Discrepancy in Church Practice

[donfriesen1]

Priscilla and Aquilla completed Apollos.


Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1 View Post
I love 'discussing' with you, Dom.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

No you don't.

Hi, Dom. Sorry about that, Dom. But you don't get to decide for me what I enjoy or don't. You also don't get to decide if I'm Apostolic or not. Nor if you are the top dog or cop, of AFF.

I do enjoy examining the points of scripture you present. I also enjoy pointing out the weakness of your views, thinking that it shows the AFF audience the deficiency of the Apostolic view with you as its representative.

The following will simplify for you. If you want to defeat/show in error what I say about Ro14, then take these steps:
1. disprove that the Bible is capable of being read 'between the lines'.
2. disprove what the Bible shows in Ro14, coming from reading between the lines.

Thus far (I haven't yet read/responded to all your posts), you have said to readers that Ro14 is only about weak/strong saint relations. I agree with this. But this is an incomplete view.

Priscilla and Aquilla didn't set out to disprove to Apollos what he preached, when he wasn't wrong, but explained to him the way of God more accurately Ac18. His view was not wrong, just incomplete. So I do also, with my Ro14 commentary.

Your view, the weak/strong saint view, shows what readers of the OT will often see - the Lord defending the weak righteous against the strong carnal. This practice does not die with the OT, but continues as a demonstration of righteousness/justice values which God holds dear. Nothing I say about Ro14 contradicts this view or your view of Ro14. It completes it.

Do not continue with your efforts to disprove me an Apostolic. God has demonstrated that I am, by his Word. If you continue, you place yourself as contradicting God. This would be silly for anyone to do. It would also be silly to argue against that which is seen as truth by reading Ro14 between the lines.

Why have you not yet disproved my view, with the many words you've written? Do you lack discernment to see that if you destroy the foundation the building crumbles? Of course, if you are too busy portraying my character as bad, or my lack of being Apostolic, then it doesn't leave much time to attack the foundation. This shows your weakness as not understanding the right steps to take. Does it also demonstrate why you do not grasp what reading between the lines in Ro14 fails to show you?

Give it up Dom. Stop fighting God. Accept what is seen in reading Ro14 with a between the lines method. Accept that Paul shows that God allows the holding of multiple contrary views of scripture (the scripture he has presented which naturally allows for multiple views) as acceptable. Apostolic's have wrongly projected that God always speaks with clarity, resulting in those who have varying opinions as seen believing false doctrine. Ro14 sees Paul showing otherwise. Apparently?, some Apostolics have not 'caught up' to Ro14; 15.1-7 in their beliefs and practices.

Instead, what we see is someone who thinks they represent all Apostolics, fighting what Ro14/Paul portrays. This is sad.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Priscilla and Aquilla completed Apollos.

Apollos was one who only knew the Baptism of John, just like others in Ephesus found in Acts 19:1. Apparently there was individuals in Ephesus who didn't have understanding of the infilling of the Holy Ghost and Jesus name baptism. Apollos being one of them.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I love 'discussing' with you,

No you don't.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Dom. Hi, Dom. Sorry about that, Dom. But you don't get to decide for me what I enjoy or don't. You also don't get to decide if I'm Apostolic or not. Nor if you are the top dog or cop, of AFF.

I'll decide whatever I want. You are pretty pleased with yourself. As far as top dog? That would be your ecclesiastical fantasy.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I do enjoy examining the points of scripture you present.

No you don't.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I also enjoy pointing out the weakness of your views,

You see, this is what you love. You are a blind guide yearning to have poor souls follow you right into a bottomless pit. You love the idea of being a bud nipper, you don't wait for the individual to digest, to contemplate, to muse over your opinion. Like I have said in previous posts to you, you are the one who has received the light. You can read between the lines, you are the one to show us the Bible truth. Only armed with your tapping white cane and dark sunglasses. Marching so proudly towards the abyss.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

thinking that it shows the AFF audience the deficiency of the Apostolic view

Yes, Don, all done through your own confirmation bias, fueled by your cognitive dissonance. Any pastor spending enough time with you would determine this ability of your's. Quickly accessing the situation would smartly show you the exit and call you an Uber.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

with you as its representative.

