Discrepancy in Church Practice

[votivesoul]

Yes. Receive me as I describe myself to be. But do not necessarily receive my thoughts.

Not all that glitters is gold, Don. You saying something about yourself and that thing being factually true to reality are not the same. Surely you know this? Surely you know people claim all kinds of things about themselves, without making those claims true in any sense. Since I cannot believe you do not know this, I can only surmise you are playing games.

Toe the party line whether or not it disagrees with the Bible? Your point is clearly made.

Don, you’re a piece of work, you know that? I am the last person to toe the party line, and if you had spent any length of time here and gotten to know me, you’d know that. Nevertheless, there are actual Apostolic hermeneutics available to you, and you don’t make use of them. I don’t mean UPCI hermeneutics, or ALJC hermeneutics, but Biblical hermeneutics as used by the Apostles, and therefore, Apostolic in origin, and yet you do not avail yourself of them. Rather, you approach the Scriptures from what can be described as a Gnostic hermeneutic. You seek subtextual knowledge. You read “between the lines” to gather information and formulate doctrine. This is the work of a Gnostic, not an Apostolic.

Pray tell, how does providing an example for clarity portray something as ridiculous? It doesn't. Does your use of such a word then demonstrate a bias against the one saying it?

In all the realms of the world, some things in life are ridiculous, and those with a lick of common sense know it. Immediately after I locked your 1 Corinthians 11 IV thread, you create this thread and make use of your novel doctrine as the prime example of how Romans 14 has been routinely ignored or misrepresented, thereby indicating that men have been unfairly denied teaching and preaching positions in local Apostolic congregations because they dare to have a unique view of a particular topic. Sure, I can agree that men have been unfairly denied teaching and preaching roles in local Apostolic churches at time, but that doesn’t make your example and the hypothetical that follows, not ridiculous in nature.

This is indeed true, with my having stated so other times. I have not denied this.

But we’re just all supposed to believe your hypothetical isn’t about you, simply on your word that it isn’t? Well, guess what? You haven’t given your word that your hypothetical isn’t about you, because you refuse to say, even when directly asked, hence playing coy.

You've asked me to be honest, votivesoul. Plz be honest with me. Was the closing of the 1Co11 thread motivated by the personal revulsion your Apostolic hermeneutics felt?

I told you why I closed your thread in a PM. Believe me or not, I gave you my reasons. As far as your hermeneutic goes, you interpret the Scriptures however you want, man. I don’t care. You and Jesus are going to work it out in the end, same as me and everyone else. If I’ve expressed revulsion (kind of a strong word, but I’ll go with it for your sake), it’s because I think you’re manner of interpreting the Scriptures is bunk. You regularly employ eisogesis, you ignore context, and read the text, not as it presents itself on the page, but rather, by looking instead through some subjective cypher you’ve concocted in your own mind. You allege things against God, and the Apostles Christ personally chose, etc. Anyone in their right mind would be revolted. You even contradict the clear teachings of the Scriptures, claiming Moses wasn’t faithful when he was called, even though we are told Moses was faithful in all his house (Hebrews 3:5). You would have us believe you, and not the Word.

I'd deny any temper tantrum. Surely there are other phrases which would have been more apt to use. But what's the big deal about whether or not it is so? Why is it worth highlighting here? My arguments/views wouldn't be affected by this one way or another. It is moot for you to mention it.

Not moot. It is germane to who you are as a man, as someone professing himself to be a teacher of the Holy Scriptures on this forum. And as far as tantrum is concerned, it is entirely appropriate. You were asked some direct questions. Easily answered, had you the courage and forthrightness of heart to answer them. But you decided to take your ball and go home. That is to say, you acted like a child, like a brat who can’t play well with others, hence “tantrum”.

My yea and nay are just that.

Then answer the questions. If you were interviewing for a pastoral or preaching position, or for a license with an Apostolic organization, you’d answer these questions without hesitation. But here, amongst the strangers and nobodies of the internet, you won’t even try. But since you prefer to forfeit your turn, let me show you how it’s done:

Votivesoul,

1.) How long have you been in the Apostolic (i.e. Oneness Pentecostal) Faith?

Nearly 23 years. I personally don’t care for the labels, and don’t associate myself with them, but as far as experience goes, that’s how long.

2.) When were you baptized in the name of Jesus?

March 9th, 2003, by Assistant Pastor Mark Showalter, under the ministry of founding shepherd Pastor Dwight Davis (deceased) at an affiliated UPCI church called Rock of Jesus Apostolic Church, formerly of Elkhorn, WI, USA, but now dissolved.

