Discrepancy in Church Practice

[donfriesen1]

PART 1

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

?

Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
The whole point of this thread is to point out that in some churches the Pastor may rule on some topics, contrary to the teaching of Ro14.

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

Plz allow me to be the one explaining the reason for my own thread. I don't have unfounded biases against the author.

Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
This counter-to-scriptural practice should be stopped in all ministers, and especially so when their Apostolic Org has already demonstrated it practices Ro14 (as per its acceptance of multiple head covering views).

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

Dom here demonstrates apathy to correct interpretation of scripture as a preacher. None should do so. I demonstrate resistance to wrong interpretation of scripture by writing this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
Good question. Why the necessity of bothering the Org's already busy Supt when the Org he represents has already shown acceptance of multiple head covering doctrines? Why is it that those who are parts of this Org are not aware of the practice of their Org and do not follow its example? Had proper emphasis of Ro14 been shown in the Org then this visit to the Supt would not have been necessary. Pastor Doe should be/is already aware of this, but ignores it and gets away with it because the Org lets him, either wittingly or unwittingly, spiting the many verses of Ro14;15.1-7 given expressly by the Lord for situations just like this. And Dom puts on his 'Defender' hat and argues against its proper practice. If the rationale which gains Pastor Doe's acceptance in the Org is not accepted by an esteemed member of AFF, YOU, then what hope does a saint, B. Smith, have when they go to the Org (which will usually back the Pastor when it is Pastor vs saint in a topic without acknowledged guidelines) when it has no acknowledged rule which says it must. Instead, Ro14 may be ignored.

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

No one standing in agreement with scripture is out of luck.

Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
Also, where would B. Smith go if their Pastor is the Supt, who rules just like Pastor Doe?

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
Supts are well known to be Pastor-Supts. Where to go, Dom, in the absence of the acknowledgment all should have of Ro14? If Supt Doe has wrongly determined in his heart that any opposition to his view of Ro14/'his personal head-covering view' is an attack of Satan against the Org, where will B. Smith go for the scriptural-wrong done to them when they are rejected?

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

Dom is guessing. He thinks my Pastor is Pastor Doe and I am B Smith. Lets let Dom keep guessing about something which was given only as an example.


Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
The unscriptural harm done to them also causes harm to the Body which they are part of it.

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

Dom demonstrates apathetic attitudes to people who hurt. Dom is not feeling like God feels. God hurts when those he loves hurt. Don't you read the Bible Dom?

Dom paints me as a butcher in a parking lot, while I'd like to be painted as someone contending for proper interpretation of Ro14. There is no similarity between these two pictures. Dom has lost connexion with reality.

Dom expresses sympathy with a Pastor who rules contrary to the Word, seemingly justifying it with excuses of brevity of time being a Pastor. These are not suitable justifications when Ro14 should have permeated church-culture practices. I write this thread, hoping for the correction of the deficiency of practice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
Had Ro14 been previously acknowledged, then nought of this would have happened. Zeal for protection of the church from attacks of Satan are good but misguided when contrary to Ro14. You, Dom, would not be rewarded in Heaven for wrongly opposing the correct interpretation of Ro14, would you? Yet, apparently you wish to loose this reward.

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

Whoa, whoa, whoa here bro. No one has said anything about hell. Those faithful to little get little-rewards. Those faithful to much get much-rewards. If you aren't faithful to Ro14 then you don't get Ro14-rewards.

Dom keeps directing his posts to be about 'me and my Pastor' while I want to talk about scripture and its proper interpretation and application. Turn it around bro. Get on track.

Part 2 to follow

[donfriesen1]

Part 2 of 2

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

tu

Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Does B. Smith want to get licensed by the UPCI?

Does Ro14 only apply when they do?

I just asked a question?

Answering the question I posed would get you on track, Dom. The topic of the thread is correct Bible interpretation and its correct application. You again demonstrate you lack the correct understanding which you accuse me of having.


Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
Is Pastor John Doe's church family the only game in town? What in your 'discernment system' motivates YOU asking another irrelevant question? Does Ro14 only apply if there are many churches in town? No. Would B. Smith's going to another church then suddenly solve a problem which may be practiced in many churches by multiple ministers? No. If this were only an Org issue and not a Word issue, then the Org/Man may have the answer. The Word has the answers for this Word problem: compliance by all to Ro14.

