Discrepancy in Church Practice

[Evang.Benincasa]

Don, you don’t understand Romans 14. Paul isn’t saying to tolerate false doctrine.
I’ve explained this in previous posts. Paul is telling the stronger mature brethren not to destroy the already weak faith of the new converts. Paul had already established his thoughts on meat offered to idols that it was demon worship. That the table of Christ cannot be mixed with demon worship. The weaker brethren’s remedy for this is just not to ever eat meat again. But only become holy vegetarians. Paul wants to educate the weaker saints, but not by destroying them. He also brings up the point if you are bid to go to the butchers, eat what is set before you. Yet, don’t ask questions wether or not the meat was offered to idols. Just eat it, but if someone brings it up that the meat was indeed offered to an idol push back the plate. Not for you, but for those who may get the wrong idea about you. Paul is trying to teach wisdom concerning the neophytes in the first century.

I see that Pastor Doe saw you as an extremist? I can’t imagine why he had that idea?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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

You associated me with Jew hating Muslims. Now you are claiming you weren’t trying to associate me with what? Don, I think you might be psychological projecting your beliefs unto me? I don’t have to disprove your opinion on me. It’s your opinion. I’ve already formed an opinion of you with the evidence you have supplied. You believe you are God’s gift to us, a sighted guide to the blind. But, that’s where you landed from your journey through Pentecost.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Some, when they come to AFF, get the snot beat out with words, as in saying they are ecclesiastical narcissists.

Not some, just you. I called you and you alone an ecclesiastical narcissist.

The term is employed to describe those who always want everyone to shut up and listen to them. No discussion is involved. They might claim that they would change their view if shown scripturally their error. But, that is usually a form of baiting individuals into gladiator school. Their minds are thoroughly made up. As is yours. Which by the way is perfectly fine. Believe as you want to believe,the only thing is, is that people are here on the forum (all three of us) not to be your echo chamber.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Some people in AFF exihibit themselves as the strong bear which should not be poked.

Actually I wasn't talking about myself. I was under the impression you were restarting a closed by the admin thread. the bear would be the admin. Not me. You poke me and others constantly in your your posts. Like answering Votivesoul in the I AM=father thread, by calling out to me in your answer to him? Own your own behavior.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

Human nature? Don, do you believe people can get the Holy Ghost? That the Spirit of God can dwell in them and lead them? Don't you believe that through repentance, and receiving of the Holy Ghost you will get a changed nature? 2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
1 Corinthians 2:10-13 which states that we have received the Spirit of God, which reveals the things of God to us. Therefore it is God who brings you from the old creation to the new creation. You put off the old man, and put on the new man, Ephesians 4:22-24. Paul addressing the Roman Apostolic Church would've taken a changed nature into consideration. We don't have to make people do things. If the have the Holy Ghost they will have holiness. Paul wasn't a babysitter, or a despot. Romans 14 took into consideration the weakness of the faith of the neophytes, and therefore knew that the Holy Ghost in them would be the author and finisher of their faith Hebrews 12:2.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

Don, right here we can see you don't understand the scripture. Weak in faith is just that, weakness in belief and trust in God alone. Not in human discipline! We in the Kingdom of Jesus Christ are to help the weak brethren to seek after the Holy Ghost. Through prayer and supplication, reading the scripture as led by the Holy Ghost. We aren't to train them as we would an apprentice on a job. Jesus Christ is the Head of the Body. Not me, not you. I'm not the author and finisher of anyone's faith. I'm just a brother who can only be available if needed. This isn't about some sort of human discipline of memorizing rules and regulations on meat or tofu.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

'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.

Don, the weakness Paul is describing is told to us! It is weak in faith, which is weak in belief. In Romans 15:1 Paul tells the mature elders that they are to support the "failings" of the neophytes. In verse 2 Paul says to support the near brother and build them up. Encourage them in the Holy Ghost. Paul isn't looking to encourage Holy Vegetarianism!

