Discrepancy in Church Practice

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Monterrey

Don, your posts are exhausting to read. I really really try to follow them but it's impossible. If your preaching is the same then.... whoooooo!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Dom has said: Don, may I suggest you don't poke the bear.

And he also has said: Another thing, if you don't like what an organization believes or how they do their business? Don't be a part of that organization. It's that simple. Don, is all this belly aching because the UPCI kicked you to the curb? Move on buddy. A public forum is no where to lick your wounds. Also in the UPCI they have districts and it is up to the district board, whether they give the pass on what a preacher sees as far as doctrine. You fell under the wheels of a chariot with the Canadian UPCI? All I can say is oh well. Live for God, and don't be obnoxious. Maybe they'll invite you back.

Hi, Dom. Thx for the friendly advice.

Are we friends now? You'll no doubt agree that many past words spoken to me by you would make it difficult for me to see them as friendly. But do keep up with this new trend. No one knows where it might lead.

Therefore, I see them not as friendly advice but again as posturing as the authority all should want to take heed to.

If you are Apostolic, and I am Apostolic, and the UPC or any other Org is Apostolic, it testifies to a scriptural stand. The Apostolic mantra is 'we've got the Truth'. I love Truth. All should love Truth.

If I say that I love the Word and my church says the same; and my church family then departs from Truth, the responsibility any Christian has is to make efforts to have it to return. That is what "earnestly contend for the faith once delivered" means. You offer unscriptural advice when you say to move on. Or, have I missed something? Plz convince me otherwise.

If you in the past have 'moved on' from a place you should have stayed to fight, then it's not yet too late to return. Perhaps you took the easy road to leave, instead of trying to make things right? Was it related to the topics Ro14 says should have made you acceptable to stay?

I suppose you see yourself as the arbiter of acceptable topics for threads in AFF, by saying what you said. That would make you an Admin. I have yet to see your name anywhere as associated with Admins. As such you may be usurping the role and authority of others.

You thus show two errors: unscriptural advice and usurping. Why should anyone take heed to your advice when you've demonstrated you do not take your own advice? You referred to lines of authority seen in District Boards but circumvented the authority structure seen in AFF leadership to operate outside of it.

The reason some wrongs persist in church practice, leading to some of the fracturing of the Body and countless needless church Orgs seen in the world, is because of the lack of the ability to fight fairly when contending. Proper teaching and acceptance of the teaching of Ro14 would undermine and prevent some of this from occurring.

Your positioning yourself in AFF as the authority which should be heeded demonstrates your place outside of the influence of Ro14. You demonstrate that you think your way is the only way. Ro14 teaches against this. Perhaps you more than any other need to spend some time with Ro14 and prayer. Unity would then be better preserved, while your style of doing things leads to people separating themselves. Is your style of posting slurs the reason why AFF is not used as much as it could be?

It's been refreshing seeing some of your replies use logic and reason, not ranting with disapproving slurs of others. Plz keep it up. Adding theological arguments along with scripture would also make your posts more appealing to those wanting to get into the depths of the Word. You actually had started to do so in the last posts of "1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame", but we were cut short in its continuance by its closing.

Let's get back to the Word and be the Church we are supposed to be, by including the teaching and practice of Ro14.

Lets talk about scripture, Ro14. Do you want to move on from "1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame"? Let's do that too.

Don, you are a smack talker. Were you the Mr. Smith in your story who was given the left foot of fellowship? We aren't called to stay in a church family or an organization to be troublemakers. Because you feel you figured it all out, and now desire the need to take everyone to school. No matter if it is eschatology, soteriology, or theology. If the pastor or the elders don't agree with you, you have three roads to go down. One shut up and sit down. Two leave and take your beliefs down the road with you, or three, joust it out with the pastor, and elders. If they are so inclined, and even have the strength to want to climb that mountain. Plain and simple. Also, if you weren't so bent on your ecclesiastical narcissism, you would of noticed this is a self moderating forum. Why? Because there is just a handful of active posters. With one active admin. If you really have a problem with me pointing out the obvious to you take it up with Votivesoul, the active admin. Other than that place me on ignore. I'm not your friend, you don't want friends because true friends won't always agree with you. You want spiderbots and that is all you get on this forum.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.