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

The church world is fractured because of the attitudes you show here. Had efforts been made by those involved in church splits over doctrine, using the principles Ro14 reveals, then many splits would not have occurred. Your propagation of them encourages the disunity which is counter to the unity Jesus prayed for. I'm guessing that your time in the UPC was cut short because those who disfellowshipped you, using 'counter to Ro14 understanding' causing needless division between you and it. Am I right bro, in my guess? Thus, bro, you now seem to fight against that which caused the pain of improper 'giving you the boot' and needless separation, had Ro14 been followed. So what again is the reason you are fighting this view of Ro14, pray tell, when it would have negated your pain? Oh right, I almost forgot. Some ecclesiastical nut job dares to proclaim that scripture shows them causing needless division (in God's eyes, but not the district eyes you so lovingly often reference)





Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
Seems like a lot of sour grapes,(I think you may speak from personal experience. Have you moved on in spirit, from a circumstance causing you sour grapes? Hypothetically, had something in your past been treated in light of Ro14, then it may have had results different than it did. Is this the reason why you many times in this thread keep referring back to the Org?, in posts 17, 20, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29) no real solution Says who? This has not been said by someone who wants to contend for the faith once delivered ("I don't visit anyone's church to contend for the faith once delivered unto the Saints." Post 20.) YOU reach your objective (no real solution), Dom, when you don't have an objective to reach. YOU don't want a solution. but no real solution other than B. Smith wanting contend for the faith with people who want to show him the door. Who has greater authority for a solution in this matter? Pastor Doe, the Supt, or Ro14? Ro14 has the authority and it shows that B. Smith should be accepted; not judged, nor rejected; with many other words used to show him as OK while holding some doctrines contrary to Pastor Doe. Ro14/the Bible does not give any Pastor authority to reject anyone, as a solution, unless on matters clearly outlined an undeniably scriptural/only one conclusion. Paul's teaching in Ro14 is only about doctrines which are not able to clearly show only one correct conclusion.

Yep, Romans 14 is the least of this pastor's problems. Don, you are rough and tough and hard to diaper. You can spout scripture until you peel the paint off the walls of the church's foyer.

And this is a bad thing, right Dom?

There is no way a pastor is going to take you serious. If you act half of how you post here, you would get the left foot of fellowship. But, since you may still be in this congregation, can only indicate this Pastor Doe is agape love PERSONIFIED when comes to dealing with you.

GOOD GOD IN ZION!

Listen to yourself here. Do you really believe what you say?

Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
The real solution is to follow what Ro14 teaches: acceptance of all who hold contrary doctrine (on topics which are not shown as 'one' doctrines. See below about 'one'.)

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

Dom drifts from reality here with these comments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
Eph4.3-6 shows doctrines which are 'one'. When you have only one of anything before you, it denies the possibility of another to compare with or choose from. When given a 'one' doctrine by God/the Apostles there is no possibility of another to hold. 'One' doctrines must be accepted to be a NT follower of Jesus. Eph4 shows their acceptance of 'multiple views of the same topic' when Paul says to them "Till we all come in the unity of the faith". Paul must think they were not yet united on every view of every topic, necessitating Paul to say this, to encourage them to maintain unity on 'one' topics.

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

Dom again shows he has no desires to talk scripture. His calling is to bring derision to the one who does.

Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
When given the left boot of disfellowship because of lack of agreement on minor topics, it creates resentment which, if not resisted, may lead to rejection of major doctrines, to spite the group which booted you. Elevation of minor views to places as major views helps create this disunity. The opposite goal, disunity, is achieved when attempting to maintain unity through enforcement of compliance to minor unproveable views. Why do you want to be in that group, Dom? You are better than that. You are a man of God. Why not join with Paul in defending the principles of Ro14?

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

Does Dom show he wants to join with Paul in defending the principles of Ro14? If he does, who has he convinced? All he wants to do is mock. He doesn't want to take the time to show how I have derived my conclusions is wrong. Either he can't or he wouldn't. But he will take the time to mock and comment/write about side issues. Something is telling about this kind of response, about those who do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
Heb6 gives a list of elementary principles of Christ. These are the foundational 'one' doctrines of the NT. Not having these means you don't have the faith of the NT.

