Discrepancy in Church Practice

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Sorry about that. It won't happen again.

Show me anywhere in the Bible Old or New Testaments where anyone celebrated the Roman Catholic Holy Day of Xmas? Or is that also part of your "Weak Conscience" ruled religion? Where nothing is concrete and the ecclesiastical chips fall where they may. Where everyone is ok to do what they feel is right in their own heart? Proverbs 21:2, Judges 17:6.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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

Posting with you in your threads? Now, ask yourself this question, why in the name of logic would he be willing to answer any of your posts? You have proven to him beyond the shadow of doubt that you are not willing to hold a discussion where your views are being challenged. You only dodge and frustrate. I'll tell you right now, that if your horse and pony show here is any indication of what you will be presenting your pastor and his elders? You will be placed on the ecclesiastical pay no mind list.

Isn't there any church family around your location who believes as you do?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Would you examine a discrepancy of church practice with me?

Why certainly.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

All my Christian life I have been encouraged to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered.

The writer of Jude, initially wanted to speak about their shared salvation but felt compelled to urge believers to "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints," meaning they must actively defend the core Christian beliefs against false teachings and corruption that were emerging, a call to stand firm in the foundational gospel passed down through generations. The attacks where coming from outside of the congregation, from doctrines of Antinomianism. Which individuals were coming into the congregation who were claiming authority from their dreams. Teaching that it was fine and dandy to live immoral lives, defy ministerial authority, and mock the supernatural. Jude wasn't making a case for a church member to run their nonsense up the flag pole and have the ministry salute it. taking the verse "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." Then use it as license to disrupt every testimony service, cell group, or dinner on the grounds is not remotely what the writer of Jude had in mind. You want to discuss your thoughts with the pastor, and elders fine. That my boy isn't "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."
What you are doing in this forum isn't "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints." As you point out regularly I have no power over you, and you have none over me. We are just spit and whittling, throwing thoughts out there, peppered with ecclesiastical sarcasms. If you are discussing your "teachings" with the pastor, you are contending for your personal belief which popped in your head over the time you have been occupying a pew. Like I said before, you can't convince the few people left posting on this forum. I can't even fathom how you are going to convince a pastor. If he is some ecclesiastical despot? Then honey child, I suggest you put on your toque, and head out to the cold.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

The UPC Org licences preachers who are not in agreement with the majority-held head-covering doctrine; for, they license those who hold the veil-cover. (Presumably, the Org has not seen it possible to determine just one Biblical head-covering doctrine. Or, is the Org showing an accommodation for some by the acceptance of false doctrine? Can there be two correct Biblical head covering doctrines? No. Yet two are accepted. If two are accepted, then could not three or more also be?)

This acceptance happens on an Organizational level.

Like I've said in a few posts. This is totally up to the districts elders and the district supe. Maybe you should contact the district superintendent in your district and have a crack at him. Bring him some nice warm Poutine, abd float your ideas past him. This way you have a bit of food in your stomach before he kicks you out the door.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

What may/does happen, on the saint's-level in churches, is a rejection from Word-serving positions of those not having the same head-covering doctrine as their Pastor, because of failure to agree.

All I can say is OH WELL. Time to move on my boy. Word-serving positions? It's like this, that guy behind the pulpit, with, or without a church board, has the final word. An individual wanting a word-serving position within another preacher's church family? Best get in line with that preacher. Hey, you might give him a pile of your posts and he could eat it up like it was the bread of life. Lift you up on his shoulders and make you the pastor. Who knows, (I don't believe it) but who knows? Crazier things have happened in Pentecost.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Example: Bro. John Doe believes in the veil covering. He becomes licensed as a preacher. Into his church comes J. Smith, who believes neither in a veil or uncut hair cover; yet has another scriptural stance on 1Co11. J. Smith is refused any Word-serving positions because of lack of agreement with Pastor Doe. Thus, Pastor Doe has been accepted by the Org while not holding what the majority holds, yet Pastor Doe rejects J. Smith, who, like he, also does not hold the majority view.

Do you not see the use of a double standard?