The following will simplify for you. If you want to defeat/show in error what I say about Ro14, then take these steps:
1. disprove that the Bible is capable of being read 'between the lines'.
2. disprove what the Bible shows in Ro14, coming from reading between the lines.

I already had accomplished this. Quite a few times I may add. Yet, since you are trapped in your own private religious delusion you are incapable of seeing any side but your own. You are driven by the thought that you are correct with your interpretation of Romans 14, 15, and now the evolution of Paul the Apostle. Hence making the Pauline epistles just mere suggestions, because after all, Paul was in transition. If it doesn't teach a flawed Apostle Paul, learning as he goes, I can't fathom anything to say in your defense. Imagine you telling me you are the harbinger of Paul's Truth, I'll retire to Bedlam.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Thus far (I haven't yet read/responded to all your posts), you have said to readers that Ro14 is only about weak/strong saint relations. I agree with this. But this is an incomplete view.

You haven't read all my posts? How then can you say I haven't answered your arguments? That's another thing, why no self respecting pastor, and elders would allow you a word serving position. You are not honest when it comes to discussions, How can they turn saints of God over to you, when you crash out and start making untrue claims? Your word serving position is going down as fast as the Titanic.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Priscilla and Aquilla didn't set out to disprove to Apollos what he preached, when he wasn't wrong,

Well, actually they did. As well as the Apostle Paul in Acts 19:1-7. Just like the 12 men who Paul dealt with the same thing was dealt with Apollos. In Paul, we have an expanded view, with Priscilla and Aquila we have just the points where they teach Apollos, and CORRECT him. They weren't adding on to his previous beliefs, but expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. Therefore removing the baptism of John, with Holy Ghost infilling and the baptism of Jesus.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

but explained to him the way of God more accurately Ac18. His view was not wrong, just incomplete.

Yes, Apollos' view was wrong, same as the 12 men who also only knew John's baptism. Apollos didn't know about the Holy Ghost, or the baptism of Jesus.
Apollos was missing the full message of Jesus’ resurrection and the Holy Ghost. The same as the 12 disciples in Acts 19:1-7. Apollos' teaching was accurate concerning Jesus as the Christ, but insufficient concerning soteriology until Priscilla and Aquila CORRECTED him. While Apollos wasn't wrong concerning Jesus as the Christ, he was wrong on BAPTISM! The infilling of the Holy Ghost! Don, I wouldn't allow you to teach "Trix are for kids!"

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

So I do also, with my Ro14 commentary.

Oh, now you are Priscilla and Aquila, teaching all us ecclesiastical pygmies the way of God more perfectly? Don, maybe if you read the words of the scripture instead between the lines, you might be able to find the narrow way, and the strait gate.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Your view, the weak/strong saint view, shows what readers of the OT will often see - the Lord defending the weak righteous against the strong carnal. This practice does not die with the OT, but continues as a demonstration of righteousness/justice values which God holds dear. Nothing I say about Ro14 contradicts this view or your view of Ro14. It completes it.

The strong carnal? The righteous weak? As I always say. "let them talk and they will bury themselves with their many words." Don, your doctrine of the Gospel of Inclusion gets stronger with everyone of your posts. So, the elders of the church were carnal, not the ones who had weak faith? The ones who believed it was dangerous to eat a hot dog because someone might of offered it to Satan? Good God in Zion!

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Do not continue with your efforts to disprove me an Apostolic.

Continue my efforts? Don, I don't have to do anything. I just post, you are the one sticking your own ecclesiastical foot in your heterodoxical mouth.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

God has demonstrated that I am, by his Word.

Don, don't blame God for your wresting of the scripture, 2 Peter 3:16.
You misinterpret the Bible to force it to mean something other than the Apostle Paul's intent. All to suit personal bias.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

If you continue, you place yourself as contradicting God.

Oh, now you are God? You are certifiable.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

This would be silly for anyone to do.

Yes, I agree. It is pretty silly for you to now claim that criticizing your religious nonsense would be contradicting God.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

It would also be silly to argue against that which is seen as truth by reading Ro14 between the lines.

Don, seen by you. You fabricated an entire agenda just to allow some bozo to have a word serving position to teach what he believes about head coverings. Priscilla and Aquila weren't disccussing head coverings. Paul writing the Roman Church wasn't talking about weak in the faith saints and their opinions on head coverings. B. Smith needs to call his own Uber.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Why have you not yet disproved my view, with the many words you've written?