3.) When did you receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit, speaking with other tongues?

March 9th, 2003, at my baptism.

4.) Are you currently attending an Apostolic (i.e. Oneness Pentecostal) Faith Church?

For the last few months, I am currently attending an independent, local, Acts 2:38 preaching Church of Christ after I was invited there to minister by the widow and daughter of the founding shepherd, who passed away last summer. Before that, I’ve only ever attended Apostolic/Oneness Pentecostal Churches, having converted as an adult, with no prior church history as a child.

5.) Are you the BS of your own hypothetical in this thread?

Clearly not.

6.) Are you the one who was denied a "word serving position" at your local congregation for holding the IV view?

No.

Ouch! get lost sets the stage for my expulsion.

No. Breaking forum rules sets the stage, and you haven’t broken any rules. Otherwise, see previous comments above.

No one needs to dance to my tune. The tune I play can be silenced easily, by showing the error of the reasoning I've used to present it or showing my scriptural interpretations with fault. Dom has adequately presented much evidence to a view I agree with. But Dom's doing this has not destroyed the foundations I've shown for my views. Dom misses the mark he should target. (And so also in my other threads.)

None are so blind as those who refuse to see. In your closed thread on the IV view of 1 Corinthians 11, I asked you what evidence would you be willing to accept to show that your view of the text is wrong. Instead of giving me or AFF an idea of what you think could help disprove your view to you, according to your own metrics, you only answered me by saying “What a strange question”.

You thereby show, as far as you’re concerned, no one can disprove your claims and beliefs. In the Eschatology Section of the forum, our resident Biblical Historist, Esaias created a thread inviting members to post criticisms and problems with the Historist view of Prophecy, thus showing his integrity and honesty, that his position and view could actually be assailed. You, however, were taught the IV by Jesus Christ. You said so yourself. Dance around that all you like, like you did before, but I am quoting you verbatim and you know it. So, how can you be wrong since Rabbi Jesus teaches you to believe the IV view, without the Son of God Himself being wrong. It’s all wrapped up in a tidy little bow of self-aggrandizement and deception. Sad.

Labels mean little. Whether I am called an Apostolic or a Christian, it changes nothing of the thoughts I present. I'm surprised you would make demands of any one particular member to provide such proofs.

You’re surprised. This is a forum where people share themselves, their lives, their beliefs and views, their prayer needs, their testimonies, and updates on life and love and etc. But someone who lurked here for 4 years before posting waltzes in, expecting us to receive him and his teachings, while refusing to tell us something of his experience in the Apostolic Faith, who only wants us to debate views and ideas, but care not for the man behind the curtain? The Great and Powerful Oz, indeed!

As someone in AFF pointed out, about using pseudonyms in AFF and not real names, anyone can make any claims in AFF they want and no one would be the wiser. Fake 'real-names' would not be really exposed until the givers of them reveal themselves. So also with any titles of believers, or responses in answers to the questions you've asked of me. AFF operates on trust.

Come off it, you hypocrite. You know exactly why I made those comments to you. You were virtue signaling about how you used your real name as a screenname, while accusing me of hiding behind a screenname, as if doing so gave you some moral high ground from which to stand and proclaim.

My real name is Don Friesen. I'm known here in AFF, and a Youtube replier, as donfriesen1. User10859 in Stack Exchange.

I'll not answer your questions unless all members are required to do so to be a poster/member. Why do I get special treatment?

Required? No. But it would be to your benefit and might help engender some trust with you. As it stands, that doesn’t appear to be something you desire. So, good on you. You do you, and keep on rocking in the free world, and all that.

I'm an Apostolic. Apostolics are so because of Jn3 and Ac2. Those who comply with its requirements are Apostolic. I am Apostolic. It matters little if some do not call me one. Nothing changes. But even that much is not needed to be known for Bible discussion forum membership.

This is all it takes to be of and/or pertaining to the Apostles and their Doctrine? Please.

(Continued...)

[votivesoul]

(Continued...)

Your highlighting of the initials of B Smith is humorous. I assure you before the Lord Jesus that the choosing of the name had nothing to do with the initials. It is entirely unintentional.

Freudian Slip, perhaps?

B Smith is a fictitious saint.

Thirteen pages later, you finally answer? What was so hard, Don?

But what of the truth of the arguments I've made changes if B Smith and I are the same one. Nothing changes and it is sensless to ask. Those reaching for gossip material by asking gain what in what is a Bible discussion forum. Give me a break from nonsense, plz. Focus on the topic at hand, Ro14.