Don, you are shoveling sand against an ecclesiastical tide. You want a word-serving position? Go forth and find your very own congregation. Stop fishing in another man's fish bowl. Be a fisher of men (that's in the Bible) and go get a group. They will all sit around you like little birds with open gaping mouths ready and waiting for your hidden manna. Problem solved. You can thank me in the future.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

No doubt you've heard it said that Pastors must preach their convictions. But should personal convictions be applied in practice as if they are the Word of God? No? One end result might be dogmatic unscriptural rules applied, as with Hutterites.

Don, that guy, in that pulpit, is going to preach whatever pops in his head. That's his church family, they have all voted with their feet. they are there because they like what they hear. They will like you to be there as well, if you don't rock the boat. You see you honestly believe in the stuff your slinging. You believe it's directly from the throne room of God. But, not everyone is going to see it the same way you do. Again, the pastor is going to teach and preach whatever he pleases. There is a big door on the front of the church. You don't like what the guy is teaching, and he won't share the pulpit with you? You can't get him to see that you are chosen vessel of the Apostolic message? Then either sit down and enjoy the good fellowship of the nice people, or pack your bags.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Why is what is practised at Org levels, acceptance of two head covering doctrines, not also uniformly practised at local church levels by Pastors? The ways of the Org have not been learnt/copied. What is good by the mother goose is not seen good by the gosling.

If J. Smith is rejected, then what happened to 'use the right judgment', or, 'don't have respect of persons'?

Respect of persons? If you were a member in any one of the 40,000 denominations in this country, would you expect them to open the pulpit to you? One more thing, we have no idea what exactly went down with J. Smith and John Doe. Hypotheticals rarely give us a bird's eye view. Because real life there are multiple sides to figure out. Respect of persons? Right judgement? We as the readers are only getting your side. We don't have your pastor here to tell us what a treat it is to have you in his church family.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

The end-result is, a Pastor is seemingly seen having the ability to determine one clear doctrine, which the Org has not seen the Word providing. The Pastor in a sense usurps the role/authority of the Org. Or: what can not be determined as only-one-head-covering-doctrine on an Organizational level, is seen as able to be determined in a local church, contradictorily.

Does anyone else see something askew? Is the reasoning used faulty?

While it may be that some Pastors would not ever reject J. Smith from Word-serving positions, this acceptance-method is not universally practiced or taught.

I have already covered this in this post. You need to get over this, and move on.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

The practice which rejects J. 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

Well, you got your work cut out for you. I believe I beat this horse.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

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.

The whole point of this thread is to point out that in some churches the Pastor may rule on some topics, contrary to the teaching of Ro14. This counter-to-scriptural practice should be stopped in all ministers, and especially so when their Apostolic Org has already demonstrated it practices Ro14 (as per its acceptance of multiple head covering views).

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Dom asks: Why doesn't B. Smith go to the District Superintendent? Good question. Why the necessity of bothering the Org's already busy Supt when the Org he represents has already shown acceptance of multiple head covering doctrines? Why is it that those who are parts of this Org are not aware of the practice of their Org and do not follow its example? Had proper emphasis of Ro14 been shown in the Org then this visit to the Supt would not have been necessary. Pastor Doe should be/is already aware of this, but ignores it and gets away with it because the Org lets him, either wittingly or unwittingly, spiting the many verses of Ro14;15.1-7 given expressly by the Lord for situations just like this. And Dom puts on his 'Defender' hat and argues against its proper practice. If the rationale which gains Pastor Doe's acceptance in the Org is not accepted by an esteemed member of AFF, YOU, then what hope does a saint, B. Smith, have when they go to the Org (which will usually back the Pastor when it is Pastor vs saint in a topic without acknowledged guidelines) when it has no acknowledged rule which says it must. Instead, Ro14 may be ignored.

Also, where would B. Smith go if their Pastor is the Supt, who rules just like Pastor Doe? Supts are well known to be Pastor-Supts. Where to go, Dom, in the absence of the acknowledgment all should have of Ro14? If Supt Doe has wrongly determined in his heart that any opposition to his view of Ro14/'his personal head-covering view' is an attack of Satan against the Org, where will B. Smith go for the scriptural-wrong done to them when they are rejected? The unscriptural harm done to them also causes harm to the Body which they are part of it. Had Ro14 been previously acknowledged, then nought of this would have happened. Zeal for protection of the church from attacks of Satan are good but misguided when contrary to Ro14. You, Dom, would not be rewarded in Heaven for wrongly opposing the correct interpretation of Ro14, would you? Yet, apparently you wish to loose this reward.

