|
Discrepancy in Church Practice
Would you examine a discrepancy of church practice with me?
All my Christian life I have been encouraged to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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'? 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. 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 |
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
Quote:
Seems to me, that ship has sailed...let it go. |
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
Quote:
|
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
Another thing, if you don't like what an organization believes or how they do their business? Don't be a part of that organization. It's that simple. Don, is all this belly aching because the UPCI kicked you to the curb? Move on buddy. A public forum is no where to lick your wounds. Also in the UPCI they have districts and it is up to the district board, whether they give the pass on what a preacher sees as far as doctrine. You fell under the wheels of a chariot with the Canadian UPCI? All I can say is oh well. Live for God, and don't be obnoxious. Maybe they'll invite you back. :)
|
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
Quote:
|
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
Quote:
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? |
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
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? |
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
Quote:
And he also has said: Another thing, if you don't like what an organization believes or how they do their business? Don't be a part of that organization. It's that simple. Don, is all this belly aching because the UPCI kicked you to the curb? Move on buddy. A public forum is no where to lick your wounds. Also in the UPCI they have districts and it is up to the district board, whether they give the pass on what a preacher sees as far as doctrine. You fell under the wheels of a chariot with the Canadian UPCI? All I can say is oh well. Live for God, and don't be obnoxious. Maybe they'll invite you back. Hi, Dom. Thx for the friendly advice. Are we friends now? You'll no doubt agree that many past words spoken to me by you would make it difficult for me to see them as friendly. But do keep up with this new trend. No one knows where it might lead. Therefore, I see them not as friendly advice but again as posturing as the authority all should want to take heed to. If you are Apostolic, and I am Apostolic, and the UPC or any other Org is Apostolic, it testifies to a scriptural stand. The Apostolic mantra is 'we've got the Truth'. I love Truth. All should love Truth. If I say that I love the Word and my church says the same; and my church family then departs from Truth, the responsibility any Christian has is to make efforts to have it to return. That is what "earnestly contend for the faith once delivered" means. You offer unscriptural advice when you say to move on. Or, have I missed something? Plz convince me otherwise. If you in the past have 'moved on' from a place you should have stayed to fight, then it's not yet too late to return. Perhaps you took the easy road to leave, instead of trying to make things right? Was it related to the topics Ro14 says should have made you acceptable to stay? I suppose you see yourself as the arbiter of acceptable topics for threads in AFF, by saying what you said. That would make you an Admin. I have yet to see your name anywhere as associated with Admins. As such you may be usurping the role and authority of others. You thus show two errors: unscriptural advice and usurping. Why should anyone take heed to your advice when you've demonstrated you do not take your own advice? You referred to lines of authority seen in District Boards but circumvented the authority structure seen in AFF leadership to operate outside of it. The reason some wrongs persist in church practice, leading to some of the fracturing of the Body and countless needless church Orgs seen in the world, is because of the lack of the ability to fight fairly when contending. Proper teaching and acceptance of the teaching of Ro14 would undermine and prevent some of this from occurring. Your positioning yourself in AFF as the authority which should be heeded demonstrates your place outside of the influence of Ro14. You demonstrate that you think your way is the only way. Ro14 teaches against this. Perhaps you more than any other need to spend some time with Ro14 and prayer. Unity would then be better preserved, while your style of doing things leads to people separating themselves. Is your style of posting slurs the reason why AFF is not used as much as it could be? It's been refreshing seeing some of your replies use logic and reason, not ranting with disapproving slurs of others. Plz keep it up. Adding theological arguments along with scripture would also make your posts more appealing to those wanting to get into the depths of the Word. You actually had started to do so in the last posts of "1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame", but we were cut short in its continuance by its closing. Let's get back to the Word and be the Church we are supposed to be, by including the teaching and practice of Ro14. Lets talk about scripture, Ro14. Do you want to move on from "1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame"? Let's do that too. |
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
Don, your posts are exhausting to read. I really really try to follow them but it's impossible. If your preaching is the same then.... whoooooo!
|
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
Quote:
|
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
Quote:
|
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
Quote:
|
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. One person’s faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand.