Don, Pastor Doe, should get a reward.

Pastor Doe rules contrary to Ro14 and Dom says he should be rewarded? Again Dom, your lack of proper understanding of scripture is showing.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Dom was responding to this: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.

We have an entire library of Pauline epistles to be able to show us what Paul is trying to convey to his churches. In Romans 14 and 15:1-2, Paul urges mature believers to accept those who are immature who hold different opinions regarding matters like meat used in demonic worship 1 Corinthians 10:20. Or observing days which they would like to place special emphasis on.

The Apostle refers to them as the "weak in faith." Paul emphasizes that since these believers are accountable to God, the more mature elders should not pass judgment on them for their personal opinions. In this specific context, the focus is on maintaining ecclesiastical fellowship and unity despite differing opinions, not on the acceptance of outright false teachings. We can also conclude through mere logic, and understanding of the Pauline writings that being "weak" ἀσθενέω, which is defined in the English as being contemptible, inefficient, to doubt, to hesitate, to be afflicted, to be weak, infirm, deficient in strength. Is not the Apostle's wish for the weak in the faith saint of God, to remain weak in the faith! In Ephesians 4:11-13, Paul teaches how Jesus gives specific elders who hold the titles, apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, teachers to the church to equip believers for ministry. Constructing the Body of Christ. Guiding the church toward unity in faith and knowledge, maturing into the fullness of Christ. To say that the wish of the Apostle Paul is that "weak in the faith" brethren were ok to remain that way for an unlimited amount of their time in the church, is false. For you who claim to desire a word-serving position to believe that "weak in the faith" saints should continue as such, is just so sad.

Therefore we can clearly conclude that Paul's conclusion is, mature elders should accept the "weak in faith" and not pass final judgment on "personal opinions." The ultimate goal of the church's structure and teaching ministry is to help all believers grow, mature, and reach the "fullness of Christ," thereby moving past a state of spiritual weakness in the faith.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

He indicates he accepts both as good. It is a strained effort to explain Ro14 the way Dom has described.

Actually it isn't a strain at all. It is pretty simple when someone doesn't have any agenda. Just tell the truth and shame the Devil. The scripture is pretty clear that Paul is trying to stop experienced seasoned elders from destroying what little faith was left in those who are labeled as "weak in the faith." Teaching that those who were "weak in the faith" to remain for an indefinite amount of time that way, is soul sickening.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

How arrogant of you to say so. Keep up the good work. You always remind me that we should thank Pastor Doe every day for sending you off on your way.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

Well, Don, you can't be the judge of that. The reason being, is that you are blinded by your religious narcissistic behavior. You are right, and Pastor Doe is wrong. The UPCI is wrong for not taking your side. You want us to agree with you that Pastor Doe is not obeying Romans 14, and 15. You want us to agree with you, that Pastor Doe should allow you to climb behind HIS pulpit and practice what you believe Jude 3-4 to mean for you. Anyone here could only give you their honest opinion on your "hypothetical?" Look, I believe that Romans and Corinthians are dealing with what I have already posted numerous times. The way you "claim" Romans 14 to mean, we would expect that you would leave it at that. Even not passing judgement on Pastor Doe and the UPCI. But, it seems to me that YOU don't even follow what you believe Romans 14 to be teaching. Can you say "Don is a 24 karat gold hypocrite?" Don you my boy is hot mess.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

Don, you are clearly saying that the Pauline epistles are subjective. Hence your strong defense that a weak in the faith believer is ok to remain that way indefinitely. Yet, blasphemous is any teaching which claims the Pauline epistles are to be taken subjectively. The Apostle Peter confirms my thoughts on this, when he wrote; 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. That's you Don, that is exactly what you are proposing in all your posts. Paul is subjective, God is subjective, my lands, you must think the way to eternal life is broad and the gate is wide which leads to eternal life, and many will find it. Pastor Doe most certainly called you an Uber.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

Matthew 19:8 Jesus explains that Moses permitted divorce due to the "hardness of heart" of the people, but "clarifies" that this wasn't God's original intention for marriage! Jesus goes on to tell them it was established as a lifelong union from the very beginning. Jesus clarifies, He isn't reading between the lines. He is the LINE.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.)