Well how would you know? Since you told me you haven't read all my posts?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Do you lack discernment to see that if you destroy the foundation the building crumbles?

No, I haven't lost discernment. I have discerned that you don't believe fat meat is greasy.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Of course, if you are too busy portraying my character as bad, or my lack of being Apostolic, then it doesn't leave much time to attack the foundation.

Don, you make it all too easy. I don't have to busy myself to portray your bad character, or that you are not Apostolic. You do that all by yourself. From the first time you ever posted with us. You constantly stay on the same line of your teaching. God isn't clear to His followers, Gentiles who have never heard the Gospel live righteously by the leading of their conscience. And now the Apostle Paul was a learn as you go Apostle to the Gentiles. Keep posting and I guarantee you have a whole lot more nonsense in your bag of tricks.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

This shows your weakness as not understanding the right steps to take. Does it also demonstrate why you do not grasp what reading between the lines in Ro14 fails to show you?

There is probably a whole lot more that you believe which I don't believe.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Give it up Dom.

No, you give it up.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Stop fighting God.

Don believes he is God.

I bet the pastor and elders really had their eyes roll over white when you informed them. I could only imagine the pastor's wife looking over at her husband with one raised eyebrow.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Accept what is seen in reading Ro14 with a between the lines method.

No.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Accept that Paul shows that God allows the holding of multiple contrary views of scripture (the scripture he has presented which naturally allows for multiple views) as acceptable.

B. Smith is an idiot, and Pastor J. D. and church family will be moving. Leaving no forwarding address for B. Smith.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Apostolic's have wrongly projected that God always speaks with clarity, resulting in those who have varying opinions as seen believing false doctrine.

Is that so? So, Don, is accusing me of saying he is not APOSTOLIC!!??!!

Read'em and weep, read'em and weep. With his own hand he typed out the above. Don, sees Apostolics as the "other" who he is their only salvation. Don, would you happen to have a top hat and a seer stone?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Ro14 sees Paul showing otherwise.

Really? You mean the Apostle who you say was "weak in the faith" himself?
B. Smith is a big dummy, and Pastor J. D. deserves a reward for putting up with the guy....hypothetically.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Apparently?, some Apostolics have not 'caught up' to Ro14; 15.1-7 in their beliefs and practices.

That's because the Apostolics are waiting for you to decipher the rest of the golden plates.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Instead, what we see is someone who thinks they represent all Apostolics, fighting what Ro14/Paul portrays. This is sad.

I never said I represent anyone, but myself. You on the other hand think you hold the keys to the kingdom. You make statements concerning the scripture but provide no logical proof to defend what you claim. You need help worse than the breath of life, but since you believe you are a prophet, apostle we are the ones who need your help. So, you twist and turn all the while believing you are the one who should lead. B. Smith needs to apologize to Pastor J. D. and the entire church family. Then go call an Uber.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

God bless Evang. Benincasa. God loves him with an everlasting love. Those who do not love those who God loves set themselves against God.

What is this weird, passive aggressive nonsense?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Hi, Dom. Sorry about that, Dom. But you don't get to decide for me what I enjoy or don't. You also don't get to decide if I'm Apostolic or not. Nor if you are the top dog or cop, of AFF.

Don, let me explain something to you. I hope you attend carefully to my words.

Evangelist Benincasa has a full line of credit here at AFF. He is an original member since this forum was founded, whose years of experience and expertise in the Apostolic Faith and Ministry have been proven over and over and over again.

You, on the other hand, are merely a Donny-Come-Lately, who has no credit here at AFF. Not yet at least. And by the looks of it, that doesn't seem like it's going to change any time soon. But it's up to you.

"Dom" as you have taken liberties to call him, has earned his place and has the respect of his fellow posters (few though they now may be).

Don has not earned his place and does not have the respect of his fellow posters (few though they now may be).

Get it?

You want everyone to receive you as an Apostolic? And yet you continually teach contrary to the most fundamental Apostolic hermeneutic available to you. When asked if you are a current member of an Apostolic Church, you play coy. You've created this ridiculous hypothetical about some dude you've named BS (how appropriate, btw!!!) holding to YOUR view of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, even though you admitted that as far as you know, you're the only person in the whole world who believes the IV, as you call it, thereby showing you're the BS of your own hypothetical. Yet when challenged to just admit it, you temper tantrum around the question.