One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. The Apostle isn't teaching that the church is to be piloted by each one's opinion. The subject matter is a "weak brother" translated as immature convert who isn't at the level of his brethren. One individual is eating nothing but vegetables because of his fear of not wanting to eat meat offered to idols. Days are observed in ritualistic fashion by those "weak" in the faith. Paul, would rather have the stronger brethren tolerate the weaker instead of beating the snot out of them. Until those weaker brothers come to the fullness of truth in time. This by no means sets a precedence for everyone to do what they believe to be right in their own mind. If a pastor, and elders are teaching what they believe to be truth. You have another revelation? You see something they aren't seeing? Then present it to them. If they are open to defend their position, while with an open mind considering your's, then may the Lord bless it. But, if you cannot present your case logically, and Biblically. If you present your case which creates more questions than it answers. Then don't expect anyone to consider any matter you present. Don't get me wrong, I fully understand that there are individuals out and about who lied on their resumé when it comes to being a preacher, pastor, leader of men. Who know only what was "told" to them from over a pulpit. Who when challenged on a one on one in a locked office, couldn't punch their way out of a paper bag concerning theology, or any other ology for that matter. Yet, that isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about brethren who know book, chapter, and verse. But, I don't want to repeat myself. Don, you sound like a guy who had an epiphany, brought it to the front of the class, and everyone threw paper airplanes at you followed by some spit balls. The organization deals with their preachers on a case to case basis. No matter what the teaching may be. Different districts may let a Preterist bring cheesy corn bake to dinner on the grounds. Or an annihilationist, and Sabbatarian. Beards, wedding rings and even trousers on females all singing "I'm a Pentecostal." Hey, I still can't get a real answer from you on what a "right living man" is supposed to be? Don, you had your back pockets chewed off by an organization? Oh well, deal with it. Move on, and try to find what lesson Jesus was trying to teach YOU. No one else, just teach YOU. |
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
I would welcome a completely new topic for discussion.
|
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
Quote:
|
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
Quote:
Examining a Discrepancy Between Organizational Policy and Local Church Practice Throughout my Christian life, I have been encouraged to “contend earnestly for the faith once delivered.” I do so in the following. I would like to examine what appears to be an inconsistency between UPC Organizational practice and the way some local churches apply the same issue—specifically, in the doctrine of the head covering, 1Co11. Local church practices may contradict the principles taught in Ro14. The theme of this thread is the correct pratice of Ro14. 1. Organizational Practice: Acceptance of Multiple Head‑Covering Doctrines At the Organizational level, the UPC licenses ministers who do not all hold the same head‑covering doctrine. For example, the Organization licenses ministers who teach the veil‑covering view, even though this is not the majority position - uncut hair. This raises several questions: - Scripture would teach only one correct view of a doctrine. How can two contradictory views both be accepted? Yet they are. - Two are shown as acceptable. Three or more should then also be acceptable, using the same methods. Whatever the reason, the fact remains: the Organization permits more than one doctrinal stance on head coverings. Apparently the Org may be trying to practice the teaching of Paul seen in Ro14;15.1-7. 2. Local Church Practice: Restriction to a Single Doctrine At the local level, however, the situation may look different. Some Pastors restrict Word‑sharing positions (teaching, preaching, etc.) only to those who agree with their own head‑covering doctrine. Example: Pastor John Doe believes in the veil‑covering doctrine. The UPC licenses him, even though this is not the majority position. B. Smith joins his church. Smith does not hold the veil view, nor the uncut‑hair view, but has another scriptural interpretation of 1Co11. Although the organization accepts Pastor Doe’s minority view, Pastor Doe refuses to allow Smith to serve in any Word‑sharing role because Smith does not agree with his own doctrine. Thus: The Organization accepts Pastor Doe despite doctrinal disagreement. But Pastor Doe does not accept Smith. This appears to be a double standard. It is often said that Pastors must preach their convictions. However, should their personal convictions be forced on others as though they were the Word of God? If so, the result can be the creation of dogmatic rules that Scripture does not clearly mandate— as in Hutterites. 4. Inconsistency If the UPC Organization accepts multiple head‑covering doctrines per Ro14, why is this same openness not practiced uniformly at the local level? The ways of the Org have not been learnt/copied by Pastor Doe. What the mother goose eats is rejected by the gosling. If B. Smith is rejected from ministry roles, what becomes of Biblical principles such as: “Use right judgment”? OR: “Do not show respect of persons.” The end result is that a Pastor claims the ability to determine only one doctrine while the Organization has not done so. Doe rejects the influence of Ro14. This gives the impression that this Pastor is, in practice, usurping or contradicting the Organization which has authorized/commissioned his position as Pastor. Pastor Doe thumbs his nose to the Org who makes him possible. 5. Finally Does anyone else see something inconsistent here? Is the reasoning used sound? While some Pastors may indeed accept people with differing head covering views, their approach is not universally taught or practiced. The practice which rejects B. Smith, causing them damage, spites a scriptural standard all must use: Ro14; 15.1-7. For a closer look at this scriptural standard, the following commentary is provided: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing |
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
Quote:
|
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
Quote:
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? :nod |
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
Quote:
Dom opens post 12 with Don, you are a smack talker. And thereby sets the tone for understanding his remaining words. Being addressed to me, it sets me on edge - in a defensive posture. How can this lead to open viable theological discussions? Dom says in post 12: We aren't called to stay in a church family or an organization to be troublemakers. Perhaps Dom is calling me a trouble maker, making this to be in line with his opening tone. And what of those who earnestly contend for the faith? Are they trouble makers by your definition, Dom? Or instead, are they trying to be obedient to the Word? A trouble maker is one from the heart. It is their nature to do so, regardless of the time or circumstance. Wherever they go, it will come through to the surface because that is what they are. What does Dom have as a definition of trouble maker? Do you Dom describe Jude as one instigating trouble? Would Jude say to leave the fellowship of the NT faithful to contend from outside the Church, or not to stay in a church family? I don't read Jude to say to leave, which Dom seems to indicate. Those who contend for others to continue with or to return to the faith which was once for all delivered, do not leave the Church, or church, to do what the Word commands. They stay and from there contend. Those who contend may have the appearance of being contentious. Some describe contending as troublemaking but not the Word. Godly Paul had much contention with Judaizers over circumcision but wouldn't in the end call him a trouble maker. you have three roads to go down. One shut up and sit down. Two leave and take your beliefs down the road with you, or three, joust it out with the pastor, and elders. #3 sounds like earnestly contend. So we agree. But why are you advising me to do what I'm already in the process of doing? What motivates you to give this motivation to me when I am self-motivated already? What gives? Why have you been asleep at the helm of 'Good Ship AFF' and have not previously pointed out this neglect I see of Ro14 to Apostolics? Instead, it is left for some ecclesiastical narcissist to do it. Captain, you've been asleep at the wheel. This thread is about Ro14 and its place in Church practice. Lets hear some comments from you on it, instead of sidetracking to describe me as a trouble maker with an unscriptural description of trouble making. I suppose those who went to the Apostles when unfairly treated in the daily distribution, Ac6, were trouble makers by your definition, right? The Apostles gave heed to them. Pastor Doe rejects B. Smith and is disregarding Paul's teaching of acceptance seen prominently in Ro14. He does not give heed. Dom also says: Also, if you weren't so bent on your ecclesiastical narcissism (well, giving heed to Jude's advice to contend for the faith is not narcissism, but is showing love for the Word. But I understand you feel a need to 'paint bad' those you don't wish to be friends with, doing so with terms like ecclesiastical narcissism)...If you really have a problem with me pointing out the obvious to you take it up with Votivesoul, the active admin. Is it obvious that I am an ecclesiastical narcissist? As I've stated many times before in other threads, I welcome replies having to do with the Word, including any who would not consider themselves to be my friend. I'm not your friend, you don't want friends because true friends won't always agree with you. Your statement lacks cohesion but I say Amen, thinking I know what you mean. True friends will not always agree and should then tell you if they think you are wrong. All should welcome one who does so in amicable ways. As a true friend of AFF and Jesus, I have taken on the task to amicably show Apostolics the neglect of Ro14 in some areas of scripture. Plz do show how you think my reasoning and understanding of scripture is wrong. Your comments are always welcomed if amicably given. Not so much so if you persist in name calling without any accompanying scriptural arguments. You got it you to do so but you don't, for reasons unknown to me. Change your ways and show my thoughts wrong, without name calling. |
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
Quote:
-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. |
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
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. |
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
Quote:
|
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
Quote:
|
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
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.
|
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
Quote:
|
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
Quote:
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! |
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
Quote:
Have you any news of Esaias? I haven't seen a post from him in a while. |
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
Quote:
Quote:
Isn't there any church family around your location who believes as you do? |
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
GOOD GOD IN ZION! Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
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? |
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
Quote:
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. |
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
Quote:
|
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Jesus has His own timing but the big mistake is that some individuals couldn't care less what the Holy Ghost wants to do. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
Quote:
|
Re: Discrepancy in Church Practice
Dom says this in post 13 "The subject matter is a "weak brother" translated as immature convert who isn't at the level of his brethren. One individual is eating nothing but vegetables because of his fear of not wanting to eat meat offered to idols. Days are observed in ritualistic fashion by those "weak" in the faith. Paul, would rather have the stronger brethren tolerate the weaker instead of beating the snot out of them. Until those weaker brothers come to the fullness of truth in time."