Don, if you honestly believe the above posting, then you would be saying that nothing matters. Not one doctrine in the Bible can be debated or discussed to be correct or incorrect. Instead of weak in the faith believers being neophytes who held different opinions eating meat offered to demons 1 Corinthians 10:20 were just that, opinions. That in time they would mature and their partial understanding would cease 1 Corinthians 13:11. You are telling us that the weak in the faith believer is just someone who taught scripture differently, and that Paul was cool with that? Well, all I can say is, kiss your word-serving position goodbye.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

How was Israel blinded?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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?

There you have it folks. Don is a done as the dinner dishes. If we take what Don is saying logically, which is hard for me to use Don and logic in the same sentence. But if we take his thoughts to their logical conclusions, then all 45,000 Christian Denominations are OK with God, and would've been OK with the Apostle Paul. Period, end of discussion. Don, believes that Pastor Doe, should've opened his pulpit to all opinions, all different teachings, and theories. Whatever popped in his head after he had a pizza fever dream, and scrawled it all down in his notebook. Jude 3 earnestly contend for the faith? Don, how can one earnestly contend for the faith? After reading your thoughts concerning God and the Apostle Paul not caring about what conclusion someone draws from the scriptures? Even the Apostle Peter with his words in 2 Peter 3:15-16, by your standards is merely his own opinion. Could be right, could be wrong? Hey, that's just what Peter thought because after all his faith might of been weak?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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? Exactly, more acceptable in YOUR opinion. Don, you have the wildest cognitive dissonance. You plainly post that your view cannot make a bit of Biblical sense. You posted that above, but yet you refuse to let go of your inclusionist doctrine. You really need head hunters in the Amazon to be saved, who never heard the Gospel but were just nice head hunters. You can't see what the scripture says, because you have an agenda.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

Yet, just reading through your own thoughts on Romans 14, you are violating Romans 14. Because you are making an issue of Pastor Doe's beliefs concerning head coverings. You being the "strong believer" and he being the "weaker brethren?" Who are you to judge another man's servant? To his own master he will stand or fall? Come on Don, your own false teaching has done you in.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

Don, you are very confused and contradictory. There is no way an Apostolic Jesus Name pastor would ever let you behind their pulpit. No, no way. You are so mixed up. I would normally feel sorry for someone like you, but you are too full of yourself. If Pastor Doe taught that women should wear Mouseketeer ears you should be cool with it. But, even if he did, he still wouldn't and shouldn't let you in a mile radius of his platform.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

Don, I did both, I made fun of you, and I proved you wrong as an extra bonus. You are an Ecclesiastical Pterodactyl who is more in love with being a bud nipper than being a faith strengthener.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Dom here demonstrates apathy to correct interpretation of scripture as a preacher. None should do so. I demonstrate resistance to wrong interpretation of scripture by writing this thread.

Don, obviously from reading your posted rantings concerning God, and Paul's view concerning scripture and Romans 14 this whole thing is a non issue. From what you have posted, Paul would've wanted us to stop arguing about any of this. You are OK, and I'm Ok. From the conclusions I have drawn from your posts, is that we should just go on our merry way. You being spiritually delusional, and I being quite satisfied knowing I am not stuck on the pew next to you. It's all good according from "MY" take away from all your posts. You are an inclusionist. I've got that understanding long ago from reading your threads.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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

No one standing in agreement with scripture is out of luck.

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

Don, if these guys won't let you play in their reindeer games, leave. Where will you go? Don, that is where you start having a little talk with Jesus. You are the one making the issue, you are the one wanting everyone from General Superintendent to the pastor to starting seeing things your way. It's all on you buddy. These guys may of not even knew you had a problem with any of them. But the problem is still just your problem. You have to follow your own teaching, which you been trying to prove to us. You are setting them up as the "WEAKER BRETHREN" you obviously see yourself as the guruji. Therefore if I understand any of your ravings, (which is a feat in itself) the Apostle Paul would've instructed YOU to leave these guys alone. Sit on the pew and smile.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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

Dom is guessing. He thinks my Pastor is Pastor Doe and I am B Smith. Lets let Dom keep guessing about something which was given only as an example.