It changes everything. For starters, it goes from being merely a theoretical thought experiment to a practical action in the real world. Then, it speaks to you as a man, and something, as a man, you’ve personally experienced, which then colors the situation with your personal bias. So colored, the situation is hopelessly one-sided in presentation, unless and until we hear from the pastor in question who denied you a “word serving position”, allegedly because of your IV take on 1 Corinthians 11, and for no other reason, such as you’ve claimed.

More than that, it also speaks to the larger picture of what the Scriptural requirements are for someone to be invited to teach and preach in a local congregation by the eldership and appointed ministry, and whether or not you meet those requirements, above and beyond your novel Instincts View of 1 Corinthians 11. Which then speaks to you, as you, and not just some random hypothetical, non-existent, “fictitious saint”. It requires an examination of Don Friesen, his life, his experiences, his motives, his approach and attitude toward the faith, toward the Scriptures, towards what it means to teach and preach, and whether or not you should have been called into such a promotion.

All of this should be obvious to anyone with half a mind, Don. That you can’t seem to see it doesn’t speak well of you.

Finally, as it pertains to Romans 14, it then requires an examination of what Paul taught in that passage, and whether or not your interpretation stands up under scrutiny. If it’s just a theoretical thought experiment, BS is off the hook, because he cannot give us his take on Romans 14 simply because he doesn’t exist. We can only presume his take is valid, or not. We cannot know for sure. But with you, we can know.

But now plz, be specific. You have said in a general way, that I continually teach contrary to the most fundamental Apostolic hermeneutic available to you. Instead of leaving it like this, a general statement, provide some detail, some specifics.

See above.

You have an opinion of me, making a value judgment of me based on it, and I'm left dangling by the noose, not allowed to have defended myself against this judgment.

Knock it off. You’re not dangling by the noose. This is histrionic malarky and deflection, so you can play the victim, which, medically speaking, is just another indication of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

The courts do not convene for charges of 'they're a criminal'. Specifics like 'on Feb3 they were found in a residence holding a bag with items the owner of the residence paid for, going out a window and arrested'. If you can't provide the specifics then withdraw the statement.

This isn’t a court of law, so stop acting like you want to be treated like it is. This is a nearly defunct Christian Message Board, long past its prime and out of its heyday. The few that remain here make up a small court of public opinion. The opinions derived from such a court are based on your statements alone, since the forum can only allow for statements, with the exception of the posting of photos and links to other sources of information about you. Barring that, if you’ve been judged by me or anyone else, its according to your words and the fruit that your words encourage, one way or the other, good, bad, or indifferent.

I've not made statements here in AFF without providing lines of reasoning and scriptural references. Have I. Have I?

Reams and reams, Don. Your rhetoric seemingly has no end. You can whittle a stick down to nothing with the best of them. But that proves nothing.

Detail the accusations so I can provide a defence. That is the American way the mostly-Christian founders used to build the USA.

More grandstanding and moral posturing, appealing to the founding of the United States of America, as if you’re some USA patriot giving his life in the Revolutionary War. Come off it, already. This has to be a joke. But fine, you want an example?

Here’s one: I accused you of eisogesis in your IV thread, by inserting the word “instinct” into the passage where the word is not present. Your defense was that it’s implied, and you know it belongs because of a revelation from Jesus Christ Himself.

Don’t you see, Don. Once you appeal to Christ Himself as proof of the rightness of your beliefs, the argument is over. Nothing and no one can say otherwise. If you believe Christ is on your side in this, then guess what? BY DEFAULT, everyone who opposes you, OPPOSES CHRIST HIMSELF. No one can win, no matter what we say, write, or prove. You can denounce it all as merely anti-Christian rhetoric. It is hubris par excellence. You want us to judge you on your statements. Well, here is my judgment. You have no fear of God before your eyes (Romans 3:18). You care more about how we judge you and your statements, rather than caring that according to the Lord Jesus, by your words you will be justified and by your words you will be condemned (Matthew 12:36). But if you believe the Lord Jesus justifies you and your words, then stand in that faith. Why care what a nobody and stranger on the internet thinks?

As I've stated to others, show the error of the reasoning I've used in the threads I've started. Show them wrong. Show the interpretation of scripture I've used, to be a bad interpretation. If not able to, then accept them in the same way all truth should be accepted by all Men.

Just stop. Don, Esaias and Evangelist Benincasa and Amanah, and to a much lesser extent, me, have done just that. But you refuse to acknowledge it, then cry the blues because no one has had the gumption, moxy, or know-how to refute you. Congratulations, Don. Your tears are positively crocodilian. Bravo! Encore!

