Discrepancy in Church Practice

[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?