Discrepancy in Church Practice

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

.

The following posts reply to post 131, 132, 133.

Page 1/5

Thanks for replying, votivesoul. Much appreciated. It should be much fun replying to you.

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. Absolutely true. But one of the first rules of civil dialogue is to trust that others are upfront and honest in what they say. Your comment denies this trust of me exists with you. Since I cannot believe you do not know this, I can only surmise you are playing games. As said elsewhere, blanket statements like you've just made, foggy references to something I've said in the past, do not satisfy the sincere reader who would desire proof of these allegations which would be used to make decisions about the views I present. Again, as I've said elsewhere, your presenting broad, blanket, detailless accusations of me provide me no means of ways to defend against them. My conclusion then is, this failing to provide specifics is an intentional effort to demonize me to readers, in hopes to prevent the view I put forward being accepted. If that is not the way you would like to be characterized, then put forward specifics. Quote my relevant words showing your accusations. If you do not do so, then you show yourself as one who doesn't want to fight fair. Your not doing so shows you as wanting to win arguments using unfair means to do so.

If I present truths from God's Word, which you use unfair means to fight against, then you fight against truth. Good luck with that. You'll need it. 2 Corinthians 13:8 For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.


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? The way of your responses encourages similar responses from me. Deal with what you've started. If not wanting such a type of response, then choose another method of approach. I will respond 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. 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 facts. 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! You read my words, which have never referenced Gnostics, but discern I use Gnostic hermeneutic to formulate Bible conclusions. The 'wrong' method you accuse me of using for Bible interpretation, you used to accuse me. But then, you 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 reading the Bible. I got it. You wish to portray yourself as OK in using a double standard.

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 so by reading between the lines. You do what you say I shouldn't do.

I've not used deception nor hidden the fact that I use 'reading between the lines' methodologies. Yet votivesoul would have you believe I have. But plz, votivesoul, now quote, showing where I've been deceptive? If not, then plz withdraw the accusations. Be a man.

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 to do so without. How many examples must I provide, I've already provided some, before you will retract an idea that denies the use of it to correctly understand scripture? How many?



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 Thank you for this openness, but that doesn’t make your example and the hypothetical that follows, not ridiculous in nature. Did you notice that votivesoul does not give an explanation how my example is ridiculous in nature, just saying it is. These are not the marks of someone who is an actual teacher, a disseminator of truth. These provide specifics.


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. Stop wasting time. Whether what is said about me is true or not, does not add or subtract from the Biblical views I present. Nor would it show that what is said to counter my views is true or not. It has no bearing in a Bible discussion. What motivates your saying this when you must know this is true?


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. My apologies. I have no memory of this, that you'd done so. I'm not denying you had. I've just no memory today of it. 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. That's not the way a Bible discussion forum is supposed to work. Not mentioning anything at the time it was first said; or not quoting the passage containing the words, shows wrong methodology for a proper discussion. You again reveal yourself as being deficient doing so. But, let's put the past behind. Going forward, starting with what you've just mentioned, plz quote what you are referring to when saying I've said something wrong. If not, you show yourself as not wanting to change a deficient practice. 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. Remember that thing you said above about 'context'. You've taken my words out of context. Anyone who remembers that post, or looks it up, knows you did.


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”. Sorry, you don't get to demand personal info in a Bible discussion forum. Go blow bubbles. And you have not described a tantrum. I had not run home. I have only refused to answer questions having no bearing to Bible discussion. I have not refused Bible discussion.

1/5

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

.

The following posts reply to post 131, 132, 133.

2/5

My yea and nay are just that.

Then answer the questions. Refusing to answer irrelevant questions does not negate a 'yea or nay' practice. Try again, in efforts to make me look bad, when you can't logically/scripturally refute my views. You do know that truth should be accepted when presented to us, right? 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. Did you know Lloyd Shirley?

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. Thank You. You've given a fine example of answering questions which aren't relevant to this thread. Why are we wasting time and resources doing so?


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. I sincerely thank you for calming my fears of getting the boot.


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. True for all Men, and not just me. 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”. Sorry about that. Again, I have no memory of this. Again, I'm not saying it didn't happen. But plz provide a link to it for a reminder, providing me an opportunity to respond. My search now did not result in a find of that phrase.