If you show them wrong then you'll be able to say with an honest-to-yourself face, that I continually teach contrary to the most fundamental Apostolic hermeneutic available. I'm fully keenly aware they do not agree with standard Apostolic interpretation. But are my thoughts seen wrong compared to scripture or compared to a long-held interpretation of scripture?

Thank you for playing. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.00.

I think those of AFF see me as wrong only as compared to long-held interpretation of scripture. Those who think them wrong do not compare them to scripture.

Sorry, there are no consolation prizes. Your thumb will have to do.

And the holes in their views I point out in my views, which holes my critics do not plug. Thus, continued retention of bad interpretation is compounded by rejection of truth exposing the error of views. And this from those whose mantra is 'we've got the truth'. Apostolics are just as human as Trinitarians in ways just described.

And the hater rears his ugly skull.

I'm not a novice and fully realise before I post, that I'm up against years of entrenched traditional Apostolic Biblical interpretation, which then sees me with heretical ideas. Even so, I post.

“Here I stand; I can do no other, so help me God. Amen”, is that it? You’re a Martin Luther wannabe?

Trinitarians have a view caused by misinterpretation, seen when all the scriptural facts are considered without bias. But it is scriptural interpretation nonetheless. It may be so with long held Apostolic interpretation.

Anyone who doesn’t agree with you is in as much error as a Trinitarian? Nice. Nicely played. Your willingness to rack up one logical fallacy after another and your tenacity in being wrong on all counts while continuing to push onward is breathtaking. What a specimen, you are, Don.

And yet, I here in AFF put up with the abuse which people who wish to see me leave, heap on me. Why should I stay? Why should I put up with this from those who are spiritual kin by the standards of the New Birth. But I do. I have something of truth to share. I share it and suffer the abuse which comes with it.

Abuse? And yet you keep coming back? What, are you now trauma bound to come back to the people who beat you, like a battered wife in a bad marriage?

No, Don. In this, it takes two to tango. You are a prime example of the Eurhythmics song Sweet Dreams (Are Made of These):

Some of them want to use you
Some of them want to be used by you
Some of them want to abuse you
Some of them want to be abused by you

(Continued...)

[votivesoul]

(Continued...)

All could have been cut short in the first posts with the exposing of the error of reason I used or showing how the Bible I used was misinterpreted. Novice readers wait for a reply to be sent by mature AFF pioneers. And wait. And wait. Instead, abuse of my character. This characterization is not Bible discussion. It is the malignment of a soul, using it to discredit a scripturally-derived view. Those who defend those who do so end up being seen in the same club.

These are the words and is the reaction, of a novice. You freely admit you haven’t read all of Evangelist Benincasa’s posts in this thread, and yet, I have, and he positively has taken a jackhammer to your Romans 14 understanding, providing crisp, clear, doctrine on point and easy to understand, maintaining the context while keeping harmony with the rest of the Pauline corpus, specifically, and the rest of the New Covenant Scriptures, generally.

So, a more honest answer, from someone who is mature and well-reasoned would be something like:

I haven’t read all the posts in this thread. I am trying to keep up, but I have a life and am busying, but I will do my best. I look forward to any arguments anyone has to make against my current view of Romans 14, and will respond as time and opportunity avail themselves to me. So far, I’ve read up to post number ______, and haven’t yet come across anything that I believe successfully shows my view to be in error, but when I catch up with the thread, perhaps I will be proven wrong. Time will tell.

I came to post on AFF, thinking that people I know by reading their posts, have great insight and knowledge of scripture. If any of them know the errors of my reasoning as wrong, they have failed to show it. I've even provided a path for them to follow, to use to prove me wrong. And so I stand as one who has been convinced by scripture to stand firm. The path I used to present my views in these threads has not been shown wrong.

Then let it go, already. You can keep on keeping on. But you won’t let a thread die, having some felt need to keep kicking the corpse of some poor horse.

Would Jesus have been accepted in AFF had AFF existed in 30ad? He had so many new ideas they killed him for it.

You’re being a toad. Stop it.

You insinuate that my calling Dom, short for Dominic, as being disrespectful. James meant no disrespect calling Peter, Simon. Respect does not suddenly appear when a certain name is used. It does not disappear when a certain name is used. James had great respect for Simon, and meant no disrespect when calling him Simon, even though Simon had been renamed by Jesus as Peter. Respect is given or not given, usually in response to what is earned.

Hey! You do understand. And yet, you don’t get it at all, apparently. See previous comments.