If you're as Apostolic as you say, how about "Let your yea be yea and your nay be nay"?

So, let's not dance anymore to your tune. Answer these questions:

1.) How long have you been in the Apostolic (i.e. Oneness Pentecostal) Faith?
2.) When were you baptized in the name of Jesus?
3.) When did you receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit, speaking with other tongues?
4.) Are you currently attending an Apostolic (i.e. Oneness Pentecostal) Faith Church?
5.) Are you the BS of your own hypothetical in this thread?
6.) Are you the one who was denied a "word serving position" at your local congregation for holding the IV view?

Come clean, Don. Come clean, or get lost.

[donfriesen1]

Part 1 of 2.

Originally Posted by votivesoul

.

Don answers votivesoul's post 119.

Thank you for posting and expressing yourself. Much appreciated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
God bless Evang. Benincasa. God loves him with an everlasting love. Those who do not love those who God loves set themselves against God.

What is this weird, passive aggressive nonsense? It's not nonsense.

The use of inflammatory words such as nonsense puts up defensive barriers in those they are addressed to. Words that aren't inflammatory, there are many, which convey displeasure in less offensive means, better create openness. Barriers popping up needlessly prevent openness and the trust needed for convos.

In spite of negative feelings that I have toward Dom because of the nastiness he has shown to me, I realise that God loves him as much as God loves me. I wrestle down those bad feelings with that knowledge. God does not have favourites. As a child of God Dom deserves to be respected and loved. If I disrespect him, then I place myself at odds with the One who loves him as he is - as imperfect as I. I deserve no more respect than he, but also no less. God loves us equally and we should love one another equally.

As a minister of the Gospel he deserves the honour given to those who sacrifice much to do so. I give that honour. Those who rule/minister well receive greater honour than those who don't rule/minister as well. Dom misrepresents the God of love, who uses great grace, great patience, great restraint in efforts to dissuade people from their sinful ways. God does not disrespect the image he has placed in each. If God had used Dom's methods then all would run from God, not to him. God cannot be wrong with methods or attitudes. But Dom can.

This is a discussion forum. Ideas should be shot down, ground into the dust, spat upon metaphorically using diplomatic means respecting the character of the one presenting them. When seen wrong, bad ideas should be shown how they use bad logic and misrepresentation of scripture, but not with attacks on character. Needless divisions result, making camps who lob truth bombs at each other which none receive for pertinent examinations. Bad feelings prevent interactions of truth. The gaps between them widen, leading to great rifts in Christians, preventing dialogue. Capt Dom leads the charge causing division.



Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
Nor if you are the top dog or cop, of AFF.

Don, let me explain something to you. I hope you attend carefully to my words. I'm here as a guest. I've paid nothing monetarily to be a part of this forum. I have no rights here but what has been given to me. I do not wish to be thought of as abusing these rights. If I have failed, then let me know if amends are possible.

But what I don't want is to have less rights than any other member who, like me, also hasn't paid monetarily to be a member. If you as an admin wish to show greater rights to someone that has 'credit', then please indicate these individuals with a symbol, so I can dance around them with imitation respect if necessary.

The way the forum is portrayed is that all members are equals, with admins having special necessary oversight rights. God bless you for doing so. If Dom has rights I am not aware of because he is a longer-time credited member, then plz, show respect to my ignorance of this when he has no symbol indicating special rights. With this symbol I could then have avoided him or given him the deference you seem to indicate I should have given to him without me knowing I was supposed to be giving it. Good grief!

Your words, here and below, sound threatening to me. Had I been aware at the start of my journey in AFF, that unspoken rules were enforced by threats, then I could have taken alternate actions. But I came thinking this was an open forum, that any Bible discussion could be had without restriction, open for dissection, debunking, denuding, acceptance, propagation, as necessary.

Seemingly, Dom has greater rights as a member than another. Your words here have indicated this. I then have lesser rights. But I had first thought all members were equal. Now, after over a year I now know that I am not an equal member and Dom has undeclared rights because he is a founding member, a friend of an admin. Has favouritism been shown to him because? He is so nasty. I think a blind eye is turned to this because of a long term friendship with an admin. But, I'm only guessing by severely limited knowledge.