Does B. Smith want to get licensed by the UPCI? Does Ro14 only apply when they do?

Is Pastor John Doe's church family the only game in town? What in your 'discernment system' motivates YOU asking another irrelevant question? Does Ro14 only apply if there are many churches in town? No. Would B. Smith's going to another church then suddenly solve a problem which may be practiced in many churches by multiple ministers? No. If this were only an Org issue and not a Word issue, then the Org/Man may have the answer. The Word has the answers for this Word problem: compliance by all to Ro14.


Seems like a lot of sour grapes,(I think you may speak from personal experience. Have you moved on in spirit, from a circumstance causing you sour grapes? Hypothetically, had something in your past been treated in light of Ro14, then it may have had results different than it did. Is this the reason why you many times in this thread keep referring back to the Org?, in posts 17, 20, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29) no real solution Says who? This has not been said by someone who wants to contend for the faith once delivered ("I don't visit anyone's church to contend for the faith once delivered unto the Saints." Post 20.) YOU reach your objective (no real solution), Dom, when you don't have an objective to reach. YOU don't want a solution. but no real solution other than B. Smith wanting contend for the faith with people who want to show him the door. Who has greater authority for a solution in this matter? Pastor Doe, the Supt, or Ro14? Ro14 has the authority and it shows that B. Smith should be accepted; not judged, nor rejected; with many other words used to show him as OK while holding some doctrines contrary to Pastor Doe. Ro14/the Bible does not give any Pastor authority to reject anyone, as a solution, unless on matters clearly outlined an undeniably scriptural/only one conclusion. Paul's teaching in Ro14 is only about doctrines which are not able to clearly show only one correct conclusion.

The real solution is to follow what Ro14 teaches: acceptance of all who hold contrary doctrine (on topics which are not shown as 'one' doctrines. See below about 'one'.)

Eph4.3-6 shows doctrines which are 'one'. When you have only one of anything before you, it denies the possibility of another to compare with or choose from. When given a 'one' doctrine by God/the Apostles there is no possibility of another to hold. 'One' doctrines must be accepted to be a NT follower of Jesus. Eph4 shows their acceptance of 'multiple views of the same topic' when Paul says to them "Till we all come in the unity of the faith". Paul must think they were not yet united on every view of every topic, necessitating Paul to say this, to encourage them to maintain unity on 'one' topics.

When given the left boot of disfellowship because of lack of agreement on minor topics, it creates resentment which, if not resisted, may lead to rejection of major doctrines, to spite the group which booted you. Elevation of minor views to places as major views helps create this disunity. The opposite goal, disunity, is achieved when attempting to maintain unity through enforcement of compliance to minor unproveable views. Why do you want to be in that group, Dom? You are better than that. You are a man of God. Why not join with Paul in defending the principles of Ro14?

Heb6 gives a list of elementary principles of Christ. These are the foundational 'one' doctrines of the NT. Not having these means you don't have the faith of the NT.

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

.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

The whole point of this thread is to point out that in some churches the Pastor may rule on some topics, contrary to the teaching of Ro14.

News flash, the pastor may rule on anything and everything contrary to the Bible. Still, you have three roads you can go down if you are a member of his group. Shut up, sit down, and enjoy the fellowship with the nice people. Go to the pastor and expound the word more perfectly. Or pack up your bags and exit stage left. You already told us why you started this thread. You are at a church, the pastor doesn't believe like you, and you want to get in his pulpit and straighten everyone out.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

This counter-to-scriptural practice should be stopped in all ministers, and especially so when their Apostolic Org has already demonstrated it practices Ro14 (as per its acceptance of multiple head covering views).