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. This is good practice. Koodoos to Esaias for doing so. You, however, votivesoul attempts to make a comparison of unequals to show me bad. 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. I wouldn't deny making such words. But plz, relevance? Doesn't the scripture say we will all be taught by the Lord? John 6:45. Surely you would say the same of yourself, that you have been taught by the Spirit. Yet here you are presenting it as if I've sinned when I do it. What is the point in your doing this, except in efforts you use where you wish to show me bad to discredit my thoughts? Why not enter into a discussion of the main point of post 1? In post2 you could have shown the invalidity of the views I present. The thread would have ended, had you done so. But here you are, along with your credited buddy Dom, wasting much time and effort in attempts to show me bad, while not talking about the main point of the thread. That is not the reason for a discussion forum. 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. Contrary to your accusation that I have not asked for contrary opinions/critiques of my views, I have. But, isn't my repeated asking of Dom to provide comments about the main topic of this thread enough proof that I have done so? Surely it is. But not for the insincere requester/accuser.


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! Right! The guy who says 'we share ourselves' reneges on sharing his real name. This is a Bible discussion forum. You're asking for personal info is against the purpose of the forum. Get lost. It is hypocritical to ask for personal info but not to provide a real name.


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. I'm no hypocrite. I don't hide behind a facade, or deceptive words. I'm upfront about my identity and 'show the work' behind my views. A hypocrite does not do that. You know exactly why I made those comments to you. You were virtue signaling Indeed I was virtue signalling. I admit it. But even so, it is my opinion that those who wish to publicly stand for anything worthwhile would/should attach their real identity. Anyone taking a cheap shot at another should have to own up to it by admitting it in public with a publicized name, not hiding behind a pseudonym. Hats off to Dominic Benincasa as one of the few doing so! He is more honourable doing so than those who don't. 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. My own words, as reflecting love for scriptural values and logical scriptural interpretation are enough to attest to my character as being trustworthy. Sadly, the things I've presented haven't been received though their source is the Word. I take no responsibility for another's lack of discernment nor their rejection of it. Nothing which I would tell you of my experience with the Lord or of church should be seen to have any value in discerning the truth of my views. Readers have their Bibles and the God-given reasoning faculties to do so. Your demands for personal info are invalid, distasteful.

As said before, I suspect that my views are rejected as perceived to be unApostolic. I think views which are derived from scripture should be received whether seen as Apostolic or not. Put religious tradition aside in favour of the Word. (Hmmm, I wonder where we heard that before? Oh, right! Jesus.)


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. Had the Gospel progression suddenly stopped at Ac2.47, then those saved that day, would they have been described as Apostolic? Yes. Ac2 catches the essence of both the reason for Christ's appearing and that which was preached for NT salvation by all those who came after him. Eph 4 describes what Paul viewed as the 'one faith'. It is a reflection of Ac2. It is the essence but definitely not a description of all that pertains to the Gospel, yet he only uses the words - one faith. Your saying what you did results in seeing one such as I as needing to have every sentence treated with a microscopic examination to highlight minor discrepancies for magnification to provide a view of me as unworthy to be called an Apostolic. What should have been done is take my words in a general sense.


2/5

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

.

The following posts reply to post 131, 132, 133.

3/5.

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? No, no Freudian slip.


B Smith is a fictitious saint.

Thirteen pages later, you finally answer? What was so hard, Don? Clearly, the J Doe/B Smith scenario was presented as only a hypothetical example to illustrate reality. What motivates anyone to say it was more than an illustration given to show a specific? And repeating what was said earlier, nothing of reality changes whether a real-life example or a hypothetical is given. But yet you persist. The result is the 13 hard pages you point to, but the reality does not change even if it is 130 pages. Your highlighting this is moot.