Paul understands that everyone who is sincere will allow the Holy Ghost to work through them and in them. They will no longer speak like children, or act like children. That when they become full mature adults they will put childish understanding away. They no longer will use the gifts partially, but walk in them fully. As mature elders of the Body.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

I never posted what you are saying above. Because I don't believe or teach as you are saying above. Anyone reading my words who actually know me, would say you are misrepresenting me. Because they know me. What's sad is that you throw your rebuke at me, then you quote 2 Timothy 4:2 None of what is said in 2 Timothy 4:2 is to be done with carnal human discipline in mind. It is to be applied to the sincere saint of God who has the Holy Ghost, and is being led by the Holy Ghost. Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. These words in a nutshell are exactly what Paul is saying in Romans. The main word Timothy is to focus on is longsuffering. Which is being patient with those he is convincing, rebuking, exhorting, and teaching. The Holy Ghost is the main power to make anything in that list even work. If the strong brother, and weak brother don't allow the Holy Ghost to work charity through them. Then absolutely zero will happen. Listen, you may shut someone up after you beat them up in the church office. They may go out and be sitting down physically, but in their heart they're standing up. If the Holy Ghost doesn't push the buttons and blow the whistles, you will have nothing but an ecclesiastical side show.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

Paul is telling Timothy the evangelist to deal with individuals who are elders. They aren't weak brethren as in new converts. Those who Timothy was to deal with aren't labeled as weak in the faith. Don, you are all over the place.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

Don, you are not understanding what is happening in Romans 14. Paul is dealing with new converts and elders. New converts need their faith strengthened so they aren't worried about where the meat is coming from. Or if they are breaking the sabbath if they help someone get their oxen out of a ditch. Paul isn't dealing with with elders desiring to be teachers of the Law.
In Romans he is dealing with the same thing he dealt with over in Corinth. Weak brethren Romans 14, and 1 Corinthians 8:10. Elders needed to watch what they were doing in order not to not cause a young new convert to stumble.

Paul wouldn't of ever advocated to Timothy to have weak faith elders to teach anything, let alone the Law of Moses. Don do you think your a weaker brother because you hold a third view from Pastor Doe, and the Organization?

[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.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by 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?

-The principle you are not seeing in the text of Ro14, votivesoul, is seen subsurface, much as the principle called "God's Order of Authority" is seen subsurface in the Beginning. Subsurface is another way of saying 'reading between the lines'.

Surface reading of Ro14 sees Paul telling those with opposing views of scripture, that they are all 'OK' to hold opposing views. This is so, regardless of the reason he does it.

Subsurface thinking about this 'OK', leads to a conclusion: Paul may be seen to think it is OK to believe false doctrine (all opposing views of these Romans can't be right if you believe that God always speaks with clarity. Of those views on which Romans differ, at least some must be false doctrine [or instead, wrong understanding, if not wanting to see such a strong term]. It is either this or Paul thinks these have either deficiencies of understanding or lack of knowledge, leading them to believe false doctrine (is it not true, that these two are the reasons false doctrine exists? Of course).

What Paul does not do in Ro14, is address the deficiencies of understanding or the lack of knowledge. This then leads to thinking that Paul understands that God does not always speak with clarity (This insults my understanding of God and the understanding most Apostolics have: when God speaks anything, he speaks so we can know with surety.) This leads back to the other option: God sometimes speaks with lack of clarity. (Am I right to conclude there are no other options?)

Therefore, it should be concluded that Paul believes that God does not in every subject always speak with clarity. (This was contrary to the theology I held before. At that time I thought this new conclusion was silly.) In light of the fact that Paul tells those Romans with opposing views, that they are OK to hold opposing views, I then conclude that he either condones the holding of false doctrine or believes that God purposely does not always communicate clearly (obviously, he could do so with perfect clarity, considering his abilities). The latter view is the more palatable of the two.

But then, I may be missing something. What is it I miss? Dom will jump up and down, calling me names, insisting I am a total idiot, but he does little to show how this reasoning is faulty. All he does is jump. You tired of jumping yet, Dom? If I'm not the narcissist that Dom insists I am, then my thoughts will be seen as rational. But if hopelessly deluded then it should be possible for those who are not, to show the error of the reasoning I use. The error will be obvious. Show the error. Deluded people do not express rational thoughts.

Short of it being contrary to majority thought, making me the idiot when contradicting the majority I know does not hold it, foolishly sticking my head out so others can bash it, how is this view of Ro14 wrong?