Can we start fresh? Can I re-new my membership with the knowledge that the forum has members with special privileges which I should be aware of? Or, is there no hope for me as an AFF member?

Evangelist Benincasa has a full line of credit here at AFF. He is an original member since this forum was founded, whose years of experience and expertise in the Apostolic Faith and Ministry have been proven over and over and over again.

You, on the other hand, are merely a Donny-Come-Lately, cute name exchange you made there who has no credit here at AFF. Not yet at least. And by the looks of it, that doesn't seem like it's going to change any time soon. But it's up to you.

"Dom" as you have taken liberties to call him, has earned his place and has the respect of his fellow posters (few though they now may be). I'll not point out that you've taken liberties with calling me Don. No offense taken.

Don has not earned his place and does not have the respect of his fellow posters (few though they now may be).

Get it? Point clearly made.

Part 2 of 2 to follow.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

The use of inflammatory words such as nonsense puts up defensive barriers in those they are addressed to. Words that aren't inflammatory, there are many, which convey displeasure in less offensive means, better create openness. Barriers popping up needlessly prevent openness and the trust needed for convos.

In spite of negative feelings that I have toward Dom because of the nastiness he has shown to me, I realise that God loves him as much as God loves me. I wrestle down those bad feelings with that knowledge. God does not have favourites. As a child of God Dom deserves to be respected and loved. If I disrespect him, then I place myself at odds with the One who loves him as he is - as imperfect as I. I deserve no more respect than he, but also no less. God loves us equally and we should love one another equally.

As a minister of the Gospel he deserves the honour given to those who sacrifice much to do so. I give that honour. Those who rule/minister well receive greater honour than those who don't rule/minister as well. Dom misrepresents the God of love, who uses great grace, great patience, great restraint in efforts to dissuade people from their sinful ways. God does not disrespect the image he has placed in each. If God had used Dom's methods then all would run from God, not to him. God cannot be wrong with methods or attitudes. But Dom can.

Don, all this is moral posturing. It is meaningless. Just because the sentiment “God loves Evangelist Benincasa” is true, that is merely in a technical sense. Calling your comments “weird, passive aggressive nonsense” speaks to the dubious nature of your motives. If you need to remind yourself that God loves people in order to keep you from running your mouth off, why do you post it? It smacks of grandstanding and insincerity.

James 2:19 tells us evil spirits believe. But is their faith the same as the faith of a believer? Is it accounted to them as righteousness? Certainly not!

Christ was regularly identified by the evil spirits he exorcized from people. Their confession of His identity was technically accurate: the Holy One from God (Mark 1:24 and Luke 4:34), the Son of God (Mark 3:11 and Luke 4:41), and Son of the Highest God (Mark 5:7 and Luke 8:28).

But that doesn’t make their confession of His identity sincere or motivated by righteous intentions. So, you announcing to yourself and to AFF and anyone lurking that God loves Evangelist Benincasa doesn’t automatically mean you mean it with sincere, pure motives. You could be projecting onto Evangelist Benincasa an attempt to try to remind him that God loves you, and so, he ought to treat you better.

Furthermore, look at how well your reminder to yourself is working: you routinely slander and make fun of, and sarcastically jab at Evangelist Benincasa. Top dog, AFF cop, Capt. Dom, Dom misrepresents the God of love, you starting a thread to personally call Evangelist Benincasa to the floor for a dressing down, and any number of other comments and digs made out of spite simply because Evangelist Benincasa shared his sincerely held opinion that you are an ecclesiastical narcissist, and so, he doesn’t trust, respect, or believe you to be a sincere, fellow believer and brother. Hey, maybe he is wrong on all accounts, and he didn’t rightly peg you to the wall? Won’t he answer to the Lord Jesus Christ for that? And you needn’t do anything but love him as your enemy, bless him for cursing you, and pray for him for treating you spitefully? Instead, your passive aggressive snipes of retaliation aren’t helping to prove him wrong, either, ergo, you aren’t helping your own case.

This is a discussion forum. Ideas should be shot down, ground into the dust, spat upon metaphorically using diplomatic means respecting the character of the one presenting them. When seen wrong, bad ideas should be shown how they use bad logic and misrepresentation of scripture, but not with attacks on character. Needless divisions result, making camps who lob truth bombs at each other which none receive for pertinent examinations. Bad feelings prevent interactions of truth. The gaps between them widen, leading to great rifts in Christians, preventing dialogue. Capt Dom leads the charge causing division.