One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone.

The Apostle isn't teaching that the church is to be piloted by each one's opinion. The subject matter is a "weak brother" translated as immature convert who isn't at the level of his brethren. One individual is eating nothing but vegetables because of his fear of not wanting to eat meat offered to idols.

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. This by no means sets a precedence for everyone to do what they believe to be right in their own mind.

If a pastor, and elders are teaching what they believe to be truth. 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. But, if you cannot present your case logically, and Biblically. If you present your case which creates more questions than it answers. Then don't expect anyone to consider any matter you present. 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. 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." Hey, I still can't get a real answer from you on what a "right living man" is supposed to be? Don, you had your back pockets chewed off by an organization? Oh well, deal with it. Move on, and try to find what lesson Jesus was trying to teach YOU. No one else, just teach YOU.

[Amanah]

I would welcome a completely new topic for discussion.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

I would welcome a completely new topic for discussion.

I second that

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Monterrey

Don, your posts are exhausting to read. I really really try to follow them but it's impossible. If your preaching is the same then.... whoooooo!

Perhaps the following re-writing will help.

Examining a Discrepancy Between Organizational Policy and Local Church Practice

Throughout my Christian life, I have been encouraged to “contend earnestly for the faith once delivered.” I do so in the following.

I would like to examine what appears to be an inconsistency between UPC Organizational practice and the way some local churches apply the same issue—specifically, in the doctrine of the head covering, 1Co11. Local church practices may contradict the principles taught in Ro14. The theme of this thread is the correct pratice of Ro14.

1. Organizational Practice: Acceptance of Multiple Head‑Covering Doctrines

At the Organizational level, the UPC licenses ministers who do not all hold the same head‑covering doctrine.

For example, the Organization licenses ministers who teach the veil‑covering view, even though this is not the majority position - uncut hair. This raises several questions:

- Scripture would teach only one correct view of a doctrine. How can two contradictory views both be accepted? Yet they are.
- Two are shown as acceptable. Three or more should then also be acceptable, using the same methods.

Whatever the reason, the fact remains: the Organization permits more than one doctrinal stance on head coverings. Apparently the Org may be trying to practice the teaching of Paul seen in Ro14;15.1-7.

2. Local Church Practice: Restriction to a Single Doctrine

At the local level, however, the situation may look different. Some Pastors restrict Word‑sharing positions (teaching, preaching, etc.) only to those who agree with their own head‑covering doctrine.

Example: Pastor John Doe believes in the veil‑covering doctrine. The UPC licenses him, even though this is not the majority position. B. Smith joins his church. Smith does not hold the veil view, nor the uncut‑hair view, but has another scriptural interpretation of 1Co11. Although the organization accepts Pastor Doe’s minority view, Pastor Doe refuses to allow Smith to serve in any Word‑sharing role because Smith does not agree with his own doctrine.

Thus: The Organization accepts Pastor Doe despite doctrinal disagreement. But Pastor Doe does not accept Smith. This appears to be a double standard.

It is often said that Pastors must preach their convictions. However, should their personal convictions be forced on others as though they were the Word of God? If so, the result can be the creation of dogmatic rules that Scripture does not clearly mandate— as in Hutterites.

4. Inconsistency

If the UPC Organization accepts multiple head‑covering doctrines per Ro14, why is this same openness not practiced uniformly at the local level? The ways of the Org have not been learnt/copied by Pastor Doe. What the mother goose eats is rejected by the gosling.

If B. Smith is rejected from ministry roles, what becomes of Biblical principles such as: “Use right judgment”? OR: “Do not show respect of persons.”

The end result is that a Pastor claims the ability to determine only one doctrine while the Organization has not done so. Doe rejects the influence of Ro14. This gives the impression that this Pastor is, in practice, usurping or contradicting the Organization which has authorized/commissioned his position as Pastor. Pastor Doe thumbs his nose to the Org who makes him possible.