In light of Jesus' use of purposeful lack of clarity in parables, Mt13, my conclusions do not show lack of good reasoning and it aligns with the Master's methods. Paul reflects Jesus in Ro14. Jesus uses the lack of clarity purposely. God is purposeful when providing some doctrines with lack of clarity. He does not err doing so.

-The Jude question is the easier one to answer. Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. He says it was needful to write. It's obvious to me that it was necessary to exhort them, wanting them to continue with what had been passed on to them. The tone of the chapter shows a degradation of the Faith, needing diligence for them to maintain the original.

What is the Faith? It's not just the acceptance of Jesus and the New Birth. The New Birth is the entrance means to the Faith. It is not a stretch/exaggeration to say the whole of the NT is the Faith, the common salvation. Paul says: If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed. O Lord, come! Paul may show here that loving Jesus means loving the whole package. No one gets to take some parts of the NT to leave others out. If modern Christianity does not take heed to the teaching of Ro14 in their practices, they have demonstrated an 'elimination of parts' which Paul wants loved.

-The gist of my Ro14 claim is shown in the example I gave in post 1. To elaborate briefly on this example: Head covering doctrine has multiple views shown in different fellowships. This demonstrates that God has not communicated about head covering in a way which results in only one head covering view. What Paul writes in Ro14 tells Christians to accept others, even with their contrary views.

Therefore, on subjects which show multiple varying conclusions, Paul says to accept all people who hold them, and not to reject those who do not agree. Apostolics will be coming to my door with the hangman's noose in hand. Head covering doctrine is sacrosanct to these. These have not accepted the teaching of Ro14. My example in post 1 demonstrates what Paul says not to do - Pastor Doe has rejected B Smith contrary to Paul's Ro14 instructions. The Faith of the whole NT has been breached to hold another incomplete version.

God places Ro14 for acceptance and practice. It should not be rejected by those who say they love God. They needlessly cause harm in those they reject, potentially causing them to leave the Faith when so treated. For shame! Misplaced zeal for head covering doctrine rejects saints and Ro14. This should not be so and is the reason I write. Stop this unscriptural madness.

-Jude finishes the chapter by saying something about those who cause divisions. Rejecting people from participation in church ministry because of doctrines which can have multiple contrary interpretations causes needless divisions. Paul teaches Ro14 and this should be seen to help maintain unity by lessening the disunity over things which can't be proved definitively one way or another anyway. Head covering is a good example of this. The principle shown in Ro14 is applicable not only to food or holy days.

Is Jude writing about a narrow interpretation of the words 'common salvation' or a broader more encompassing view that encompasses the whole NT? Perhaps a closer examination of the text might prove which view is right. From the examples Jude gives, he is not focussing on the degradation of the acceptance of the Gospel message. Instead, he highlights acceptance of sin by sinful men who despise the dominion of the Word. This would eventually sap the juice out of the salvation Jesus came to bring for the individual, leading them to hell.

Let me know if this doesn't provide the clarity of my claims you say is missing. I've made sincere efforts to answer your questions. Dom will still claim that I provide no answers, because that is almost all he does - flap his lips.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Paul is dealing with individuals who are strong mature brethren, and weak immature brethren. He is trying to stop the strong one from ramming doctrine down the thoughts of the weak ones.


From what I gathered from your shenanigans here, I wouldn't let you hold open the front door for MeMaw, and PePaw.

Let's all say 'God bless Evang. Benincasa'. He's a strong, faithful warrior of the Apostolic Faith. Let's not forget that those who do so should be honoured, having dedicated their lives to the Lord's work.

***************
the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more

Those who've read the Bible for 70, 80, 90 years thank God because of the new things they are seeing, even after so long of a time, because of the riches of depth of the more and more it has.

Ro14 was written for a guy like Dom. Dom says Ro14 is only about one view, his view. His view should then be the only view people hold - the 'weak' saint view-- and all other views he will put down. Thus, Dom limits the limitless God who wants to shine more and more. Dom says donfriesen1 is a nutjob with his other-than ideas of Ro14. Thus, Dom, is the 'strong' saint Paul writes about, who should not be ramming, should not dominate the 'weak' one.