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. Oh, really? A hypothetical scenario changes to a realistic scenario when real names are added? Tell that to Jesus and the parables he told for Apostolics to gain spiritual truth. He didn't always use real names of real people, did he? Of course not. I repeat again what was earlier said: The hypothetical scenario does not change the reality of Apostolics ignoring what Paul teaches in Ro14. Where have you learnt the kind of hermeneutic shown here? Reading a cereal box? 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. All humans are capable of bias you refer to. But the realistic scenario portrayed by a hypothetical example does not change the truth of God's Word. It is to the correct application of Ro14 which I have pointed to in this thread. Benincasa, and now yourself, continually distract from that which was pointed to, by sidelining to peripherals such as this. What motivates this behaviour? Whether I have personally experienced the situation in the example I've given does not change an iota what Paul teaches in Ro14. Nor does it change that in reality, in Apostolic churches, that Ro14 is ignored. Even if the example would be coloured by my personal experience, nothing else about the interpretation of scripture changes. All you as a defender of the faith and opponent of myself need do is disprove the methodology and deductive reasoning used as wrong. Then no Apostolic Pastor will be ever seen doing wrong by me. 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. Are you then saying that if a real Pastor Doe makes an appearance in this thread that the details of this thread magically changes from biased to factual? Plz explain the reasoning behind your comments, which would magically make bias disappear by the appearance of real names, other than the real one already appearing - Don Friesen? Your desire is to insert real world info of true conflicts into hypothetical situations, where they do not belong. I won't be involved in this. You reasoning power is wonky. Readers see this and wonder about you.

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. I think not. No one needs personal info to make judgments of scriptural ideas in a discussion forum. Its bogus for you as an Admin to ask for it, because it would be irrelevant to a Bible discussion..

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. Two peas in the same pod, you and Dom. You both take pop-shoots at my character instead of addressing the issue.

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. Yesss! Finally, you get to the reason for the thread. What took you so long? 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. Reading post1 will not show you B Smith's take. What you see is my take of reality in some Apostolic churches, expressed as a hypothetical situation. We can only presume his take is valid, or not. We cannot know for sure. But with you, we can know. You have raised my hopes, votivesoul, that you will actually comment on the main part of the thread. But do you now retreat, to focus on me? If my character and life are sullied, then does any correct interpretation of Ro14 change? Do we reject all of Paul's teaching because he was a murderer? Or would the truth of what was written by him for the Bible suddenly change if he would have backslided after writing it? Of course not. What stands as truth by correct interpretation does not change by the character of the one presenting it. You know this full well and present it as true regardless. What's the motivation for showing readers this side of yourself?


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. Skillful dodging of a direct question.


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. Not histrionic but hyperbolic metaphor, in use to make a point. You've seen Bible writers do so, haven't you? And instead of giving your answer to the allegation, none is given. Why not give specifics and allow me the chance to defend it. That is what a fair fighter does. Those making general critical statements without specifics are using a broad paint brush to paint the whole scene black, not wanting details which can reveal the truth or error of allegations. votive soul, you and Dom use the same methods. As such you are not sincere and are seen by all readers as not fighting fair. You wish to prevail but do not want to use fairness in efforts to do so.


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. Of course it's no court. But the process is the same for those who wish to defend Bible truths or to present them. This is a nearly defunct Christian Message Board, long past its prime and out of its heyday. Irrelevant to this discussion. But, because you've opened a subject, I suggest policing rampant personal attacks on poster's personalities may actually contribute to keeping potential members away. All in busy North American culture have little time for theological posting when they see half of the text is used against personalities and not Bible discussion. 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. You've missed using part of the equation. You've mentioned the evidence used against me by the court, but fail to mention the actions and methods used by the prosecutor. Rulings can be overturned if the prosecutor is seen using unjust means, necessitating a new trial and proper procedures be used. I've repeatedly complained that Dom has used criticism of my character and not evidence from reason and scripture in his role as prosecutor. Therefore, the Chief Justice has yet to rule whether this trial has been legit.

But why didn't you point this out? Oh, pick me, I know the answer, pick me. You are too busy being buddies on the side to this credited friend to be unbiased, causing your oversight.

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. Thx, votivesoul. That's the closest I've come to receiving a compliment here in AFF from you. But that proves nothing. While saying it has proved nothing, the real question should be 'has anything I have said been shown wrong?' That my continual complaint has been 'that others argue against my view by stating proofs for their views' I've then repeatedly said to others 'that proving your view does not necessarily disprove mine'. The question remains whether or not readers have acknowledged the truths I've presented or rejected the truths. In my opinion I've presented proof, but when no responses yea or nay are given to them, seemingly ignored, I'm then left with the impression that further arguments against my views without specifics are evidence that the truth has been rejected. When is it right that any Apostolic rejects truth? Using Jesus' words to Nicodemus 'you do not receive our witness'.