5. Finally

Does anyone else see something inconsistent here? Is the reasoning used sound? While some Pastors may indeed accept people with differing head covering views, their approach is not universally taught or practiced.

The practice which rejects B. Smith, causing them damage, spites a scriptural standard all must use: Ro14; 15.1-7. For a closer look at this scriptural standard, the following commentary is provided:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Example: Pastor John Doe believes in the veil‑covering doctrine. The UPC licenses him, even though this is not the majority position. B. Smith joins his church. Smith does not hold the veil view, nor the uncut‑hair view, but has another scriptural interpretation of 1Co11. Although the organization accepts Pastor Doe’s minority view, Pastor Doe refuses to allow Smith to serve in any Word‑sharing role because Smith does not agree with his own doctrine.

Thus: The Organization accepts Pastor Doe despite doctrinal disagreement. But Pastor Doe does not accept Smith. This appears to be a double standard.

It is often said that Pastors must preach their convictions. However, should their personal convictions be forced on others as though they were the Word of God? If so, the result can be the creation of dogmatic rules that Scripture does not clearly mandate— as in Hutterites.

Why doesn't B. Smith go to the District Superintendent? Does B. Smith want to get licensed by the UPCI? Is Pastor John Doe's church family the only game in town? Seems like a lot of sour grapes, but no real solution other than B. Smith wanting contend for the faith with people who want to show him the door.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Don, why don’t you start a thread concerning ecclesiastical manipulative lying?
How about explaining how this thread is any different from the one that you exhausted? Can you prove it’s vastly different? Or are we correct to point out it is similar to a degree of being the same old gal just in ( your case) a different pair of pants?

Dom has said:

Don, why don’t you start a thread concerning ecclesiastical manipulative lying? We can talk about ecclesiastical manipulative lying in another thread if you'd like. For now, let's talk about Ro14.


How about explaining how this thread is any different from the one that you exhausted? Post 6 states how this thread is different. If you missed the point I made there, I'd suggest re-reading it.

Can you prove it’s vastly different? Or are we correct to point out it is similar to a degree of being the same old gal just in ( your case) a different pair of pants? Plz re-read my previous post for its explanation. Cute analogy. But let's pray for her. She's obviously not dyed in the wool Apostolic, right?

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Don, you are a smack talker. Were you the Mr. Smith in your story who was given the left foot of fellowship? We aren't called to stay in a church family or an organization to be troublemakers. Because you feel you figured it all out, and now desire the need to take everyone to school. No matter if it is eschatology, soteriology, or theology. If the pastor or the elders don't agree with you, you have three roads to go down. One shut up and sit down. Two leave and take your beliefs down the road with you, or three, joust it out with the pastor, and elders. If they are so inclined, and even have the strength to want to climb that mountain. Plain and simple. Also, if you weren't so bent on your ecclesiastical narcissism, you would of noticed this is a self moderating forum. Why? Because there is just a handful of active posters. With one active admin. If you really have a problem with me pointing out the obvious to you take it up with Votivesoul, the active admin. Other than that place me on ignore. I'm not your friend, you don't want friends because true friends won't always agree with you. You want spiderbots and that is all you get on this forum.

Any not wanting to discuss 1Co11 in this thread are fine by me. Let's talk about Ro14, shall we?

Dom opens post 12 with Don, you are a smack talker. And thereby sets the tone for understanding his remaining words. Being addressed to me, it sets me on edge - in a defensive posture. How can this lead to open viable theological discussions?

Dom says in post 12: We aren't called to stay in a church family or an organization to be troublemakers. Perhaps Dom is calling me a trouble maker, making this to be in line with his opening tone. And what of those who earnestly contend for the faith? Are they trouble makers by your definition, Dom? Or instead, are they trying to be obedient to the Word? A trouble maker is one from the heart. It is their nature to do so, regardless of the time or circumstance. Wherever they go, it will come through to the surface because that is what they are. What does Dom have as a definition of trouble maker? Do you Dom describe Jude as one instigating trouble?