In this case the district is cool with whatever the preacher believes concerning head coverings. You don't like it? Oh well.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Good question. Why the necessity of bothering the Org's already busy Supt when the Org he represents has already shown acceptance of multiple head covering doctrines? Why is it that those who are parts of this Org are not aware of the practice of their Org and do not follow its example? Had proper emphasis of Ro14 been shown in the Org then this visit to the Supt would not have been necessary. Pastor Doe should be/is already aware of this, but ignores it and gets away with it because the Org lets him, either wittingly or unwittingly, spiting the many verses of Ro14;15.1-7 given expressly by the Lord for situations just like this. And Dom puts on his 'Defender' hat and argues against its proper practice. If the rationale which gains Pastor Doe's acceptance in the Org is not accepted by an esteemed member of AFF, YOU, then what hope does a saint, B. Smith, have when they go to the Org (which will usually back the Pastor when it is Pastor vs saint in a topic without acknowledged guidelines) when it has no acknowledged rule which says it must. Instead, Ro14 may be ignored.

I guess you are out of luck. From reading the above you have already convinced yourself that no one what's to deal with your thoughts and feelings. I think you already went a few rounds with Pastor Doe? You didn't do so well? So, what are your plans now?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Also, where would B. Smith go if their Pastor is the Supt, who rules just like Pastor Doe?

What are you chained to the pew? OK, how long has B. Smith been going to Pastor Doe's congregation?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Supts are well known to be Pastor-Supts. Where to go, Dom, in the absence of the acknowledgment all should have of Ro14? If Supt Doe has wrongly determined in his heart that any opposition to his view of Ro14/'his personal head-covering view' is an attack of Satan against the Org, where will B. Smith go for the scriptural-wrong done to them when they are rejected?

A more welcoming atmosphere where B. Smith can share his enlightening views of the book of Romans? I've just gotten a taste of you through this forum. I can just imagine why they think you are an attack of Satan against the Organization. But, Don, just consider for a moment why they aren't embracing your critique? Can you even think why they aren't ready to make you the bishop? Just put yourself in their shoes for a moment?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

The unscriptural harm done to them also causes harm to the Body which they are part of it.

Don, it's just a local congregation. How many people are part of this church?
The world isn't coming to an end. Like I posted before, we really don't have a bird's eye view of the entire situation. If the shoe was on the other foot, I most certainly believe you would drag Pastor Doe around the parking lot until the meat fell off his bones. All because he vehemently disagreed with you. Put yourself in his shoes, what so hard about that? How long has he been the pastor of this congregation? How long have you been a member of this church family?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Had Ro14 been previously acknowledged, then nought of this would have happened. Zeal for protection of the church from attacks of Satan are good but misguided when contrary to Ro14. You, Dom, would not be rewarded in Heaven for wrongly opposing the correct interpretation of Ro14, would you? Yet, apparently you wish to loose this reward.

Oh, here we go, Dominic is going hell because he doesn't believe in Brother XY and Z. Whatever, so, Don, you believe you have the correct interpretation. Therefore you should be allowed to be used in a word-serving position. You ran this by the pastor, and it looks from where I'm sitting (which is pretty one dimensional) that the pastor gave it the thumbs down. Game over. Are you currently being used as preaching material from the pulpit? Still, I don't know how long the preacher has been over the church, and how long you have been with the preacher. I don't know if he placed you on the ecclesiastical pay no mind list. Which means you are currently being ignored. Or you really aren't dealing with this issue with the pastor, and are just hashing it out with us? All two of us?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Does B. Smith want to get licensed by the UPCI? Does Ro14 only apply when they do?

I just asked a question?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Is Pastor John Doe's church family the only game in town? What in your 'discernment system' motivates YOU asking another irrelevant question? Does Ro14 only apply if there are many churches in town? No. Would B. Smith's going to another church then suddenly solve a problem which may be practiced in many churches by multiple ministers? No. If this were only an Org issue and not a Word issue, then the Org/Man may have the answer. The Word has the answers for this Word problem: compliance by all to Ro14.

