Discrepancy in Church Practice

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I had asked votivesoul for specifics, in post 154. He had accused me in posts 131, 132, 133, making general attacks, but indicating a specific. When asked for quotes pointing to these specifics, he doesn't respond. Of course this 'no response' was expected; the reason being that there are none to be found, that which he accuses me of. It was only done as a baseless accusation. He had only wished to make an Apostolic look bad, when they hadn't done what he said they had done, because that is what weak people do when they have nothing from scripture or reason to counteract against others scriptural/reasoned arguments. Votivesoul will attempt to be seen as winning at all costs, including baseless accusations.

Votivesoul wants to be seen as against that which post1 reveals in wrong practices of Apostolics. Perhaps he has friends he covers for, or he himself is guilty. He would criticize any who would reveal these wrong practices. He is against that which Paul teaches in Ro14.

Why are you against the correct interpretation and practice of Ro14, votivesoul? What happened to your love for the truth of God's Word?

Don, you can scream and cry and rage and cavort and cut yourself and bleed all over the place, but Ba'al isn't coming to save you.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

.

PART 1 of 2

Quote:
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. Right! He is the line. But why are you repeating what I had said elsewhere? What's the point in doing so? And why haven't you said anything about the other two points, Dom? Cat got your tongue? Or are they unproveable as wrong and actually demonstrate the 'reading between the lines' you say doesn't exist?

Quote:
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. This is only true for those who haven't taken the time to understand what I've said. What you said is not my opinion at all. Not one doctrine in the Bible can be debated or discussed to be
correct or incorrect. If only that were true. What unity the church world would have! (Reader, notice the large proliferation of examples Dom gives to bolster his point.) But what you said flies in the face of the daily readers of the Bible. Anyone reading is almost daily coming across portions of scripture that can be interpreted multiple ways. Why would you say this, when most everyone doesn't agree? They won't believe you. 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. The real question to ask is, whether or not someone should not be allowed to do so, when Paul gives instructions in Ro14 to accept and not judge those who differ in opinion. If you have missed this, then I suggest you ask some teenager to read Ro14, to then explain it to you proper. It is that plain.

Quote:
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? I'll wait for your answer to this question.

Quote:
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. Dom, you really ought to get that head injury looked at. It's affecting your understanding. Dom wants you to believe that I am not an Apostolic, that I think that all denominations teach and practice the new birth like Peter did in Ac2.38. But nice try to again smear me with falsehoods, Dom. Too bad I caught you at it, again. 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. Ahem. Cough, cough. Reader, same story as above, second chapter. Could be
right, could be wrong? Hey, that's just what Peter thought because after all his faith
might of been weak? There you have it folks. Dom has expressed his opinions of my opinions and again hasn't gotten them as I have said them. Dom may be biased. He either wants you to believe something which isn't true or he has missed the points I'm trying to make - or he does both.

Par2/2 to follow...

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

.

PART 2 of 2

Quote:
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. Dom here pretends, wrongly, that all Apostolics, except me, have exactly the same interpretation of scripture. Yet even all Apostolics don't have the same opinion of scripture on head-covering doctrine. Right, Dom? So, why pretend that everyone has the same opinion on every other scripture, on lesser subjects, Dom? Dom? 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. Let's ask Dom to define inclusionist doctrine, so we know for sure what this means. It's not likely that I believe what he says, when he is too busy not getting the point of what I've written.

Quote:
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. Stop thinking! You don't have my permission to actually think about the things I'm writing about. And you won't get the gist of what I've just said anyway, because you're too busy not getting what I write about. 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. Dom, do you have permission to preach my doctrine and reject it at the same time? Did you fall on your head? You can't seriously reject and accept my doctrine at the same time, can you?

I do not misjudge Pastor Doe by misapplication of scripture, as you indicate I do. It is impossible for anyone to read Ro14 and not say that Paul doesn't say it is ok for saints to believe contradictory things about the same scriptures. Those who do, have failed Bible Reading 101. If it is ok by Paul for saints to believe different things about holy days and foods, then it will also be true for other subjects; ie, 1Co11 and headcoverings. No one would say everyone agrees on what it says, except the bigoted and biased with narrowed vision.

Therefore, what you say above, about my misuse and misapplication of Ro14, shouldn't have been said. You have misapplied Paul's teaching because you've misinterpreted it. I'd suggest prayer for revelation. Pastor Doe is wrong about his judgment of B Smith, because he has failed to practice what Paul teaches in Ro14. He should and so should all Christians.

But do keep trying in your efforts to discredit what I've said, about how some Apostolics do not follow the practices of Ro14. Your further efforts may yet succeed in erasing Paul and Ro14 from scripture, making scripture to align with your views and not the normal way, the other way around. But until then, faithful Apostolics should practice what it teaches. Do not reject or judge those who do not believe as you do but accept and receive them, as Paul instructs there. You do wish to obey the truth, don't you Dom? Come on, say yes. It's the Apostolic mantra, and maybe someday it will also be the practice of all Apostolics, including yours.

Quote:
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. Right back at you Dom. You are very confused and contradictory. Reader, when someone makes an accusatory statement it should be followed by the facts showing how so. When Dom has provided the facts of my wrongs I will then do likewise. 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.

Quote:
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
My repetition now, of what was said before by me: Dom will discredit my views of Ro14 by making M.A.D. comments (which are: Mostly About Don) and not about scripture. But he did do quite a lot about scripture in this post. Kudos to you Dom, and do keep trying to find ways to logically, scripturally to disprove my views wrong. You may actually do so some day, but not yet today.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

.

Don't bother reading this. These are M.A.D. Mostly About Don.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

.

Don't bother reading this. These are M.A.D. Mostly About Don.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

.

Don't bother reading this. These are M.A.D. Mostly About Don.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

?

Don't bother reading this. These are M.A.D.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Don you were proven wrong multiple times. You couldn’t refute any information I presented. You didn’t even attempt to do so. If anyone is mad, it is you.