Discrepancy in Church Practice

[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.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

Yes, he is still discussing the issues the early church was dealing within the Roman Judean culture. Sabbaths, and Animal sacrifices performed by Hellenized Judeans.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

-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.

Paul is dealing with individuals who are strong mature brethren, and weak immature brethren. He is trying to stop the strong one from ramming doctrine down the thoughts of the weak ones. This is apparent from Paul's letters to the churches. Not history, but we can see through Paul's discussions this is what he is getting at.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

-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.

He doesn't have to, he does that in other letters. Paul already discussed with the Corinthians how he felt about meat offered to idols 1 Corinthians 10:19-22. Paul taught that you couldn't share the table of God with Demons. The act of sacrificing to these "gods" is actually an act of worship directed toward demons. Eating meat from these sacrifices, especially in the context of the idol's temple, creates a spiritual participation or "communion" with demons.
Therefore the brethren cannot partake in both the Lord's Supper and demonic feasts. Logically Paul had taught this in all his churches and therefore the Roman Judeans would've understood this all too well. Yet, Paul is trying to get the Strong Brothers to stop punching down on the weak brothers. I will note here that if you are saying you are a weak brother, and that the pastor and the elders of your church are strong brothers which should just hand the pulpit over to you? Then you are mistaken. No one is going to hand you the pulpit. From what I gathered from your shenanigans here, I wouldn't let you hold open the front door for MeMaw, and PePaw.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Don, you don’t stand an ice cube’s chance against your pastor and the church elders. You see Paul as being you. You have taken the Apostle and are attempting to build a structure around him according to your own understanding of your religion. Which is a hodgepodge of different forms of your own ecclesiastical thoughts. Let’s examine what the writer of Romans means when he uses the Greek word σθένος means to be without strength, also unhealthy. But, Paul isn’t calling these new converts unhealthy as sickly. He is calling them immature. They are novices. Which isn’t a fault of their own, but they need to be yoked up with Christ. Instead of a self-aggrandizing individual who wants to argue them into his own beliefs.

Romans 14:1-3 Accept him whose faith is weak, without passing judgment on his opinions. One man's faith allows him to eat everything, but another man, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not belittle the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted him.

Paul is dealing with ministers, elders, and saints who are wanting to fast track these immature novices to their level. In Corinth Paul deals with the same issue.

Corinthians 8:9-13 Be careful, however, that your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if someone with a weak conscience sees you, who have this knowledge, eating in an idol’s temple, will he not be emboldened to eat what is sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. By sinning against your brothers in this way and wounding their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to stumble, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.

This also brings the parable of the sower into consideration. Paul is telling his brethren to check themselves that even through their behavior around the shambles that an immature saint could be lead astray. No one wants to be a weed, or a fowl of the air chocking the young plant, or devouring precious seed. The Apostle Peter was called on the carpet by Paul, because he was allowing his liberty to become hypocrisy.

Paul rebuked Peter publicly at Antioch (Galatians 2:11-14) because Peter stopped eating with Roman Judeans out of fear of Judean believers from Jerusalem, therefore undermining the truth that salvation comes by faith in Christ, not by just merely from “touch not, taste not” theology. Thereby creating a divisive and false impression that Romans, and Hellenized Judeans must become circumcised for full acceptance. Paul saw this as contradicting Christ's grace, which unites Judeans and Romans into one Nation of God, and leading others, including Barnabas, astray.

Whether or not the church you are currently attending accepts your mind, doesn’t mean they ever will. Peter learned and accepted Paul’s rebuke. As Peter agrees in his letter 2 Peter 3:14-18, And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

Peter was a strong brother with full revelation. Yet, understood Paul (who was a newer elder) when Paul took Peter to the woodshed. Weaker brothers aren’t supposed to remain weaker for all their time in the church. They are dealt with on a case to case basis. Yet, believing that all organizations, pastors, preachers, the butcher, the baker, and the candlestick maker has to hand the pulpit to every thought and feeling just isn’t logical. You are in a church not “the Church” but a church, (I hope you understand) It is made up of people for the most part are cool with what they are being taught. Hey, you might have some folks who are open to your ideas. But, if you were to lead them off to your thoughts and feelings, what would you do with them? Open up a store front? Cram them into your living room? It might work, it might also end horribly wrong. You are supposedly going to hash it out with the preacher? Ok, tell us how that works out for you.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

Actually, Apostolic Organizations, vary from group to group. As do most denominations. Yet, when we are referring to the United Pentecostal Church it is an organization of licensed ministers. Who have full autonomy over their congregations. Hence you may travel across the world going from UPC to UPC congregation and find some minor to major differences. Please keep in mind that the group came together to agree to disagree. A good book to read is "United We Stand" by Arthur L. Clanton.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