Don, this isn’t merely a forum, though it is certainly that. It is a forum made up of Apostolic believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. In Christianity, we cannot separate the ideas and messages we share here, from the people and messengers that share them. The Holy Scriptures of the New Covenant instruct us to put spirits to the test, i.e. try those men and women who would come to us to share a message allegedly from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ (See 1 John 4:1).

How do we do this? We listen to, read, or otherwise ingest their message. Then we examine the messenger. It is not enough that the message itself is accurate. The messenger must also be tried. Paul is a prime example, routinely referring his audience to his manner of life, how he lived with and behaved himself while ministering the Good News (See, e.g. Acts 20:18-19, 1 Thessalonians 2:7-8, and 2 Timothy 3:10-11).

Futher, in Revelation 2:2, Jesus commends the Ephesian Church for putting those who claimed apostleship to the test, and found them to be lying. How did they administer such a test? By investigation and examination. It wasn’t enough to just receive the message. The messenger was tried by the members of the Body of Christ. This is how we prove all things, and hold fast to that which is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

Don, you’ve been examined and put to the test, and multiple members of this forum have found you wanting. Not just your teachings on whatever subject, but also you, the man. So, maybe we’re all sons of Belial persecuting you like Naboth (1 Kings 21:-16)? Or maybe it might help you to examine yourself, put your own self to the test, and judge yourself (see, e.g. 1 Corinthians 11:31-32), without crying foul every time someone brandishes the Sword of the Word to resist you. If you were to do that, you might see that we have seen something you in that isn’t right.

But so far, you seem unwilling, or unable in some capacity to do that. And that speaks well to Evangelist Benincasa’s origin accusation and label: that you’re a narcissist.

I'm here as a guest. I've paid nothing monetarily to be a part of this forum. I have no rights here but what has been given to me. I do not wish to be thought of as abusing these rights. If I have failed, then let me know if amends are possible.

But what I don't want is to have less rights than any other member who, like me, also hasn't paid monetarily to be a member. If you as an admin wish to show greater rights to someone that has 'credit', then please indicate these individuals with a symbol, so I can dance around them with imitation respect if necessary.

The way the forum is portrayed is that all members are equals, with admins having special necessary oversight rights. God bless you for doing so. If Dom has rights I am not aware of because he is a longer-time credited member, then plz, show respect to my ignorance of this when he has no symbol indicating special rights. With this symbol I could then have avoided him or given him the deference you seem to indicate I should have given to him without me knowing I was supposed to be giving it. Good grief!

Don, you cannot possibly be this dense as to not grasp the import of my words. Evangelist Benincasa’s “full line of credit” simply means he has been here a lot longer than all of us who currently post here, and in that time, every member who currently posts here finds his words, his wisdom, his experience, his teaching and stories, his insights into life and the world to be of immense benefit. Said another way, he is a blessing to the forum, and having been found as such, he is appreciated as an elder and minister of the Gospel, because HE HAS EARNED IT.

You haven’t earned it. So, this isn’t about rights. You can start a thread, post a reply, share an emoji, and do everything within the limits of the forum’s HTML as Evangelist Benincasa can. So, get over yourself already. Enough with the virtue signaling.

Your words, here and below, sound threatening to me. Had I been aware at the start of my journey in AFF, that unspoken rules were enforced by threats, then I could have taken alternate actions.

Don, are you a woman, that you fret and wring your hands so? I’ve taken you to be a man, and yet you do not acquit yourself like a man (1 Corinthians 16:3). A threat, Don, would be me saying, “Come clean, or I’m going to ban you”. The sentiments “Come clean or get lost” are simply an invitation to spend your time elsewhere, because your time here hasn’t been well received. And your unwillingness to answer some questions about yourself does not help.

(Continued...)

[votivesoul]

(Continued...)

But I came thinking this was an open forum, that any Bible discussion could be had without restriction, open for dissection, debunking, denuding, acceptance, propagation, as necessary.