Don, I personally, don't believe you even are currently in a church. If you exhibit even half of the bullheaded your way our the highway behavior there like you do here? Any Apostolic Jesus name preacher would call you an Uber.

You know I'm telling the truth on that one. You have been in Pentecost since day one.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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

Dom demonstrates apathetic attitudes to people who hurt. Dom is not feeling like God feels. God hurts when those he loves hurt. Don't you read the Bible Dom?

Don, you are a full grown man. You have been in Pentecost since the dawn of time. Through your postings my only take away is that God isn't black and white. But a whole lotta gray. The Apostle Paul ( in your mind ) wanted everyone to get along just to get along. Apathetic? No not all, but you my boy, just want what you what. Unscriptural harm? Don, you are dealing with people, who don't or won't believe like you. If you explained your beliefs and they can't see it, or refuse to see it. What would you have them do? The pastor is over his church. The elders are those teaching the church. If you are a member, then you are with them. Either you agree with them (whether or not you even believe what they teach is doctrinal) or logically you go somewhere else. As I stated in the beginning it is their church, their building, their A/C, their water and electric bills! Don, everyone wants a book of Acts church. I get all that. We all want it to be Jesus serving bread and wine. But, this is what we have, and unless you start your own thing, then buddy boy you'll have tribulation. No word-serving position for you.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Dom paints me as a butcher in a parking lot, while I'd like to be painted as someone contending for proper interpretation of Ro14. There is no similarity between these two pictures. Dom has lost connexion with reality.

Don, you are not contending for the faith. You are in another guy's ministry wanting to make him see things your way. That is not contending, that is pretending. That you will push the envelope hard enough this guy is going to fall over, start speaking in tongues, and pay you 10 year back tithe. Don, you have a pretty inflated self image of yourself. Cut these people some ecclesiastical slack.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Dom expresses sympathy with a Pastor who rules contrary to the Word, seemingly justifying it with excuses of brevity of time being a Pastor. These are not suitable justifications when Ro14 should have permeated church-culture practices. I write this thread, hoping for the correction of the deficiency of practice.

Sympathy for the pastor???? Don, I would give sympathy to anyone who has to deal with you in real time. You my boy is rough and tough and hard to diaper. Sympathy to the pastor isn't what is going on here. I am trying my best to point out to you or anyone reading this, that arguing with a man who is over a CHURCH BUILDING like you are doing may be FUTILE. If they send back your cards and letters. If they stop answering your texts, and emails. If they cross you off their Xmas card list. Then honey child, it is either time for you to cease and desist, sit down and smile and wave. Or walk out the front doors of the church with NO HARD FEELINGS.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Whoa, whoa, whoa here bro. No one has said anything about hell. Those faithful to little get little-rewards. Those faithful to much get much-rewards. If you aren't faithful to Ro14 then you don't get Ro14-rewards.

You stated I’m going to lose my reward for not following your thoughts concerning Romans 14. Losing a reward in Heaven, isn’t that Hell? Or will you start another thread how there are 45,000 denominations in Heaven all having certain locations where they gain special rewards? I can imagine what sort of nonsense you would be advocating in that thread. Those faithful to Don, gets many rewards in Heaven? If, and I do mean if. If you are currently in a church family (I highly doubt it) but, if you are currently in a church. The pastor either doesn’t know your thoughts about him, and his views. You haven’t brought it up in detail to him. Or, he is as messed up as you, and preaches the same thing you preposing here. Don, you have a very inflated self view of yourself. You’re pretty narcissistic, buttered off with cinnamon, glazed arrogance. Which being arrogant isn’t really a down side, that’s if you are super skilled. Or you are well versed in a skill. Muhammad Ali was arrogant, but he was a champion. Bruce Lee was arrogant but he was a champion. You my boy, lack greatly in your surmisings concerning the scriptures. Therefore your arrogance is annoying.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Dom keeps directing his posts to be about 'me and my Pastor' while I want to talk about scripture and its proper interpretation and application. Turn it around bro. Get on track.