Nothing strained at all. Paul starts out with labeling one individual as weak in their faith, and in Corinth they are labeled weak in conscience. Obviously if we follow the totality of Paul's teachings to the first century church he doesn't want everyone to remain weak in faith and conscience. Paul called for spiritual growth. Paul stressed that mature saints must protect the conscience of less-mature believers (the "weak") from stumbling into sin, even if it means temporarily restricting their own freedoms, because the goal is unity and building others up, not religiosity to the point of causing harm. This is the entire point of what is seen in 1 Corinthians 8-10 and Romans 14.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Having said all this, it will be interesting to hear what sort of fanfare you receive from the pastor. After you present to him your teaching. I honestly would like to be present when you deliver your mail. I believe it will be quite the time.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Actually, Apostolic Organizations, vary from group to group. As do most denominations. Yet, when we are referring to the United Pentecostal Church it is an organization of licensed ministers. Who have full autonomy over their congregations. Hence you may travel across the world going from UPC to UPC congregation and find some minor to major differences. Please keep in mind that the group came together to agree to disagree. A good book to read is "United We Stand" by Arthur L. Clanton.

https://pentecostalpublishing.com/pr...9poitUTrFukDpM

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

https://pentecostalpublishing.com/pr...9poitUTrFukDpM

Dom said in this reply: "Actually, Apostolic Organizations, vary from group to group. As do most denominations. Yet, when we are referring to the United Pentecostal Church it is an organization of licensed ministers. Who have full autonomy over their congregations. Hence you may travel across the world going from UPC to UPC congregation and find some minor to major differences. Please keep in mind that the group came together to agree to disagree. A good book to read is "United We Stand" by Arthur L. Clanton."

Thx, Dom. Good info.

This fits quite well with my words, when I had said that the Org has already determined to accept both the ulv and the vv. If they accept two head covering views, then what should prevent the acceptance of a third - the iv?

This may also put forth the thought that they who had put forward this way of acceptance of multiple views, did so as their response to Ro14. Does Clanton say anything about the reason to accept multiple head covering views, or about Ro14?

I contend that the reason that Paul writes Ro14 is to diminish the tendency of human nature to adamantly stand for what they believe, even in small things, causing division. To lessen the potential divisions over small things (which can't be proven with certainty one way or another anyway) Paul says to accept those who strive for small unproveable things, in order to better the unity surrounding the important things (which are able to be seen as approved by all). Acceptance of minor points maintains unity on major points. Acceptance of minor differences makes the Kingdom stronger.

But Dom, while you appear to be hell-bent to smack down anything I have said in the Ro14 thread, here you are putting forward evidence that agrees with my assertions. Did you hit your head on something today, causing dizziness before posting this? What brings forth this unusual agreeableness? Is this a Christmas present from you?

Merry Christmas to you and your family!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Thx, Dom. Good info.

This fits quite well with my words, when I had said that the Org has already determined to accept both the ulv and the vv. If they accept two head covering views, then what should prevent the acceptance of a third - the iv?

A third view? That's what you are going to hash out with the pastor. Not with the entire organization, right? You are B. Smith, and therefore are going to present your thoughts to to Pastor John Doe. It will be up to him, and him alone whether or not you continue in any capacity as a teacher minister in his congregation. Are you holding license with the Canadian UPCI?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

This may also put forth the thought that they who had put forward this way of acceptance of multiple views, did so as their response to Ro14. Does Clanton say anything about the reason to accept multiple head covering views, or about Ro14?

No

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I contend that the reason that Paul writes Ro14 is to diminish the tendency of human nature to adamantly stand for what they believe, even in small things, causing division. To lessen the potential divisions over small things (which can't be proven with certainty one way or another anyway) Paul says to accept those who strive for small unproveable things, in order to better the unity surrounding the important things (which are able to be seen as approved by all). Acceptance of minor points maintains unity on major points. Acceptance of minor differences makes the Kingdom stronger.

Where does Paul explain how the items of "meat used in pagan sacrifice" or sabbaths were unprovable? Paul's primary goal is to maintain unity and prevent division within the church over matters of personal conscience, which mainly deals with spiritually weak brethren. Individuals who were to be tolerated until they went from being weak to becoming strong. Eating food offered to idols wasn't a small matter to Paul. He viewed it as a major problem. As demon worship which couldn't be mingled with the table of Christ. Yet, his issue was how the weaker saints would deal with the problem. By concocting a system to only eat vegetables and abstaining from meat. Paul, never intended that anyone would remain weak, and continue to Holy Vegetrainism.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

But Dom, while you appear to be hell-bent to smack down anything I have said in the Ro14 thread, here you are putting forward evidence that agrees with my assertions. Did you hit your head on something today, causing dizziness before posting this? What brings forth this unusual agreeableness? Is this a Christmas present from you?

Oh, you are agreeing with what I wrote? Ok, so let's see. You believe that Paul felt that meat offered to idols wasn't a good thing. The only reason he deals with the issues in 1 Corinthians 8:9-13, and Romans 14:1-3 was primarily on how to treat brethren who really were immature and haven't reached the fullness and stature of Christ. The stronger brethren were to show love and gentle guidance until the weaker brethren came up to speed. Ok, so how does this help your case in the pastor excepting your views? I asked you this before, are you the "weak brethren?" therefore the pastor is supposed to not make your view an issue and let you climb behind the pulpit?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Merry Christmas to you and your family!

That means nothing to my family or myself. We don't celebrate Xmas.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

?

That means nothing to my family or myself. We don't celebrate Xmas.

Sorry about that. It won't happen again.

Have you any news of Esaias? I haven't seen a post from him in a while.