Some, when they come to AFF, get the snot beat out with words, as in saying they are ecclesiastical narcissists. Some people in AFF exihibit themselves as the strong bear which should not be poked. There is much more to this Ro14 story than just the attitude a wrong, strong brother may have toward a weak brother. To restrict the thought, that the many, many words of Ro14; 15.1-7 are only said for this reason, using many words when this could have been said in a few, may then miss the point Paul wants to make using many words. Many words are used to convey an important concept which is applicable to churches/Christians over the globe and for all time. He addresses the part of human nature, which when after deciding to stand for something worthwhile, will then want to stand unbending. As a Pastor said, people are extremists. They may neglect forever but when they choose not to, they take it as far as possible in the other direction. Someone conscientious about tending to scripture to formulate doctrine for life guidance, like those of Ro14, causing them to discipline their eating habits is far from 'weak' in all things. 'Weak' does not describe someone who examines the Word to gain an understanding for how to conduct themselves in the fear of God. Those referred to in Ro14, do so. When challenged by someone opposing their view, they may stand to defend it, and this may result in an argument and division. Paul is reaching deeper and farther than just surface conflicts. He is not a babysitter nor a referee. He is exposing the root cause. He wants Roman Christians to know something which will be carried with them for their lives. Whatever weakness Paul is describing in Ro14, does not cause Paul to say to any there, that they should discontinue believing contrary views. The role of the preacher in Ro14 is not, Dom, as you have wrongly suggested, to tell some that for them to continue holding false doctrine is acceptable, telling them so with the hopes that the passing of time will result in a change of their views to believe the right view. Paul says the role of the preacher (he is one) is to convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. Giving instruction in Ro14 for the correct view which all should hold would resolve conflicts about which view is correct. Paul does not here do this. Saying he doesn't do so to avoid elevating conflicts in the Rome church, would say he holds intimate knowledge of the individuals in conflict, which could only be possible had he lived with them. Paul also says to Timothy, a preacher, about those who are desiring to be teachers of the law (the law is the source of the two topics which Paul references in Ro14) that Timothy should charge some that they teach no other doctrine. He does not tell Timothy to put on hold the idea of waiting to see if their views will correct. Address the issue, is his message. If Paul believes that God always communicates doctrine with perfect clarity, then anyone believing in something other than that which this clarity brings, believes in false doctrine. But Paul tells those Romans who believe contrary things about holy days and foods, that all are OK. He would thus be condoning the holding of false doctrine in either one or all. Those with opposing views can't all be right. But Paul is smarter than this. He himself has seen, during his studies of the Word, that different conclusions can be correctly reached when reading the same things. He knows that God's Word does not always clearly convey concepts. That is why he tells those Romans with contrary views they are all OK. It could be concluded that Paul believes God sometimes communicates unclearly, purposely. Jesus' teaching about his use of parables, Mt13, shows him using this same method. Did his study of scripture lead him to the idea that God does not always communicate clearly, resulting in this methodolgy? Perhaps. Paul also says the law is good if it is used for any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine. Paul does not condone false doctrine. He would nip false doctrine in the bud, not teach someone to continue to hold it for a time, because time may help solidify it. I have put My words in your mouth...to root out and to pull down, to destroy and to throw down, to build and to plant. Jer1.9,10. God's word is given to destroy false doctrine, not to put on hold the correcting of it. You, Dom, are so far out to lunch with your idea that we wonder if you'll ever be back to work on time. Your idea of Ro14, Dom, that 'Paul would teach the Romans to ignore false doctrine in some, to give them time to potentially change over time', is weak. It does not agree with the practices seen in Paul elsewhere, as per the above. I would agree with you, that the method you suggest, may potentially work with some saints on some topics, and would sometimes cause a change of mind to come later, in some. But this is not the way of God for the Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Teacher. They are called to proclaim/teach truth and true doctrine, to teach against falsehood, and are not called to allow the idea that false doctrines are acceptable. That Paul apparently teaches the opposite to this in Ro14 demands an explanation. For, he tells those with opposing views of the same topic that it is OK to do so. Without an explanation as to why, it leaves the impression (if God is thought always to speak clearly on a subject with perfect clarity resulting in only one possible correct view), that Paul must then be saying it is OK to hold false doctrine when he tells those with two opposing views they are both OK to do so. I have provided an explanation which shows why Paul is OK to do so. Why not accept it, so as to bring Paul into good light, which the view of him accepting and teaching that false doctrine is acceptable does not. But, perhaps I'm out to lunch with these thoughts. Perhaps you have an example or another scripture to bolster your view. Where does the NT show activity or instruction which mirrors your thought that an Apostle teaches that false doctrine must be accepted for peace-purposes, in hopes that time will cause future changes in views? I'd suggest that if you cannot provide this, that your view should not be propagated because it only has support in the mind. As usual, you will not respond, and will deflect from the question by raising another point. Perhaps it will be about an Org or my activities in my church, which you have frequently referenced when not wanting to address the topic of this thread. We've watched the methodologies you've used in the past. Saying this about you is not being like the racists who automatically paint everyone of the same skin colour the same negative way. This view of you has been learned from experience here in AFF. All can see it reading your replies in threads. But disprove this opinion of you. Dom will now run away from this thread. He has already laid the groundwork for doing so when saying that he has already amply disproved the ideas I have put forth, saying he has correctly said all there is to say. He will also say, wrongly, that my lack of responses to his points has frustrated him out of this thread. Bible views which ring true should be accepted by all when they refute errors of thought. Those who do not, shamelessly exhibit disdain for truth. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:39 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.