Paul says to accept those with 'contrary conclusions on the same scripture'. Dom contradicts the teaching of Ro14 when saying his job is to mock and ridicule donfriesen1 for bringing his more and more ideas to AFF. 'Those with revelations from the same scripture, which do not contradict the Truth of the Bible but contradict mine, should not write them here' is what reflects the tenor of Dom's words. As such, he shows he thinks he is AFF's cop.

Dom thinks Ro14 can only represent the thoughts he represents and nothing else. Seemingly, his God cannot bring any more and more from it. He has a view of a small God who cannot bring more and more. Had Dom lived with John Baptist he might have said John Baptist was wrong to describe Jesus as the Lamb of God because the instructions of Ex12 didn't show anything more, like a Man dying for the sin of the world. Dom sees Ro14 as only teaching about weak saints, nothing more. But welcome to God's world, Dom, where God can place many layers of truth in one passage of his Word.

Dom may be like the Christian Judaizers who stood against Paul's view that God does not require circumcision. They stood strong only for the Old view. They think it impossible that God can provide something new, something layered in the depths of the Word, when he clearly has attested to it.

Though this new more and more revelation of Ro14 does not yet contradict what Paul says about the correct 'weak' view; Dom still fights against it, rejecting it.

I rail against Dom and Dom's views only because I feel forced to do so. I would much rather do something else. But when someone with prominence rails against the person who presents correct Bible views, railing against the person and not the view, it then gives the appearance that the Bible views themselves are also wrong. To defend a correct view of scripture should always be done, even if it involves self-defending the person presenting it.

Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil. Paul here doesn't say Alexander damaged the Gospel. He says Alexander damaged me. Paul does not say the ideas presented by Alexander have hurt the Gospel, though this is what Paul means. An attack on Paul was an attack on truth.

Your defense, Dom, of the 'weak' saint view is wasted when my Ro14-view does not contradict it or the Faith of the NT. This shows the errors of your interpretive methods are flawed. If your methods as a preacher represent the interpretive methods of all Apostolic preachers then we would have much to pray about.

The mouths of Judaizers must be stopped. God has revealed another layer of the depths of his Word in what I have said about Ro14. And yet some fight against it. Someone has yet to refute and show the error of the reasoning I have used to present my views of Ro14. What takes you so long to do so?

All have the ability to change their ways. No one's ways are so set in stone that they cannot change. With God's help all things are possible. New revelations of the Word can be added to the old.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Let's all say 'God bless Evang. Benincasa'. He's a strong, faithful warrior of the Apostolic Faith. Let's not forget that those who do so should be honoured, having dedicated their lives to the Lord's work.

Don, you aren't the topic of Romans 14, or Romans 15:1. You aren't a new convert, which Paul is referencing. Sorry, but trying to place yourself as a weaker brother of Romans is lame attempt to prove your teaching of "Anything Goes" Apostolic Paul. But, I must say, you certainly proved that no Apostolic Jesus name preacher would be stupid enough to even have you hand out prayer cards.

You are a hot mess. Subsurface? Paul is teaching like a Mithraic Priest? Paul is teaching the church as Jesus spoke to the religious masses Matthew 13:13-15? Paul's epistles are written to cause neophytes to be lost? Yep, Pastor Doe, needs to call B. Smith an Uber.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more

Those who've read the Bible for 70, 80, 90 years thank God because of the new things they are seeing, even after so long of a time, because of the riches of depth of the more and more it has.

Proverbs 4:18 is talking about the younger growing into the elder. Proverbs 4:18 is talking about spiritual progression, comparing the life of the righteous to the dawn that grows brighter, symbolizing increasing understanding as one matures in old age, Proverbs 16:31, Proverbs 20:29. Starting from youthful beginnings to full spiritual day, a journey of growth in wisdom that parallels the idea of the younger growing into an Elder. It's a metaphor for a life lived in the light of the word, Psalm 119:105-106. Wisdom which gets clearer and stronger with age. All contrasting with the wicked's path that darkens with age, Proverbs 4:19, Matthew 15:14, Ephesians 4:18. Which Ecclesiastes 12:1-3 explains it very well.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Ro14 was written for a guy like Dom. Dom says Ro14 is only about one view, his view. His view should then be the only view people hold - the 'weak' saint view-- and all other views he will put down. Thus, Dom limits the limitless God who wants to shine more and more. Dom says donfriesen1 is a nutjob with his other-than ideas of Ro14. Thus, Dom, is the 'strong' saint Paul writes about, who should not be ramming, should not dominate the 'weak' one.