And you have said nothing of the disrespect Dom has shown me, only of mine to him. Does this show your favouritism/partiality? Oh, right. I forgot. He is a founding member with rights to disrespect other lesser members. Silly of me to forget.

And you wonder why you are not trusted, respected, well-received, and appreciated? This is preening entitlement. Unlike you, Evangelist Benincasa has earned his reputation! Capisce?

Maybe you should make a TikTok Channel for yourself so you can join the millions of other butt-hurt whiners screaming into the void about how badly you’ve been treated in life?

Whether or not Dom is a founding member of AFF should not have any bearing on any Bible discussion made, nor of your relations with me. I hope that the favoritism you would naturally have, to a long-time founding friend with credit, would not cloud judgment of any new member who has new ideas. Instead, I would hope you would show them wrong if they are wrong.

You presume too much on my time, effort, energy, personal situation, and etc. In times past, I read every post from every thread, and had time, energy, and opportunity to comment at length, debating ideas and doctrines with everyone still here and others who have faded from view. Just because you’re new and wanting to cross swords doesn’t entitle you to a sparring session.

Line upon line, precept upon precept.

This reference to Isaiah 28:11-13 doesn’t mean what you are here attempting to make it mean.

Blanket statements like Dom has made, saying 'you're wrong', are only opinions and not lines of reason. They don't contribute to healthy discussion of Bible topics or to acceptance of truth long hidden from eyes.

There is an “Ignore Button” feature here at AFF. Click on it and you’ll never have to see another one of Evangelist Benincasa’s posts again. It would be a lot better than “This poster won’t be responded to by donfriesen1” or whatever it is you spammed your threads with recently.

You wrote above “I came to post on AFF, thinking that people I know by reading their posts, have great insight and knowledge of scripture.” You lurked here for 4 years before posting. Without a single interaction, you determined in your heart that you knew him/us. But that isn't true.

Rather, while you lurked, you read who knows how many threads and posts made by Evangelist Benincasa, and others, I’m sure. In that time, between then and 2024 when you made your first thread, that Evangelist Benincasa somehow magically became a different poster, with different tactics and methods? That before you began to officially post, he had great “insight and knowledge of scripture” but now that you’ve been posting for a little over a year, he can’t do anything but spout unfounded opinions and accusations, that he can no longer formulate a line of reasoning? How your august presence has reduced him so! Poor Evangelist Benincasa! For shame. Alas, he was a mighty AFF warrior, but now, Don “Quixote” Friesen has chopped him down to naught but a stub. He will be sorely missed.

Don, in all reality, all kidding aside, if you have family and friends up there in the Great White North, I think taking time away from AFF and maybe the internet as a whole, to spend more time with them, more time in prayer, touching whatever grass you can find under whatever blanket of snow nature has graced you with, would serve you well and better than spending time here with us abusers.

Take a hike, hunt a moose, sing the Canadian national anthem, go to a hockey game, or do whatever it is you do that brings you joy. You're welcome here, you're not under threat of a ban, but please don't expect things to be any different for you. We all are who we all are, for better or worse.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

.

Paul isn’t saying to tolerate false doctrine Of course not. This would only come from a backslidden Paul.

But when Paul tells those with opposing views on the same topic (days or foods) that they are OK to do so, two conclusions come to mind:
1. Paul is showing acceptance of false doctrine (because both of their views can't be right at the same time). One or both may be wrong (false doctrine).
2. When Paul realises that God does not always clearly convey doctrine, he then informs that more than 1 interpretation is acceptable in these circumstances.

Of these two, the latter is the most acceptable/logical.

Even you and I, Dom, demonstrate that God doesn't always clearly convey doctrine - we don't agree on an interpretation of Ro14. Thus, this disagreement gives evidence to my view.

I now conclude you've helped prove the point I'm making. Thank You.

Only someone with a bias or an hidden agenda would say that the Word of God is always perfectly clear, showing only one possible conclusion in its words on one topic. God had done so purposely. To believe otherwise would insult the view saying the Lord has infinite abilities.

Can the conclusion in the last paragraph be shown wrong? I doubt any would try, when most would conclude the same.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

.

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? Apparently, Dom does not believe that reading between the lines exists for Christians, likening it to Mithraic practices. Really Dom? Paul's epistles are written to cause neophytes to be lost? This must be Dom's conclusion. It's surely not mine. Yep, Pastor Doe, needs to call B. Smith an Uber.


Quote:
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. Saying anything against shows Dom disagreeing with a valid, truthful statement. Why Dom? 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. Good exegesis here Dom.