No, Don, you started this thread concerning a pastor, and the UPCI. Further in your postings it is easily ascertained that we are dealing with a personal issue you are having. Because of your bleeding it out in your postings. If it is truly a hypothetical then I’ve been dealing with the hypothetical. Yet, I personally believe we are dealing with the life of Don.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Part 2 to follow

Don, a part 2 is just more of the same whining you have exhibited in other posts. What further could you add to any of this? Tell you what Don why don’t you sit back and reread all your threads? All your discussions between everyone. Pray about it, ask Jesus to open your eyes to what is really being said?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Does Ro14 only apply when they do?

Don, I deal with individuals from all kinds of different Christian persuasions. From cults to denominations. When they make statements with a chapter and a verse. It means something totally different from which the original Christians and apostles meant it to mean. I mentioned something concerning B. Smith wanting to get licensed by the UPCI? But, when you answer with "Does Ro14 only apply when they do?" we can only deduce the chapter and verses' meaning based on what you believe the chapter means. Which from reading your postings, nothing would matter either way. Whether or not B. Smith got a license with the org, or whether he believed that the story of the little drummer boy is actually a part of the New Testament. According to your interpretation of the Pauline epistle, the apostle didn't see any harm . As long as the weak and the strong saints can sing kumbaya around the campfire. All is OK with God and the Apostle Paul.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Answering the question I posed would get you on track, Dom. The topic of the thread is correct Bible interpretation and its correct application. You again demonstrate you lack the correct understanding which you accuse me of having.

No, I totally understood the topic. You brought up the UPC org licences preachers who are not in agreement with the majority-held head-covering doctrine. This is why Bowas and I thought you were reopening your topic from the newly closed thread. You also accused the UPC org as not being able to determine just one Biblical head-covering doctrine. You then went on to accuse the UPC to be showing an accommodation for some acceptance of false doctrine? You go on with can there be two correct Biblical head covering doctrines? You reply with the negative. Then claim two are accepted by the UPC. Then you set up your argument, saying "If two are accepted, then could not three or more also be?" You then introduce the readers to your supposed hypothetical the jilted B. Smith, and his unyielding hypocrite pastor, Pastor John Doe. This would lead me to make inquiries and explain my thoughts concerning this so called hypothetical which includes your belief on Romans 14, and God and Paul not being black and white, but intentionally vague. The direction of the thread has everything to do with your first post.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Is Pastor John Doe's church family the only game in town? What in your 'discernment system' motivates YOU asking another irrelevant question? Does Ro14 only apply if there are many churches in town? No.

Would B. Smith's going to another church then suddenly solve a problem which may be practiced in many churches by multiple ministers? No. If this were only an Org issue and not a Word issue, then the Org/Man may have the answer. The Word has the answers for this Word problem: compliance by all to Ro14.

Would B. Smith going to another church solve the problem? At this point in our discussion I must emphatically agree with you. The answer must be a flat out no. Because if B. Smith is even half of the person you are, I couldn't possibly see anywhere this guy could land. I mean, who would want to go through the mental anguish of dealing with someone who can't be fellowshipped no matter how hard you tried. Why subject your elders, and saints to a person who is only focused on getting his way behind a pulpit? Everything about B. Smith is he is right and everyone else is wrong. He doesn't even follow his own belief concerning Romans 14. Because instead of giving Pastor Doe, the org, the elders, and the church family a break on what THEY believe. He just wants to get his word-serving position, no matter who suffers his continuous nagging on the subject.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

The church world is fractured because of the attitudes you show here. Had efforts been made by those involved in church splits over doctrine, using the principles Ro14 reveals, then many splits would not have occurred.

Here we go again, you are claiming that if everyone believed your interpretation of Romans 14 there would've never been any church splits? Do you know that the Pauline epistles deal with church splits!?! 2 Timothy 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes. 2 Timothy 4:10 For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia. 2 Timothy 4:16 At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge. Philippians 2:21 For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's. Galatians 1:6, and Galatians 5:7. Paul the one who you accuse as being vague and unclear just so everyone can get along. Had issues with the early church splitting up and going their own ways. I guess the Apostle Paul wasn't as smart as you Don?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Your propagation of them encourages the disunity which is counter to the unity Jesus prayed for. I'm guessing that your time in the UPC was cut short because those who disfellowshipped you, using 'counter to Ro14 understanding' causing needless division between you and it. Am I right bro, in my guess?

