Discrepancy in Church Practice

[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.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

.

Dom again, does not aim at disproving my Ro14 conclusions. Dom below, mostly avoids commenting on the main reason for this thread.

My reply today to Dom's reply is bolded. Some words in Red have been added for clarification purposes.


Quote:
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. What kind of attitude are you propagating here, when saying 'Pastor Doe does not need B Smith.' ? This attitude sucks, Dom. The message I hear from most pulpits is that everyone in the church is invaluable. Therefore, Pastor Doe needs B Smith not to go.Go gather his own sheaves, and teach them what he has on his mind. That's all. Dom, you are in effect cutting Ro14 out of the Bible. Instead of defending its correct conclusions and applying its teaching to Pastor Doe, you support Pastor Doe's non-Biblical actions by wishing B. Smith out the church. Where is your Apostolic love for Biblical Truth? You show favour for the unscriptural actions of a fallible man, over the correct implementation of the Word. You are making a fool of yourself writing this. I don't visit anyone's church to contend for the faith once delivered unto the Saints.You don't??? 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.Dear God, plz help us with the attitudes of evangelist's, who think your Word has no power to change wrong attitudes of Pastors in the churches the evangelist preaches in. They are refusing to preach your Word because they think it will not have any effect. Dom, in effect, you say God has wasted his time giving us his Word when billions will choose to ignore it anyway. You thus minimize the role of God-ordained preachers/evangelists, saying their time would be wasted preaching the Word. If that's your sense from your evangelist-travels, of most Pastors' hearts, and reflects what most evangelists believe, then the church is in a sorry state indeed. Are you even Apostolic? Do you have any faith in God's Word? This from you, if true, tells of a sordid state in both you and Pastors, and may be the reason why your replies are what they are, as contrary to what I've presented as Biblical truth. Lord have mercy on us. Fortunately, what you say is not reflected in Pastors I personally know.


Quote:
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.What are you as an Apostolic trying to say? The Word is applicable to all generations in every culture. Your statement indicates you think otherwise.


Quote:
I don't read Jude to say to leavethe church, 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? God gives instructions to share his Word whether it is received by others or not. Many OT prophets beat their heads against the wall in preaching and had no success doing so. This didn't stop their obedience. 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.Dom may make an assumption to give you the impression that I am a trouble maker who sneaks around behind the Pastor's back, teaching against the Pastor. Dom may also suggest that I don't intelligently approach, if I approach a Pastor. We'll let Dom keep making untrue assumptions. He's well practiced in this method. I'll not let Dom know if his assumption is true or not.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.Dom again demonstrates lack of discernment with this incorrect interpretation of the Word. Jesus here spoke of Apostolics approaching unbelievers, and thus, this does not apply to a situation when Apostolics approach Apostolics, because they are both believers.


Quote:
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. From the git-go I've brought up Paul. What are you smoking, fogging your mind, which tells us you think that I just now brought up Paul? You made this response after a long tiring day, didn't you Dom? Rather this: Paul wrote Ro14 and would himself have followed what he teaches. Pastor Doe is not a Paul and does not follow what Paul's teaches in Ro14. And you have yet also to demonstrate how B. Smith characterizes a Judaizer, which is spiting your claim they are. Just your saying something, Dom, does not mean it is an actual fact, unless your thinking isn't clear. Have you not yet learned this? 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.God's Word is not a dead horse, but is alive and powerful. Do you not see how strong a reaction it has caused in your kicking against it, when I share it? 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! Rather, it should be asked: 'why hasn't properly-interpreted-Ro14 been received by those who say they love God's Word?' No one is responsible for another's lack of perception.


Quote:
Dom had said 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. I replied#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?How's my jousting with those of AFF, you ask? No, you do not ask this, when it should be asked. You instead prefer to refer to something which may or may not exist. I'd wish you'd come back to reality, here in AFF.


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

Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1 View Post
why have you Dom 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. I have chosen to contend for the Kingdom Paul refers to in Ro14. All who would desire to follow me would be directed by me to the only One worthy.

[COLOR="black"]Quote:
This thread deleted
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.

Quote:
Dom also says: deleted
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.

Quote:
But I understand you feel deleted.... I call'em like I see'em. You just hand me the material. I already explained my thoughts on Romans. Readers, I'll remind you what I said in post 21, which I now quote "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." I made this prediction in post 21, writing it before reading his post 20. Unlike you, I made my thoughts short and sweet. If you didn't catch them that's not my problem. Go look.

Quote:
Change your ways and show my thoughts wrong, without name calling.
Change your ways, your gonna need it.Those who walk in the Word need never feel ashamed. You should be ashamed for reasons written above, when providing counsel against scripture, along with wrong applications of scripture. But it is not yet too late for you. Turning to God with sincerity can bring about restoration.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Bowas

.

Bowas has said: How about not trying to bring back a topic that got stopped, under the guise of another topic? Why this reading between the lines with so much suspicion? Had I taken efforts to surreptitiously start another thread you might have a case for using the word guise. I've been open and upfront. There might be a lesson in this somewhere.

This thread's first post contains two topics. These are not necessarily related. They are separate topics. One is: giving proper regard to those who hold opposing opinions; shown in Ro14. The other is: head coverings; 1Co11. The focus for me as the originator of this thread is Ro14. Do you have enough trust in me to believe so? What is the source of this distrust if not so?

I wish you didn't think that this is an attempt to re-open/continue the closed thread. Do I wish the other thread had remained open? Yes. But this thread is written to show that Ro14 is ignored by some Apostolics, when God gave it to be practiced. Correct interpretation and application of it are as necessary as with any other scripture. I am personally aware of church issues caused by its lack of application, needlessly happening when Ro14 is there to be heeded. The head covering topic was only coincidently the topic which, to me, brought Ro14 to the open. I want to share what I learnt.

Errors or neglect in the first topic, Ro14, may lead to wrongs in any other second. Whether or not any second wrong may happen in Apostolic practices, may be dependent on the right understanding of the first. Hence, the reason I write. I'd rather see the due regard given to Ro14, which prevents the error which may occur in any second.

Ro14; 15.1-7 is a long portion of scripture on one topic, but seemingly does not get much attention. Paul thinks it is an important grassroots issue by spending so many words on it. When is the last time you've heard it preached, or referenced it yourself? Regard to Ro14 is applicable in many areas, certainly not just head coverings. Ro14 shows 2 such topics, but does not limit the number of them to just 2.

Had due regard been given to Ro14, the animus shown in some posts in the "1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame" thread might not have happened. Their animus highlights the need to highlight Ro14. This thread's topic is relevant here in AFF and in any church/Christian's life.

Your rejection of the possibility of discussion on Ro14 in a new thread, might leave some with an impression that you would prefer if errors of both topics should remain in the practices of Apostolics. Is that what you want others to believe of you? Of course not. What steps will you take to correct this impression?

[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?

[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?