Would Jude say to leave the fellowship of the NT faithful to contend from outside the Church, or not to stay in a church family? I don't read Jude to say to leave, which Dom seems to indicate. Those who contend for others to continue with or to return to the faith which was once for all delivered, do not leave the Church, or church, to do what the Word commands. They stay and from there contend.

Those who contend may have the appearance of being contentious. Some describe contending as troublemaking but not the Word. Godly Paul had much contention with Judaizers over circumcision but wouldn't in the end call him a trouble maker. you have three roads to go down. One shut up and sit down. Two leave and take your beliefs down the road with you, or three, joust it out with the pastor, and elders. #3 sounds like earnestly contend. So we agree. But why are you advising me to do what I'm already in the process of doing? What motivates you to give this motivation to me when I am self-motivated already? What gives?

Why have you been asleep at the helm of 'Good Ship AFF' and have not previously pointed out this neglect I see of Ro14 to Apostolics? Instead, it is left for some ecclesiastical narcissist to do it. Captain, you've been asleep at the wheel.

This thread is about Ro14 and its place in Church practice. Lets hear some comments from you on it, instead of sidetracking to describe me as a trouble maker with an unscriptural description of trouble making. I suppose those who went to the Apostles when unfairly treated in the daily distribution, Ac6, were trouble makers by your definition, right? The Apostles gave heed to them. Pastor Doe rejects B. Smith and is disregarding Paul's teaching of acceptance seen prominently in Ro14. He does not give heed.

Dom also says: Also, if you weren't so bent on your ecclesiastical narcissism (well, giving heed to Jude's advice to contend for the faith is not narcissism, but is showing love for the Word. But I understand you feel a need to 'paint bad' those you don't wish to be friends with, doing so with terms like ecclesiastical narcissism)...If you really have a problem with me pointing out the obvious to you take it up with Votivesoul, the active admin. Is it obvious that I am an ecclesiastical narcissist? As I've stated many times before in other threads, I welcome replies having to do with the Word, including any who would not consider themselves to be my friend. I'm not your friend, you don't want friends because true friends won't always agree with you. Your statement lacks cohesion but I say Amen, thinking I know what you mean. True friends will not always agree and should then tell you if they think you are wrong. All should welcome one who does so in amicable ways. As a true friend of AFF and Jesus, I have taken on the task to amicably show Apostolics the neglect of Ro14 in some areas of scripture. Plz do show how you think my reasoning and understanding of scripture is wrong. Your comments are always welcomed if amicably given. Not so much so if you persist in name calling without any accompanying scriptural arguments. You got it you to do so but you don't, for reasons unknown to me.

Change your ways and show my thoughts wrong, without name calling.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Dom says in post 12: We aren't called to stay in a church family or an organization to be troublemakers. Perhaps Dom is calling me a trouble maker, making this to be in line with his opening tone. And what of those who earnestly contend for the faith? Are they trouble makers by your definition, Dom? Or instead, are they trying to be obedient to the Word? A trouble maker is one from the heart. It is their nature to do so, regardless of the time or circumstance. Wherever they go, it will come through to the surface because that is what they are. What does Dom have as a definition of trouble maker? Do you Dom describe Jude as one instigating trouble?

Don, to take into consideration your supposed hypothetical. Pastor John Doe, doesn't need B. Smith in his church family. Period. What B. Smith needed to do is take his show on the road. Go gather his own sheaves, and teach them what he has on his mind. That's all. I don't visit anyone's church to contend for the faith once delivered unto the Saints. Why? Because it is a waste of precious time. I'm a visitor, the pastor and the elders live with their people. 365 days a year. So, what ever comes out of my mouth no matter how hidden manna it might be, gets totally undone by the elders once I step out of the pulpit.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Would Jude say to leave the fellowship of the NT faithful to contend from outside the Church, or not to stay in a church family?

Don, Jude wasn't in a 21st century Pentecostal church with a church office.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I don't read Jude to say to leave, which Dom seems to indicate. Those who contend for others to continue with or to return to the faith which was once for all delivered, do not leave the Church, or church, to do what the Word commands. They stay and from there contend.