I was never in the UPC. Don, you are a mess.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Thus, bro,

Don't bro me, if you don't know me 1 Thessalonians 5:12.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

you now seem to fight against that which caused the pain of improper 'giving you the boot' and needless separation, had Ro14 been followed. So what again is the reason you are fighting this view of Ro14, pray tell, when it would have negated your pain?

Why? Because you are incorrect on your interpretation of Romans 14, and 15. It is just that simple. You are just arrogant narcissist who can't get over being challenged that you should just sit in a pew and live for God. Stop bothering all the nice ministering elders around you. Just live for God, maybe get a nice bird feeding ministry in the park? How about shoveling snow? You can have a nice snow shoveling ministry?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Oh right, I almost forgot. Some ecclesiastical nut job dares to proclaim that scripture shows them causing needless division (in God's eyes, but not the district eyes you so lovingly often reference)

Don, don't worry if you forget. I will always remind you. If I don't, there will always been a servant of God who will.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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

Again, B. Smith (Don) shouldn't be accepted in a word-serving position. He has to and must be judged as prerequisite found in 1 John 4:1. B. Smith is just bad fruit, and Pastor John Doe has judged it so. Again, it's the guy's pulpit, and his church family. You teach Brand X doctrine, which by what I have been replying to has little to do with your ideas on head coverings. You believe in a whole lotta bad stuff. Where in fact, Pastor John Doe doesn't have to even bid you Godspeed 2 John 1:10-11. Hey, seriously, Don you are really out there.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

And this is a bad thing, right Dom? Listen to yourself here. Do you really believe what you say?

Oh, by all means. Don, I am as serious as a heart attack. There is no way an Apostolic Jesus name Holy Ghost filled Tongue Talking man of Godliness, would let you in 50 miles of their platform or pulpit. Another thing you are pretty dishonest the way you spilt my post to make it sound like I was against you "spouting scripture to peel the paint off the foyer." Then commenting with "And this is a bad thing, right Dom?" So let me help you out. anyone can go back and read my original untampered posting. It is apparent as to what you were trying to do. So, be careful, and please don't do it again.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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

Dom drifts from reality here with these comments.

Well, boys and girls, this is why Don had to kiss his word serving position goodbye.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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

Ephesians 4:3-6 emphasizes foundational, unifying "ones"—One Lord, One faith, One baptism, One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. These highlighting core truths which define Apostolic unity, but it doesn't necessarily forbid diverse opinions from newly converted weak in the faith believers on other matters. The Apostle Paul encourages unity until believers reach maturity in the Apostolic faith. This is most certainly implying growth beyond current understanding, without the elders arguing with the neophytes on every issue outside the "main thing." The "one faith" refers to the core Gospel message, allowing for ongoing understanding within the unified body. Elders working with youngers in the faith, until everyone has the same message. Everyone brought up in peaceful agreement, all on a case to case basis. Elders helping those weak in the faith to hear the voice of God, until they have put away childish things and can see clearly face to face.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Dom again shows he has no desires to talk scripture. His calling is to bring derision to the one who does.

Don, in all my posts replying to you, you are accusing me of not talking about scripture? Would you like to think about that before you respond?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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

I believe what the Apostle Paul teaches in Romans 14. I have proved my case. You on the other hand teach something totally opposite of the Apostle, and Jesus Christ. Don, that is why we are at odds in this thread. Don, you don't believe fat meat is greasy.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Does Dom show he wants to join with Paul in defending the principles of Ro14? If he does, who has he convinced? All he wants to do is mock. He doesn't want to take the time to show how I have derived my conclusions is wrong. Either he can't or he wouldn't. But he will take the time to mock and comment/write about side issues. Something is telling about this kind of response, about those who do so.