Now, how about some on what Paul reveals to those who read between the lines? Those who disprove this methodology would take the foundation from under the walls of the reason for this thread. Dom has yet to show why this method should be discarded, though he has made efforts to mock it.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

.

Quote:
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. Dom again shows he is still infatuated with discussing me and not the subject of the thread.


Quote:
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. Good exegesis again Dom, again avoiding the main topic of the thread. Why avoid?


Quote:
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." John offers good advice all should follow. 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. Plz, do so. And start by showing the conclusions I've presented, as based on error. Your saying those things (which I've agreed to as true) has yet to show the error of methodology I've used as wrong. 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. Awesome! Critique of another's opinions is a healthy exercise none but the proud refuse. Those who refuse to do so civilly; who resort to name-calling for the most part; who resort to character degradation for the most part; those who identify others as sons of Baal when these are seen sharing scripture; when for many many posts they present no scripture or scriptural thought to counter those who identify themselves as Apostolic by sharing scripture and Apostolic thought and scriptural thought doing so, do not reveal theological arguments. They didn't bounce you on your head These who you mention are they who you say are your friends, and they model for you ways which you do not emulate, despising their example. like I do, but you know what? You treated them like they desecrated the genie of the lamp. Esaias got a little nasty at times, perhaps copying practices he learned from you. I'm no door mat, but if anyone wants to treat me like a door mat, then they may learn that what they use to start with, may be used in return, just like it was with you, Dom. I came new to AFF and did not start off by being snarky. I became snarky after others first became snarky with me. I've then repeatedly badgered those who were first snarky, and continued to badger by asking that they should keep to Bible discussion. But here we are. You've again chosen to deflect from the main point of this thread. 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. Plz, refrain from critiquing my character. Show the thought wrong: that reading between the lines in Ro14 shows truths all should receive. You will then have something of satisfaction to warm your heart, which criticising someones character does not buy.

[Bowas]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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? Apparently, Dom does not believe that reading between the lines exists for Christians, likening it to Mithraic practices. Really Dom? Paul's epistles are written to cause neophytes to be lost? This must be Dom's conclusion. It's surely not mine. Yep, Pastor Doe, needs to call B. Smith an Uber.


Quote:
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. Saying anything against shows Dom disagreeing with a valid, truthful statement. Why Dom? 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. Good exegesis here Dom.

Now, how about some on what Paul reveals to those who read between the lines? Those who disprove this methodology would take the foundation from under the walls of the reason for this thread. Dom has yet to show why this method should be discarded, though he has made efforts to mock it.

I refuse to get involved in this, and I have to admit, I have not read most of the posts, but correct me on this. Are you saying you DO believe in reading between the lines of the word of God? Is that what you think is right? (just asking)

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

)

Thank you for a response. I much appreciate it.

*******

You wish to portray yourself as OK in using a double standard.

Votivesoul responds to post 124, which said You want everyone to receive you as an Apostolic? Yes. Receive me as I describe myself to be. But do not necessarily receive my thoughts. And yet you continually teach contrary to the most fundamental Apostolic hermeneutic available to you. Toe the party line whether or not it disagrees with the Bible? Your point is clearly made.

*********

Toe the party line whether or not it disagrees with the Bible? Your point is clearly made. is quoted by votivesoul, who then responds with:

Don, you’re a piece of work, you know that? The ways of your responding encourages similar responses. Deal with what you've started. If you do not want a continuation of such a type of response then choose another method of approach to start with. I will respond in kind, as I just did - in kind. I am the last person to toe the party line, and if you had spent any length of time here and gotten to know me, you’d know that. This is good to know. But I hardly know anything about you, not having read much of your writings. Nevertheless, there are actual Apostolic hermeneutics available to you, and you don’t make use of them. I don’t mean UPCI hermeneutics, or ALJC hermeneutics, but Biblical hermeneutics as used by the Apostles, and therefore, Apostolic in origin, and yet you do not avail yourself of them. votivesoul would have you believe I avoid the use of these. But, reader, plz note that votivesoul provides no specifics to bolster this characterization. Rather, you approach the Scriptures from what can be described as a Gnostic hermeneutic. You seek subtextual knowledge. You read “between the lines” to gather information and formulate doctrine. This is the work of a Gnostic, not an Apostolic. Well, votive soul, aren't you ever the bright one! The 'wrong' method, reading subsurface (like a gnostic), you now have used to accuse me. You read my words, which have never referenced Gnostics, but you discern I use Gnostic hermeneutic to formulate Bible conclusions. You now also read between the lines. But then, you only wish to smear a Man's character doing so, making it OK. And it's not OK, by you, for someone to use it when interpreting the Bible. I got it. You wish to portray yourself as OK in using a double standard, like you just did.

