring cheesy corn bake to dinner on the grounds. Or an annihilationist, and Sabbatarian. Beards, wedding rings and even trousers on females all singing "I'm a Pentecostal." Relevance to the topic, plz?

Hey, I still can't get a real answer from you on what a "right living man" is supposed to be? This a diversionary tactic, in those not wanting to address today's topic. Questions from another thread will be dealt with in the appropriate thread. I've already been criticized for dragging a closed thread into a new thread, right?

Don, you had your back pockets chewed off by an organization? Oh well, deal with it. I'd assume that Apostolics are largely the same regardless of which Org they are in. I'm addressing Apostolic practices in this thread, not Org rules of any particular Org.

Move on, and try to find what lesson Jesus was trying to teach YOU. Great advice all should follow. No one else, just teach YOU. Answer this question Evangelist. When you received the revelation of Jesus name baptism, was it meant for you alone or also for teaching others? What logic do you hold which thinks any Bible truth is not for sharing? We speak what We know and testify what We have seen,.... I follow our Saviour's example. Do not be like Nicodemus. you do not receive Our witness.