[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

Wow! Don, this here is why you are earn yourself the Left Foot of Fellowship. This is exactly the mess you have posted in all your other "closed" threads. You believe that Paul was teaching the Apostolic Church as Jesus spoke to the masses in Matthew 13:13? Don, the Apostle was instructing them who it was given to know the mystery of the Kingdom. Saying things like "perhaps" or "it can be concluded" actually indicates you yourself isn't grasping what you are being taught by the Apostle Paul. 2 Peter 3:16 has the Apostle Peter warning that "ignorant and unstable people distort" Paul's difficult-to-understand letters, twisting them totally out of shape to their own destruction. The same way as they do with other scriptures, leading to false teachings and spiritual destruction. Paul wasn't telling the church it's OK to hold different beliefs concerning doctrine. He is specifically dealing with NEW converts and elders. Romans 15 solidifies this thought in its first verse. Weak brethren aren't weak elders.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

Is that what you are Don? You are a bud nipper? Is that what you like about a word-serving position? You want that platform and pulpit so you can empty those pews of weak brethren? Get them all nipped up.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

Wow, now you got some Jeremiah going on in the word-serving position. You going to root out and pull down. Those Holy Vegetarians better start eating those rib eyes.

Don, Paul is dealing with new converts and elders. Weak in the faith brethren who went to extremes to make sure they didn't sin by eating a spare rib. Or starting an oven on a sabbath. Paul, didn't want any bud nipping going on before the time. In Romans 15:1-2 tells the elders to support the new converts. Trying to restrain the bud nipping and allow the Holy Ghost to do its job.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

Don, the practices seen elsewhere in the Bible where Paul is bud nipping is to mature elders. Like when Paul did some nipping on Peter, why? Because he was to be blamed. Peter was an elder, and therefore Paul nipped his bud real good. But Romans isn't dealing with WEAK ELDERS. It is dealing with new converts who are weak in the faith. I bet you couldn't wait to get into the word-serving position. You must've been like a horse chafing at the bit to get behind the pulpit and nip some bud! I've known guys like you. Burning a hole through the pew just looking at the pastor shucking corn over the pulpit. Just can't hardly contain yourself because you need to deal with MeeMaw's oatmeal box in her beehive! You've had the Quaker Oat man staring at you from out behind that beehive long enough. You have to get the pastor out of the way, and get in the pulpit so you can throw some lobs of fire and get all those buds nipped.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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's why you weren't given a word-serving position? You just love bud nipping more than people.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

Don, I can't accept confusion. You not only focus on nipping buds, but you teach contradicting thoughts. Paul is a bud nipper, but to the Romans he won't be nipping buds? Don, maybe you need to find a quiet place where you can contemplate all this on the tree of woe.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

But, perhaps I'm out to lunch with these thoughts.

With this statement I wholeheartedly agree. You have totally nipped it.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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 you always do per usual, you misrepresent. I don't believe what you just posted, I certainly don't teach like that. But, you have other methods in mind. You would rip that oatmeal box out of MeeMaw's beehive so fast the Quaker would jump up and punch you in nose. Paul is wanting the elders, and mature saints to deal with the new converts with the charity of the Holy Ghost working through them. So, those new saints would be able to to leave childishness behind.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

Don, if you didn't want to have your pastor, elders, or church addressed? Then honey child, you shouldn't of used them as a hypothetical. Don, I highly doubt you are in a church. If you are, then I would wash your pastor's feet with my tears. Because he has a lot on his plate dealing with you. God bless that man, and sweetly touch his burdened brow.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

We've watched the methodologies you've used in the past.

We've? Don you have followers here?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

Don, you are a hot mess.