You have just demonstrated that you lack proper understanding to come to proper conclusions. This may explain why you fail to grasp that which is shared by me, about 1Co11 and Ro14.

When you have nothing to grasp out of your tool box, to refute my conclusions, you grasp at gnosticism and attempt to make it fit the situation, just to make me look bad with my Biblical conclusions. These are the means of a desperate man grasping for straws. I'd suggest an alternative: receive and embrace the conclusions I've made of Paul's Ro14 words. There is nothing shady in their findings and our Apostolic world would be made better by it, just like God planned when he inspired Paul to write it. Do not frustrate the plan of God by rejecting his Word.

This reading between the lines is also used by you, of the example I give in post 1. You attribute, along with Dom, that B Smith is doing many things not mentioned there, doing this by reading between the lines. The following is from your post 132, where you do so. Quote:
But what of the truth of the arguments I've made changes if B Smith and I are the same one. Nothing changes and it is sensless to ask. Those reaching for gossip material by asking gain what in what is a Bible discussion forum. Give me a break from nonsense, plz. Focus on the topic at hand, Ro14. It changes everything. For starters, it goes from being merely a theoretical thought experiment to a practical action in the real world. Then, it speaks to you as a man, and something, as a man, you’ve personally experienced, which then colors the situation with your personal bias. So colored, the situation is hopelessly one-sided in presentation, unless and until we hear from the pastor in question who denied you a “word serving position”, allegedly because of your IV take on 1 Corinthians 11, and for no other reason, such as you’ve claimed."

You thus do what you say I shouldn't do. This examples the h word you use on me in post131.

I've not used deception nor hidden the fact that I use 'reading between the lines' methodologies. In fact, I highlighted it. Yet votivesoul would have you believe I have used gnostic methodology. But plz, votivesoul, now quote, showing where I've been deceptive? If not, then plz withdraw the accusations. Be a man in your ways and do the right.

Let's ask readers to chime in, to tell if or not they also read between the lines. Only the intellectually dishonest will say they do not read the Bible using this method. It is almost impossible not to do so. How many examples must I provide, I've already provided many, before you will retract an idea that denies the use of it to correctly understand scripture? How many?

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Bowas

I refuse to get involved in this, and I have to admit, I have not read most of the posts, but correct me on this. Are you saying you DO believe in reading between the lines of the word of God? Is that what you think is right? (just asking)

Bowas wants to get involved but not so much. We do as much as we like to. We need not provide reasons. We are free in AFF.

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: Yes, and I've given multiple examples of such. Since you haven't read many posts I will give an example, taken from https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.co...ad.php?t=55053 which is my thread: 1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame.

Reading 1Co11.2-16 sees Paul making a conclusion. See v3. But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. He makes a statement but doesn't here say where it comes from. Apostolics call this conclusion God's Order Of Authority. It is: God as head, the man Christ under him, man - subordinate to God/Christ, woman - subordinate to both man and God/Christ.

It is understood that Apostolics should follow this order because it is given by God to obey.

Paul then refers, v8-12, to the Beginning as the basis for his conclusion. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God. When we read in Ge we see no direct words from God indicating by words that he expects A&E to follow an Order Of Authority. Nothing at all indicates to all Men anything directly from God's mouth about God's Order of Authority, which later is seen as Paul's doctrine. Where then does Paul get his conclusion from, if God made no such statement/command there? It did not come from a command of God seen in the Beginning asking for it, did it?

I've said in other places that Paul makes it up. If I offend you using this phrase, which implies that it comes entirely out of Paul's imagination, then substitute the phrase with: Paul reads between the lines, by his own volition, to make conclusions. Paul gets meanings from events, specifically: Eve was created for Adam, Ge2.

This was only an event and it was not to command anything like that which is implied by v3 and God's Order Of Authority.

Yet using 'reading between the lines' shows that it indicates Eve should be submissive, but not because she was commanded to do so. If she was made for Adam's purposes, then it is logical to think she should be subordinate to the one she is made for. This understanding comes from logic, not words of a command.

What also is not said by command is that Adam should be subordinate to God. We assume this to be commanded but it is only an assumption. Obviously, Adam should be subordinate to the One who is vastly superior to him in every conceivable way. But this subordination is known to us/Adam not by command but by the use of the reasoning ability God gave to all Men. God did command other specifics, such as that certain fruit.