Don, I clearly proved that your conclusions are not only wrong, they are blasphemous. You are an Inclusionist, nothing more. Jesus said the road is narrow and the gate is strait which leads to eternal life, and few there will be who find it. You most certainly don't believe that, and your posts prove it. I don't have to prove or show you teach false doctrine. You have already showed one and all that you are an inclusionist.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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

Pastor Doe rules contrary to Ro14 and Dom says he should be rewarded? Again Dom, your lack of proper understanding of scripture is showing.

Don, telling the guy in the debate that they lack the proper understanding of scripture, doesn't mean you won the debate. Prove that I don't have proper understanding of the scriptures. About your beliefs concerning Inclusionism is pretty much akin to antinomianism which Jude was coming against. Again, your posts condemn you, not me. I just add the gasoline to the fire you already provide.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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

I'm replying to you. You are like an individual who beats his wife and claims it was her fault you did it. Don, this is how this works. You post, someone will reply. If it takes miles and miles of posting to get your thoughts out, it was due to the guy replying to your religious lunacy which is just as long. Especially if points need to be made. Don, own your own behavior. You see the bad thing about pious religiosity is that the religious pious can't ever be wrong. It ends up that everyone else around them has caused the problems on why they do what they do. Then when their opposition just leaves them alone, they count it as victory, and a job well done. No one is converted and no one is saved. Which actually, they don't care. Because it's just about a body count, not about Jesus or His kingdom.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

Don, you just want the opposition to shut up. In your mind you don't want debate, discussion, or anything close to an answer. You just want an echo chamber. You want everyone to sit around you just like little birds with all mouths open wide. Mirroring your thoughts. I have cover all the issues in this thread. But, you couldn't care less, because you want to be the holy bud nipper. All the time wanting everyone but yourself to "do better."

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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

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.

Again, all you want is for us to see you as an ecclesiastical Tony Stark. Ready to lead us to a more perfect day.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

The contending is to those who come from the outside to invade the inside of the church family. You know, the wolves in sheep's clothing coming in among the sheep. The job of the shepherds, under the guidance of the master Shepherd. To expose the wolves and drive them out. You would have us believe that the wolves should be petted and fed. You see, it's the job of the wolves to convince the sheep, that the sheep dogs and the Shepherd really don't have their best interest in mind. They don't want the sheep to be free, or think for themselves. But that the wolves really want the best for the sheep. Don, no minister who doesn't agree with you is going to let you drive the bus. It just isn't happening. The more you make arguments by twisting the scripture, or pushing your Inclusionist agenda, just makes it harder for you to be fellowshipped. Also, if you are starting an Absolom ministry within the congregation, you will end up winning a one way ticket to disfellowship.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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?

Don, I have no problem with any verse or book of the Bible. I do have a problem with how you interpret the scriptures and apply them to real life. Yet, that is why no pastor would allow you in their church family to have a word serving position. You believe the presiding minister over a church family and his position on a teaching is an attack of Satan. That's problematic. because for starters their name is on the lease to the building. All those nice people on the pews look towards the elders as their leadership. Not you, you are supposed to be with them. Yet, you want to turn things in your favor by claiming that you are contending for the faith once delivered unto the saints? While you charge the pulpit, and the elders of the "hypothetical" congregation? How's that turning out for you? My boy, it gets cold up in Canada? I guess you can have a snow shovel ministry, to clear a path so you can preach and teach the birds. Because thinking that Jude applies to you attacking the ESTABLISHED leadership on a congregation is a battle which your twisted teaching can't and won't survive.

[donfriesen1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1 View Post
You've got to stop posting so much, Dom, I'm having trouble keeping up.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

I'm replying to you. You are like an individual who beats his wife and claims it was her fault you did it. Don, this is how this works. You post, someone will reply. If it takes miles and miles of posting to get your thoughts out, it was due to the guy replying to your religious lunacy which is just as long. Especially if points need to be made. Don, own your own behavior. You see the bad thing about pious religiosity is that the religious pious can't ever be wrong. It ends up that everyone else around them has caused the problems on why they do what they do. Then when their opposition just leaves them alone, they count it as victory, and a job well done. No one is converted and no one is saved. Which actually, they don't care. Because it's just about a body count, not about Jesus or His kingdom.

Lighten up dude. I was just trying to make a joke and you missed it.