My boy, you aren't some sincere new convert, a babe in Christ. Not by a mile. You have been in this long enough to understand the way which you should go. Like I posted to you before, you are trying to dance the idea in front of Pastor Doe, that you are a weaker brother, Therefore your ecclesiastical surmisings concerning the Bible should be allowed behind the pulpit. Listen, it's one thing for you to plasture your thoughts on a forum from Dan to Beersheba. It's a whole other thing to subject the nice kind Apostolic brothers and sisters to it as the sit in the pew. Man, I bet you could chew it up for about an hour from behind a pulpit. PePaw, would've checked his watch about five times, while shooting you some looks. MeeMaw trying to be as tolerant as sweet as can be while patty PePaw on the shoulder. She, also giving you a kind stare to hurry it up. Don, you believe in another Paul, and sadly another Jesus.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Paul says to accept those with 'contrary conclusions on the same scripture'.

We aren't told which holy days they were wanting to observe. The issue isn't about a holy carnivore diet vs a holy vegan diet. It was about new converts afraid of eating meat offered to idols. Therefore they refused to eat meat, but chose to only eat let's say, beans. Because in that way they couldn't possibly ever eat meat offered to demons, 1 Corinthians 10:20. Jude is dealing with antinomianism! Does Jude ever mention the words "weaker brethren" who would bring in teachings of sexual immorality? Jude, doesn't. He is addressing the problem of false elders who had secretly entered the church and were promoting ungodly behavior, specifically turning "the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ." (Jude 1:4). He describes these individuals as "ungodly people," "mutterers and complainers, living by their own lusts," "worldly people, devoid of the Spirit," not as "weaker brethren." His focus is on confronting and condemning those who actively spread corrupting doctrine and practice, rather than the sensitive consciences of newly converted believers.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Dom contradicts the teaching of Ro14 when saying his job is to mock and ridicule donfriesen1 for bringing his more and more ideas to AFF. 'Those with revelations from the same scripture, which do not contradict the Truth of the Bible but contradict mine, should not write them here' is what reflects the tenor of Dom's words. As such, he shows he thinks he is AFF's cop.

I'm just following the scripture 1 Kings 18:27. Please remember you have posted that you desire a word-serving position. Therefore you fancy yourself as a preacher, a breaker of the bread, and giver of milk to the babe? So, the scripture says in 1 John 4:1 "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world." Therefore Don, since you aren't newly minted convert, and you've been in church for awhile. We can go up one side of you and down the other, concerning your thoughts. If you are an ecclesiastical knucklehead, which you are, then mocking is forthwith.

Don, but be of good cheer, I will have you to know I've been on both ends of this dog. The friendly wagging end, and the chewing end. Elders have to take it like a man, because sometimes you are the windshield and sometimes you are the bug. This is a bg beautiful world, filled with all sorts of opinions. You will run into brethren of like special faith who will disagree with you, who disagree with me. I've been on forums since Brother Jim Yohe first asked me to join his forum Faith Child Forum. Little did I know what I would bump into posting back then. I never tried to cop out with "be nice to me fellas, I'm just a weaker brethren. Please hold me" Ah, no. You believe what you believe? You believe it's thus saith the Lord? You believe it's biscuits and gravy from Heaven? OK, but others won't, and I don't. So, if you get a spiritual black eye from the brethren, especially from Pastor John Doe, take it. Proverbs 29:1 says it plain, "whoever stubbornly refuses to accept criticism will suddenly be destroyed beyond recovery." You had Esaias, Amanah, Tithmister, Votivesoul, dikonos kindly and gently critique your thoughts. They didn't bounce you on your head like I do, but you know what? You treated them like they desecrated the genie of the lamp. So, weep no more my lady. If you can dish it out, you can take it, which means, if you're going to criticize or challenge others, you must also be prepared to handle criticism or challenges directed at you.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Dom thinks Ro14 can only represent the thoughts he represents and nothing else. Seemingly, his God cannot bring any more and more from it. He has a view of a small God who cannot bring more and more.