All this is deductive reasoning at work. It is not reading of a command of God asking for Man to comply with his Order Of Authority. Even so, Paul has presented it in 1Co11 as an irrefutable doctrine all should follow. Even though he made it up by using deductive reasoning. (I've only used 'made it up' to indicate it came out of his thoughts. Paul uses God-given deductive reasoning abilities like it was designed by God to be used. Paul's conclusions are right and should be received as Truth with a capital T. Not everything which we should live by comes by a command of God.)

For what it's worth: Perhaps you noticed that Paul has included Christ, when Ge mentions nothing of him. Thus Paul adds to the Word of God, doing so by necessity because further events demand so.

So, Bowas, this is just one example where the scripture shows doctrine coming out of an event, and not from a command of God. It had come to Paul by way of reading between the lines of words written of the Beginning. Doctrine has come by way of reading God's Word but using deductive reasoning/reading between the lines to do so.

God's Order Of Authority was not given as a command of God, but it was indicated by events. Paul makes it authoritative when it is included in 1Co11. Yet even he does not command it. He says this: I want you to know. It is instructive, not commanding, info.

I can give examples of Jesus using reading between the lines. I have other examples also.

[Bowas]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Bowas wants to get involved but not so much. We do as much as we like to. We need not provide reasons. We are free in AFF.

Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: Yes, and I've given multiple examples of such. Since you haven't read many posts I will give an example, taken from https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.co...ad.php?t=55053 which is my thread: 1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame.

Reading 1Co11.2-16 sees Paul making a conclusion. See v3. But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. He makes a statement but doesn't here say where it comes from. Apostolics call this conclusion God's Order Of Authority. It is: God as head, the man Christ under him, man - subordinate to God/Christ, woman - subordinate to both man and God/Christ.

It is understood that Apostolics should follow this order because it is given by God to obey.

Paul then refers, v8-12, to the Beginning as the basis for his conclusion. 8 For man is not from woman, but woman from man. 9 Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. 10 For this reason the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. 12 For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God. When we read in Ge we see no direct words from God indicating by words that he expects A&E to follow an Order Of Authority. Nothing at all indicates to all Men anything directly from God's mouth about God's Order of Authority, which later is seen as Paul's doctrine. Where then does Paul get his conclusion from, if God made no such statement/command there? It did not come from a command of God seen in the Beginning asking for it, did it?

I've said in other places that Paul makes it up. If I offend you using this phrase, which implies that it comes entirely out of Paul's imagination, then substitute the phrase with: Paul reads between the lines, by his own volition, to make conclusions. Paul gets meanings from events, specifically: Eve was created for Adam, Ge2.

This was only an event and it was not to command anything like that which is implied by v3 and God's Order Of Authority.

Yet using 'reading between the lines' shows that it indicates Eve should be submissive, but not because she was commanded to do so. If she was made for Adam's purposes, then it is logical to think she should be subordinate to the one she is made for. This understanding comes from logic, not words of a command.

What also is not said by command is that Adam should be subordinate to God. We assume this to be commanded but it is only an assumption. Obviously, Adam should be subordinate to the One who is vastly superior to him in every conceivable way. But this subordination is known to us/Adam not by command but by the use of the reasoning ability God gave to all Men. God did command other specifics, such as that certain fruit.

All this is deductive reasoning at work. It is not reading of a command of God asking for Man to comply with his Order Of Authority. Even so, Paul has presented it in 1Co11 as an irrefutable doctrine all should follow. Even though he made it up by using deductive reasoning. (I've only used 'made it up' to indicate it came out of his thoughts. Paul uses God-given deductive reasoning abilities like it was designed by God to be used. Paul's conclusions are right and should be received as Truth with a capital T. Not everything which we should live by comes by a command of God.)

For what it's worth: Perhaps you noticed that Paul has included Christ, when Ge mentions nothing of him. Thus Paul adds to the Word of God, doing so by necessity because further events demand so.

So, Bowas, this is just one example where the scripture shows doctrine coming out of an event, and not from a command of God. It had come to Paul by way of reading between the lines of words written of the Beginning. Doctrine has come by way of reading God's Word but using deductive reasoning/reading between the lines to do so.

God's Order Of Authority was not given as a command of God, but it was indicated by events. Paul makes it authoritative when it is included in 1Co11. Yet even he does not command it. He says this: I want you to know. It is instructive, not commanding, info.

I can give examples of Jesus using reading between the lines. I have other examples also.

In that you referenced Jesus and Paul in your defense to read between the lines, (which they did not) this verse immediately came to mind, as you seem to be elevating yourself to their status.

Can you read between these lines?

Act 19:15.. And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are ye?..