Don, moving on at this point may be best. Unless you want to stick around until you are asked to leave? But, Romans 14 is the least of the pastor's problem with a guy like you on the pew.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Seems like a lot of sour grapes,(I think you may speak from personal experience. Have you moved on in spirit, from a circumstance causing you sour grapes? Hypothetically, had something in your past been treated in light of Ro14, then it may have had results different than it did. Is this the reason why you many times in this thread keep referring back to the Org?, in posts 17, 20, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29) no real solution Says who? This has not been said by someone who wants to contend for the faith once delivered ("I don't visit anyone's church to contend for the faith once delivered unto the Saints." Post 20.) YOU reach your objective (no real solution), Dom, when you don't have an objective to reach. YOU don't want a solution. but no real solution other than B. Smith wanting contend for the faith with people who want to show him the door. Who has greater authority for a solution in this matter? Pastor Doe, the Supt, or Ro14? Ro14 has the authority and it shows that B. Smith should be accepted; not judged, nor rejected; with many other words used to show him as OK while holding some doctrines contrary to Pastor Doe. Ro14/the Bible does not give any Pastor authority to reject anyone, as a solution, unless on matters clearly outlined an undeniably scriptural/only one conclusion. Paul's teaching in Ro14 is only about doctrines which are not able to clearly show only one correct conclusion.

Yep, Romans 14 is the least of this pastor's problems. Don, you are rough and tough and hard to diaper. You can spout scripture until you peel the paint off the walls of the church's foyer. There is no way a pastor is going to take you serious. If you act half of how you post here, you would get the left foot of fellowship. But, since you may still be in this congregation, can only indicate this Pastor Doe is agape love PERSONIFIED when comes to dealing with you.

GOOD GOD IN ZION!

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

The real solution is to follow what Ro14 teaches: acceptance of all who hold contrary doctrine (on topics which are not shown as 'one' doctrines. See below about 'one'.)

Whoa there boy, I beg to differ. The real solution is the pastor turns over the keys to the pulpit to you. I don't care how many threads you start, you have convinced me. This pastor is the one who needs to sit down and wash your feet with his tears. Because you are probably the only man in a 100 mile radius who knows what is going on in the Spirit.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Eph4.3-6 shows doctrines which are 'one'. When you have only one of anything before you, it denies the possibility of another to compare with or choose from. When given a 'one' doctrine by God/the Apostles there is no possibility of another to hold. 'One' doctrines must be accepted to be a NT follower of Jesus. Eph4 shows their acceptance of 'multiple views of the same topic' when Paul says to them "Till we all come in the unity of the faith". Paul must think they were not yet united on every view of every topic, necessitating Paul to say this, to encourage them to maintain unity on 'one' topics.

You told the pastor all this stuff? He still didn't fall down speaking in tongues and pay you 20 years of back tithe? Don, how long have you been with Pastor Doe? How long has he had to deal with you? Cut the guy some slack. Until we all come to the unity of what Don believes, is more likely the real interpretation in your mind. Good God in Zion!

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

When given the left boot of disfellowship because of lack of agreement on minor topics, it creates resentment which, if not resisted, may lead to rejection of major doctrines, to spite the group which booted you. Elevation of minor views to places as major views helps create this disunity. The opposite goal, disunity, is achieved when attempting to maintain unity through enforcement of compliance to minor unproveable views. Why do you want to be in that group, Dom? You are better than that. You are a man of God. Why not join with Paul in defending the principles of Ro14?

Don, so you told the pastor you are the weaker brethren? Then after you informed him of this revelation you expected him to put you in a word-serving position? You still in this congregation? Boy, Pastor Doe must be a sweetie pie!

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Heb6 gives a list of elementary principles of Christ. These are the foundational 'one' doctrines of the NT. Not having these means you don't have the faith of the NT.

Don, Pastor Doe, should get a reward.

[votivesoul]

Don, I am not seeing the principle in Romans 14--or Jude 1:3 for that matter--you claim is there.

Jude's sentiment is regarding "THE FAITH". As far as he was concerned, Biblical Christianity was being endangered. His writing shows people's salvation was at stake.

Are you making the claim, that because local congregations and orgs don't always give certain members the ability to preach and teach due to the differing views these members hold which aren't in line with either, that Biblical Christianity Itself is in danger? That people's salvation is at stake?

[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 Evang.Benincasa

Discussions for another topic should be asked in a new thread, unless directly related to Ro14.

Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1 View Post
Have you any news of Esaias? I haven't seen a post from him in a while.

You may wish it to be true that I do not want to engage in a discussion with Esaias. But any reading the posts/threads know this is not true. Nice try, to again discredit me. But why do you think you must voice an opinion for Esaias, when he is well able to answer for himself?