Don, more and more of what? More of your baloney of "subsurface reading of the verses of the Apostle's letters? I'll post this again, the Apostle Peter warned of guys like you. Who were unstable, unlearned, 2 Peter 3:16, leading themselves to destruction. The sad thing is that they don't just mess up their own lives, then take others with them. Don, you have been around for a long time buddy. You should've sweetened with time. The pulpit should of stopped being your focus.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Had Dom lived with John Baptist he might have said John Baptist was wrong to describe Jesus as the Lamb of God because the instructions of Ex12 didn't show anything more, like a Man dying for the sin of the world. Dom sees Ro14 as only teaching about weak saints, nothing more. But welcome to God's world, Dom, where God can place many layers of truth in one passage of his Word.

Don, you believe this is some Kabbalistic mystery religion? Where the verses can have 50 different meanings according to how your feeling that day? Your pastor doesn't want you to preach so you stab your finger in the Bible as you are flipping through the pages? Don, that isn't the Holy Ghost, that is chaos.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Dom may be like the Christian Judaizers who stood against Paul's view that God does not require circumcision. They stood strong only for the Old view. They think it impossible that God can provide something new, something layered in the depths of the Word, when he clearly has attested to it.

Don, Book of Acts 15, we are shown how the apostles and elders were able to discuss the issue of circumcision. They debated, James, Peter, Paul, and Barnabas. Don, they didn't treat the scriptures as you do, that there is some subsurface teaching which needs to be found as you are given more light.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Though this new more and more revelation of Ro14 does not yet contradict what Paul says about the correct 'weak' view; Dom still fights against it, rejecting it.

I'm not fighting against the scripture. I'm fighting against your stupid idea that the Bible is some sort of magic book. Romans 14 I explained. You want it to mean that a joker like you should be allowed to preach any kind of mayhem that pops into your head. That the pastor, and the elders should roll out a red carpet for you to waste the evening of every saint who had the misfortune of showing up the night you taught your nonsense.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I rail against Dom

Good for you. Keep those cards and letters coming.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Dom's views only because I feel forced to do so.

No, you yearn to be a Bud Nipper. You love the thought about straightening people out. What baloney, you are forced to do it? You love it. Every tap tap of your fingers on the keys. Your Bible teaching sessions must be like a night in the Octagon. Believe me, Pastor Doe knows what he is doing. Even if he held the idea that women should all wear beanies with propellers, he still wouldn't let you teach your thoughts on anything.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I would much rather do something else.

No, that's not true. You want to be here posting all your Inclusionist baloney.
The Apostle Paul didn't really mean what he meant? We were all waiting 2,000 years for Don, to show up and tell us what it means 60 different ways?
Subsurface? Seriously? Are you out of your ever loving mind? Do you call William Branham, Brother Branham?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

But when someone with prominence rails against the person who presents correct Bible views, railing against the person and not the view, it then gives the appearance that the Bible views themselves are also wrong. To defend a correct view of scripture should always be done, even if it involves self-defending the person presenting it.

Don, you are wrong, I've explained how you are wrong. Pastor Doe is either a crazy person like you, or the holiest man in Canada. Don, you keep convincing me that you are no longer in Pastor Doe's church. I think he shuffled you off to Buffalo long long ago.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Alexander the coppersmith did me much evil. Paul here doesn't say Alexander damaged the Gospel. He says Alexander damaged me. Paul does not say the ideas presented by Alexander have hurt the Gospel, though this is what Paul means. An attack on Paul was an attack on truth.

Oooh, looky here, Donny boy, sees himself as the Apostle Paul. Well, well, well, no wonder you saw your word-serving position fly out the window. Pastor John Doe's mouth must've been hanging wide open and his eyes were turned over white. Having to listen to you tell him that you are an apostle.
How Romans 14 has many multiple layers and that you know every layer.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Your defense, Dom, of the 'weak' saint view is wasted when my Ro14-view does not contradict it or the Faith of the NT. This shows the errors of your interpretive methods are flawed. If your methods as a preacher represent the interpretive methods of all Apostolic preachers then we would have much to pray about.