Ok, so how'd that work out for you? You still there? You still contending? Or are you still there still being tolerated? Or, have you been given the Left Foot of Fellowship? Where the elders grab you by the collar and open the church doors with your head. Don, either you sit down with the elders, and intelligently show them, book, chapter, and verse, or you go contend for the faith on the other side of town. Jesus did say to knock the dirt off your clothes against them as a testimony. So, if they won't buy what your peddling, ( from dealing with you here, I believe their case is warranted) then I strongly suggest you knock the dust off.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Those who contend may have the appearance of being contentious. Some describe contending as troublemaking but not the Word. Godly Paul had much contention with Judaizers over circumcision but wouldn't in the end call him a trouble maker.

You are making my point by bringing up Paul. He would be considered your Pastor John Doe, and the Judaizers would be B. Smith. We are talking about 21st century Pentecostal Church setting, where you have ministers who are on the platform. Then one guy wanting to present his version of "what it is" to the entire church family. If the elders of the church can't see what you are sowing, then you are going to have a hard time planting. instead of beating an ecclesiastical dead horse, go find another more welcoming field. Don, you can't even prove what you believe here to us! I can just imagine the looks on these minister's faces while you trip the light fantastic in the church office. Good God from Zion!

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

you have three roads to go down. One shut up and sit down. Two leave and take your beliefs down the road with you, or three, joust it out with the pastor, and elders. #3 sounds like earnestly contend. So we agree.

Which part? Are you jousting with the pastor and the elders? How's that working out for you?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

But why are you advising me to do what I'm already in the process of doing? What motivates you to give this motivation to me when I am self-motivated already? What gives?

I'm just pieces this train wreck together as I read your posts. Don't start patting yourself on the back yet.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

why have you been asleep at the helm of 'Good Ship AFF' and have not previously pointed out this neglect I see of Ro14 to Apostolics? Instead, it is left for some ecclesiastical narcissist to do it. Captain, you've been asleep at the wheel.

I can tell you right now, I would love to be there when you give these guys the keys to your kingdom. Their eyes are going to roll over white.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

This thread is about Ro14 and its place in Church practice. Lets hear some comments from you on it, instead of sidetracking to describe me as a trouble maker with an unscriptural description of trouble making. I suppose those who went to the Apostles when unfairly treated in the daily distribution, Ac6, were trouble makers by your definition, right? The Apostles gave heed to them. Pastor Doe rejects B. Smith and is disregarding Paul's teaching of acceptance seen prominently in Ro14. He does not give heed.

Oh, ok, so you are going into the pastor's office to tell him you are weak in the faith, and they should allow you to preach. Oh yeah, fun times.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Dom also says: Also, if you weren't so bent on your ecclesiastical narcissism (well, giving heed to Jude's advice to contend for the faith is not narcissism, but is showing love for the Word.

As long as you show love for the Word on a one on one with elders. You'll be good to go. I just wish I could be front row and center.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

But I understand you feel a need to 'paint bad' those you don't wish to be friends with, doing so with terms like ecclesiastical narcissism)...If you really have a problem with me pointing out the obvious to you take it up with Votivesoul, the active admin. Is it obvious that I am an ecclesiastical narcissist? As I've stated many times before in other threads, I welcome replies having to do with the Word, including any who would not consider themselves to be my friend. I'm not your friend, you don't want friends because true friends won't always agree with you. Your statement lacks cohesion but I say Amen, thinking I know what you mean. True friends will not always agree and should then tell you if they think you are wrong. All should welcome one who does so in amicable ways. As a true friend of AFF and Jesus, I have taken on the task to amicably show Apostolics the neglect of Ro14 in some areas of scripture. Plz do show how you think my reasoning and understanding of scripture is wrong. Your comments are always welcomed if amicably given. Not so much so if you persist in name calling without any accompanying scriptural arguments. You got it you to do so but you don't, for reasons unknown to me.

I call'em like I see'em. You just hand me the material. I already explained my thoughts on Romans. Unlike you, I made my thoughts short and sweet. If you didn't catch them that's not my problem. Go look.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Change your ways and show my thoughts wrong, without name calling.

Change your ways, your gonna need it.