Well, Dom, that I have discussions with you shows what about me? It shows I'm willing to discuss and would do so with almost anyone.

You only dodge and frustrate. I'll tell you right now, that if your horse and pony show here is any indication of what you will be presenting your pastor and his elders? You will be placed on the ecclesiastical pay no mind list.

It must be frustrating to have Bible discussion with someone who proves your point are invalid, right? Is that I prove your points wrong or that you usually are not able to prove my points wrong the reason for your frustration? I think it is so.

Its frustrating for me to have a Bible discussion with you when all you want to do is reference my church, my District Board, my Pastor. Get over whatever it is that bugs you about Organizations. Focus on the topic of this thread.

ps: I asked about Esaias as concerned about what appears to be an unusual silence. Get your suspicious mind to think differently.

Why do you ask?

.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Dom again, does not aim at disproving my Ro14 conclusions.

Don, I already disproved your idea of what Romans 14 is saying. You believe YOU are weaker brother, because you hold the 3rd view of head-coverings, outside of Pastor Doe's view, and the UPCI view. So, Pastor Doe is a strong brother? You are the weaker brother? But Pastor Doe is supposed to hand over the pulpit to you? Sorry, but in the real world that's not happening. In your world of make believe you see yourself as an ecclesiastical Gandalf, and every other minister as a Hobbit. Romans 14 is speaking of elder brethren not arguing about differences with NEW CONVERTS. To allow the NEW CONVERTS to grow, and not be discouraged. This doesn't fit your case. Sorry, but no matter how many long and lengthy posts to bang out you are still wrong.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Dom below, mostly avoids commenting on the main reason for this thread.

Oh, but I have, you just didn't like my answer. But that's just too bad. Deal with it.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Perhaps Dom is calling me a trouble maker, making this to be in line with his opening tone.

Don, at this point I don't even believe you are currently in a church. You are your own worst enemy. But, as I posted before, if we have something to say that is a proper way to be heard. If the leadership of the congregation doesn't want to hear it, then you are kicking a dead horse. So, to keep trying to instigate a parley when the leadership refuses to deal with you doesn't help further your case. You are actually becoming a nuisance, also known as a troublemaker. Therefore being a pain in someone's side isn't winning any friends, and inevitably destroying any chance of being heard. But, obviously you don't care. Because you are ecclesiastically delusional. So, even if Paul preached and David played his harp you still want to have the preeminence.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

And what of those who earnestly contend for the faith? Are they trouble makers by your definition, Dom?

What of those who earnestly contend for the faith? Jude was dealing with an attack from outside the Body of Christ. Individuals coming into the congregation trying to teach Antinomianism! But I already posted all that! But you are too blinded by your religious self importance, to even addressed what I posted already. If we are to apply you to the writer of Jude, you would be labeled as the one the saints are to contend against.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Or instead, are they trying to be obedient to the Word?

Either you are a raving mad, or just trolling the forum. Have you ever been leadership in a congregation? Would you allow someone to claim that they were being obedient to the Word, if you knew beyond a shadow of doubt that they were scripturally incorrect? Take for instance if a brother believed, and taught that Mary the mother of Jesus was a "Co-Redemptrix" concerning soteriology? Would you allow it to propagate through your church family? Saying that the brother was covered by Romans 14? Would you classify him as contending for the faith? Being obedient to the Word? I'm going back to my original thoughts concerning you. You are all alone buddy, you and Pastor Doe parted ways long long ago.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

Are you describing yourself Don? Don, the above is you. In your heart you are the gatekeeper. You are totally convinced that you are the head of the body. So, if you show up in a congregation right away the first thing you see isn't all the nice people ready to welcome you. You see everything YOU need to correct. The elders and the pastor no matter how long they've been chopping wood in that church, have been doing it wrong. Yet, they may be wrong, but you know what Don? You're not the one who can correct them. Because you aren't a good listener. How many times have I posted an answer to your questions concerning Romans and Jude? Therefore you and the preacher both have been doing it wrong, yet you will accomplish absolutely zero. Then inevitably they will give you the left boot of fellowship right in your back pockets out the door. Why? Because they were there first. That's their building, their platform, their pews, and their pulpit. Ground control to Major Tom? You will be contending for the faith far far away from that church family. You can only blame yourself.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

What does Dom have as a definition of trouble maker? Do you Dom describe Jude as one instigating trouble?