Apostolic preachers have much to pray about? Yes, that you never visit their churches.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

The mouths of Judaizers must be stopped. God has revealed another layer of the depths of his Word in what I have said about Ro14. And yet some fight against it. Someone has yet to refute and show the error of the reasoning I have used to present my views of Ro14. What takes you so long to do so?

Don, God has revealed? Did this happen while you were praying in a sacred grove? Don, let it be duly noted I have refuted and shown the error of your reasoning you have used to present your views on Romans 14.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

All have the ability to change their ways. No one's ways are so set in stone that they cannot change.

Don, you have done a fabulous job in proving that is all wrong. You will never change. If Jesus preached and David played his harp, you wouldn't changhe. You believe with your whole being that you are the pastor of pastors, the apostle of apostles. You don't want discussion, you just want everyone to sit down and shut up. While you show us all the layers and layers of the scriptures. After Pastor Doe kicked you out of the church he must've moved the entire church family to Mexico, and didn't leave a forwarding address.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

With God's help all things are possible. New revelations of the Word can be added to the old.

Sounds great, the only problem is that you believe you are the ONLY one who gets that fresh hot bread.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

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

Dom was responding to this:Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1 View Post
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.

Thx, Dom. Good theological discussion here. Very applicable to the thread and Ro14. No one should disagree much with what you have written here.

Seeing what you've said here, and not responding to what I've said in post 1, nor to the linked commentary, makes me think you missed understanding what I say. You either do this purposely or not. I wish I knew which.

Some who write in this thread, to defend a view that Ro14 can only be concluded to only show Paul writing about a 'weak vs strong saint', may be helped to believe in my conclusions, when they are encouraged to 'look back in mind', further than just surface reading of Ro14. Focussing just on the words of the text of Ro14 may miss the events that had come before its writing. The supposition of the reasons for the actions of the weak saint, is also a part of this same 'looking back in mind' process. It was said that a weak conscience directs the Ro14 saint's beliefs/actions. It is logical to assume this, but it is an assumption. But 'looking in mind' at any of the other things of Ro14, also leads to other logical conclusions. This thread is about them.

Paul has demonstrated this method. What he says about: 1. God's order of Authority, is an example. 2. What he says about types and shadows, is another. Both of these doctrines were gained by reading between the lines or 'looking back in mind'. Even Jesus reads between the lines when teaching about marriage/divorce, Mt19.8.

There were people in Ro14 who held opposing views of the same scripture. Paul says this is OK. Multiple views of the same scriptures can't all be right, can they? Some must be wrong, which we usually call false doctrine. But the end result of Paul saying 'all are OK' shows Paul saying it regardless for reasons of either 1. the weak/strong view or 2. another view. Nothing about the nature of the Ro contrary views changes if either the weak/strong view is held or another reason is held. (I had not put forward any other.)

Looking a little further back in mind sees: 1. saints reading the scriptures, 2. drawing various contrary conclusions, 3. acting accordingly, (with some of them taking a strong stand and being argumentative about it.)

A question which is answered by my conclusion is: Why is it possible that various saints draw various contrary conclusions when reading the same scripture. The answer: God has (purposely?) written in the way he has, resulting in various conclusions.

EXAMPLE. Gen3 says the serpent was more cunning than any beast, and it talks to Eve. We may interpret 'cunning' in a negative way as deceptive, because our uses of the word often indicates this to us. So does the story line. Obviously, because it was noted, Eve had been aware of the serpent's abilities (for who but Adam and Eve had this knowledge of the serpent's abilities to pass on?). Was she afraid of, intimidated by the serpent, this affecting her judgment? It is not wrong to think so, considering the evidence. But it shows her with fear before the Fall, when fear is often presented as a by-product of the Fall. Another may conclude differently because the evidence does not distinctly state so. To adamantly conclude that the Word demands that Eve be said to be afraid before the Fall, says more than the Word has actually said. No one should adamantly make such claims. No one has the right to say 'thus saith the Lord' unless God has actually said the words. Those who do so anyway, have added to the Word. Instead, caveats should be presented, by those when sharing what are only opinions of events.