Seemingly, Dom has greater rights as a member than another. Your words here have indicated this. I then have lesser rights. But I had first thought all members were equal. Now, after over a year I now know that I am not an equal member and Dom has undeclared rights because he is a founding member, a friend of an admin. Has favouritism been shown to him because? He is so nasty. I think a blind eye is turned to this because of a long term friendship with an admin. But, I'm only guessing by severely limited knowledge.

Blather, rinse, repeat. Why are you so soft? Where is the thickness of your skin? If you cannot run with the footmen, how will you ever run with the calvary (Jeremiah 12:5)? If being on an online message board and forum with a small handful of internet strangers victimizes you so, how will you ever endure hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ (2 Timothy 2:3)?

Can we start fresh? Can I re-new my membership with the knowledge that the forum has members with special privileges which I should be aware of? Or, is there no hope for me as an AFF member?

Stop it already. You ridicule yourself posting like this.

I'll not point out that you've taken liberties with calling me Don. No offense taken.

Really? This is where you want to go? Really, are you sure?

DON, your screenname is “donfriesen1”. How else should you be addressed but by the way you have introduced yourself? You gave us the name “Don” to use. But Evangelist Benincasa gave us the name Evang.Benincasa to use. And even though his first name is indeed Dominic, and Dom is a truncated form of Dominic, show me where he introduced himself to you in this way? Show me an example of him writing to you, “Please, call me Dom”. It is usually an accepted practice, even a manner of etiquette, to address people the way they want to be called. It is also an accepted practice, even a manner of etiquette, to address elders and ministers of the Gospel with epithets that befit the commensurate respect one has for that elder and minister. Is it Biblically necessary or required that one must use ecclesiastical titles? No, of course not. But we are to look upon elder women as mothers and entreat elder men as fathers (1 Timothy 5:1-2). And I for one, don’t go around calling my dad, whose name is Steven, Stevie.

Point clearly made.

So, if you get it, what’s so hard about understanding it? You’re not unwelcome here. You haven’t broken any rules. But you don’t seem able or are unwilling to realize how the world works. People build relationships. Those relationships develop over time, when mutual trust and respect are earned as people show themselves to be trustworthy and deserving of respect. Evangelist Benincasa has put in the time to do that. You haven’t yet. This is the norm everywhere in the world, and yet you bristle?

So, what gives?

(Continued…)

[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...)

[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]

Part 2/2
Don answers votivesoul post 119, Discrepancy in Church Practice.

Originally Posted by votivesoul

.

"Dom" as you have taken liberties to call him, has earned his place and has the respect of his fellow posters (few though they now may be). I'll not point out that you've taken liberties with calling me Don. No offense taken.

Don has not earned his place and does not have the respect of his fellow posters (few though they now may be).

Get it? Point clearly made.

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. When asked if you are a current member of an Apostolic Church, you play coy. You've created this ridiculous 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? Perhaps. hypothetical about some dude you've named BS (how appropriate, btw!!!) holding to YOUR view of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, even though you admitted that as far as you know, you're the only person in the whole world who believes the IV, as you call it This is indeed true, with my having stated so other times. I have not denied this. , thereby showing you're the BS of your own hypothetical. 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? Yet when challenged to just admit it, you temper tantrum around the question. 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.

If you're as Apostolic as you say, how about "Let your yea be yea and your nay be nay"? My yea and nay are just that.

So, let's not dance anymore to your tune. Answer these questions:

1.) How long have you been in the Apostolic (i.e. Oneness Pentecostal) Faith?
2.) When were you baptized in the name of Jesus?
3.) When did you receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit, speaking with other tongues?
4.) Are you currently attending an Apostolic (i.e. Oneness Pentecostal) Faith Church?
5.) Are you the BS of your own hypothetical in this thread?
6.) Are you the one who was denied a "word serving position" at your local congregation for holding the IV view?

Come clean, or get lost.

Ouch! get lost sets the stage for my expulsion.

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.)

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.

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.

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?

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.

But plz, what motivates the asking of such questions? Perhaps your explanation for asking them will provide a reason suitable to convince me to answer them. Come clean and answer. Are all members required to answer these or just certain ones?

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. B Smith is a fictitious saint. 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.

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. 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. 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. I've not made statements here in AFF without providing lines of reasoning and scriptural references. Have I. Have I? Detail the accusations so I can provide a defence. That is the American way the mostly-Christian founders used to build the USA.

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. 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? 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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. Line upon line, precept upon precept. 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.