Don, you aren't Jude.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

What kind of attitude are you propagating here, when saying 'Pastor Doe does not need B Smith.' ? This attitude sucks, Dom.

No, the attitude is proper. Because it wasn't Pastor Doe who bounced B. Smith out on his head. It was B. Smith. He was the one who came out of left field, wanting to have a word-serving position. The Bible states in Proverbs 18:16 your gift will make room for you. Therefore if you have the message everyone will know. My boy, you certainly don't have the message. Not by a long shot. Therefore Pastor Doe, and the elders don't have to leave the rest of the flock to babysit some self aggrandizing individual, who sees what he believes as the most important.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

The message I hear from most pulpits is that everyone in the church is invaluable.

Then maybe you shouldn't of left those pulpits? All saints are precious in God's sight. Sadly, not everyone is a saint. Some are satans. Individuals who have no patience, who see themselves as God's gift to the Church, and that everyone should be listening to them. When they sit in the pew, their only thought is that if they were in the pulpit then the sheep would really be fed.
Jesus has His own timing but the big mistake is that some individuals couldn't care less what the Holy Ghost wants to do.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Dom, you are in effect cutting Ro14 out of the Bible.

You see pal, here is your big problem. You accuse me of disregarding the Bible? This is what you probably had done with Pastor John Doe. Yet, we aren't disregarding the Bible. I'm not, I already posted what Romans 14 meant. I believe I even repeated myself. I'm not cutting out anything but what you think Romans and Jude applies to. That's what you can't get through your thick head. But, that is something you may never ever remedy.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

Oh, so you were tossed out on your back pockets. OK. You are free, and he is free. A win win. But, sadly you haven't gotten over it. Defending the conclusion as Don sees the verses? That's your problem buddy, it's all about how you see it. You and Pastor John Doe must've had some hair pulling contest. A typical gladiator Bible study, filled with interruptions galore! But, you can't see where you missed it? Don, my only experience with you is here, your only experience with me is here. My personal opinion is that the congregation wasn't big enough for both of you hombres to be behind the pulpit. You couldn't get the guy to see your vision of you being in a word-serving position. Again, this issue wasn't about Romans 14. No way, absolutely no way. It was about you.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Where is your Apostolic love for Biblical Truth?

Don, don't flatter yourself. I hardly see you as Apostolic, let alone believe you love Biblical Truth. You just love Don, and what comes out of Don. Let's leave it at that.


I'm getting bored dealing with your lengthy posts. So, I'll leave it here. Maybe I'll come back and finish the rest of your post. But, since I started this discussion with you I find you as well as myself repeating the same things. Which from reading everything you have ever posted, that is what you do. Don, you have no friends, you have no fellowship, for that I'm truly sorry. I'll pray for you. I hope you snap out of it. I really do. We are absolutely nothing and when we are dead people will forget we even existed. Jesus Christ is the only one we need to be focused on. Not a word-serving position, a pulpit, a platform, or a building. Whatever happened to you wasn't the pastor's fault, wasn't the organization's fault. It is only us, we do it to ourselves. I can't blame the butcher, the baker, or the candlestick maker. If you are in a congregation it is what it is, someone else started it, someone else is paying the light bills, and someone else is holding the keys to the front office. If you get an epiphany then hope to Jesus it's in the book. But even if it is in the book, everyone else just might not believe it. Lot's of good men have lost out beating their head against a wall, trying to get everyone on board with their revelation.

I'll end with this, the Jesus name movement was started by men who saw Jesus name baptism in the Bible. Not everyone wanted to believe it, most Trinitarian pastors tossed the Jesus name ministers out of their churches.
They didn't go wee wee wee all the way home. They got to work, and they didn't look back.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I'll end with this, the Jesus name movement was started by men who saw Jesus name baptism in the Bible. Not everyone wanted to believe it, most Trinitarian pastors tossed the Jesus name ministers out of their churches.
They didn't go wee wee wee all the way home. They got to work, and they didn't look back.