That, of course, is not the whole story of interpretation of scripture, for deriving doctrine. Other factors may determine the lack of all readers coming to only one view. Lack of knowledge, pre-determined bias, or incorrect interpretive abilities can skew results.

Paul does not correct the views of these saints if he thinks any of these factors existed. 'Why not?' should have an answer, which believing that Ro14 only talks about the 'weak/strong' view, does not address. Or does it, if this is a wrong assumption? What conclusion can be presented in its absence? I conclude that the absence of any corrective teaching indicates that Paul believes that God has written some things purposely in such a manner that its reading does not always arrive at only one conclusion. Paul is OK with this because, seemingly, God is OK with it. If God isn't OK with it he would have written in ways which determine only one conclusion. He hasn't in every case. Is it wrong to conclude so? Is this rejected because it casts God in a bad light?

Therefore, in those situations where the Word does not lead to only one conclusion, Paul would say 'don't say that it does'. If not this, then Paul condones false doctrine when telling those with opposing views they are all OK. Something else must be concluded because it is unacceptable to think that Paul would condone false doctrine. Saying God does not write clearly, leading to various conclusions, is a softer way to say that he accepts multiple views, therefore not calling them false doctrine. Seeing Paul as giving this 'softer' explanation is more acceptable, in my opinion.

What is not clearly indicated in the Word should not (necessarily) be said to be clearly indicated. This is the principle shown in Ro14. Pastor J Doe's actions against B Smith have violated Ro14, when head covering doctrine is one example of doctrine with lack of clarity.

What flies in the face of the principle just stated, is knowing that Paul demonstrates at least twice, that what he teaches as fact and doctrine (God's order of authority, and, types & shadows) are things he learned by deductive reasoning. But Ro14 testifies against the thought that reading between the lines should always be said to lead to doctrine taught as fact every time.

When Ro14, 15.1-7 occupies such a large space in the NT, the principles it portrays should take a large place in the Apostolic preacher/Christian's understandings. That it doesn't may be proved wrong, but it is my opinion, coming without statistics, that it does not. Many times preachers have preached with great surety when the scriptures they refer to do not present this clarity. This should not be so, and preachers have ways to not do so, still getting their points across.

What Dom will not now do, his past responses indicating this, is to show the reasoning used above as wrong. Instead, he will revile the person giving it, make distracting comments only loosely associated, but he will not show the reasoning wrong. He will portray himself as the authority all should unquestionably believe, even without presenting lines of reason why. I hope this time Dom will take efforts to prove my reasoning wrong. He has the ability to do so. But I'll not be holding my breath waiting. I wish to stay alive.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Why certainly.
.

You've got to stop posting so much, Dom, I'm having trouble keeping up.

There's no need to respond to your post, Bible commentary-wise, when most of what you've said is not directly related to this thread's main contention. Why do you skirt the main issue? You've got it in you to do better.

meaning they must actively defend the core Christian beliefs against false teachings and corruption that were emerging

In spite of your efforts to say Ro14 is not part to this, it is my contention it is.

Jude wasn't making a case for a church member to run their nonsense up the flag pole and have the ministry salute it.

And your efforts to make my conclusions to be as just described by you, have yet to be seen with proofs and logical conclusions. When will you learn that 'just saying so' doesn't mean it is so. What granola crunching hippy influences in your life leads to your making such weak efforts, lacking reason? Give readers greater hopes than this, which show greater understandings of scripture which you as an Evangelist should portray.

I would say that contending for Ro14 is also contending earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered. 1Co12, 14 are contended for, as Apostolics. It would be a mistake to delete them and Ro14 from the Bible.

What you are doing in this forum isn't "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."

Why do you wish to make Jude to narrow to just salvation/gospel/new birth issues, when Satan attacks anything NT? Correct interpretation and application of all parts of the NT are critical, including Ro14. You again demonstrate deficiencies in correct Bible interpretation and application. You are eating out of stale boxes of "Wheaties" when fresh food is available to give clearer reasoning. Do you need a donation so you can buy good food?