3/5

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

.

The following posts reply to post 131, 132, 133..

4/5

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, Of course it's moral posturing. You and Dom go to lengths to portray me a reprobate. Should I play the door mat while you wipe your feet on me? I'm a city set on the hill shining the light I've received. You put the bushel basket on the light to extinguish the light, but do not take the time to show how what I say is light, isn't. The methods used aren't scriptural and you want me to crawl away without standing up as light-bearers should? 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. You must have learned that trick from Dom. Accuse, accuse, accuse, to distract from answering the allegation. This does not a Bible discussion make. 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. Nothing you have said disproves the claim. Would you like some pointers on how to do it right?

Don’t you see, Don. Once you appeal to Christ Himself as proof of the rightness of your beliefs, the argument is over. Unless it is true. Truth abides forever whether it is received or not. You do realise that Apostolics are often known to say, 'the Lord showed me'. By this they mean what they say and perceive it as is true because the Lord helped them discern this. If Apostolics can't or shouldn't hear from God, to share it, then what hope does the world have? Do you even read the Bible to believe it? Listen to what your words mean.

But you are right. Whether people actually hear from God is debatable, even while they claim it to be so. The truth of the matter is then only decided by comparison with the Word. 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. Yes, I want you to judge my statements. That is why I present them - to be judged. I trust that readers will compare them with the Words found in God's Book, to see if they agree or disagree with the Book. To my knowledge thus far, I'm not convinced that someone has. When some claim to have done so, I've asked for a quote to point to the post. As of yet, the quotes don't materialize. Well, here is my judgment. You have no fear of God before your eyes (Romans 3:18). Wow! All the scripture sharing I've done and you say I have no fear of God. Amazing how you conclude such from my words. Thx for sharing but you are wrong. The warmth in my heart and the shout in my lungs as a response to the Spirit say you are wrong in your shallow assessment of me. 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). No sir. You are wrong sir. I am keenly aware that I will give account of every idle word. But if you believe the Lord Jesus justifies you and your words, then stand in that faith. Indeed I do. In Christ alone is my righteousness. I have no other plea. Why care what a nobody and stranger on the internet thinks? Well, yes! Exactly! While wanting to share what is shown to me by the Lord, it is absolutely true that what another does does not change my life for good or bad. Yet the scripture says that he delights when we walk in truth. I've specifically raised two points of truth in AFF. 1Co11 and Ro14. I desire that all walk in this truth. I am like the Lord in this regard, doing so because my love for him compels me, especially those who are spiritual kin by Ac2. Love for Jesus demands I share. Those that would put a basket over their light would sin.

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. I think I've already responded to this, above. Congratulations, Don. Your tears are positively crocodilian. Bravo! Encore! If you would deny that I've had much mud slung at my character by Dom, then it would confirm that you are out of touch with reality, or that you haven't read the posts. And I will not say you are out of touch with this reality. If you read posts you will not deny the truth I have just shared.


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. Pardon? I don't see any relation between your comments and my words.


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? While not a Luther, all should wish to stand
as he did for the truth revealed to him. If I'm only a thousandth of what he was I'd still be proud of myself.


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. Also nicely played is your restatement of what I said, wrongly stated. If any Apostolic stands to say 1+1=3, where would you stand? I would not stand with them even though I am an Apostolic and love Apostolic truth. our 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. Plz note, dear reader, that votivesoul accuses me of one logical fallacy after another and when I ask for specifics he will not provide them. I base this on having asked before, to no avail. But, votivesoul, you can prove me wrong and actually do so now.


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 What Jesus and Paul and all other preachers learn is, if you want to live for God, you suffer some for it. It's just the way it is. Deal with it. It is true in 2026 and Canada, AFF, and the internet. If you think you've got something to say then someone will put you down for it. I've got something to say and hope and pray I will not be alone to believe it.

4/5

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

.

The following posts reply to post 131, 132, 133.

5/5 .

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. Readers, unlike votivesoul, I have not yet read everyone of Dom's posts. I'll not dissuade anyone one with vain attempts not to believe in Dom like votivesoul does. That would be foolish and illogical. Readers are able to read my comments/views and see the logic and scripture used in its presentation for comparison sake. As much as I've read of Dom's posts, he has done a fine job of exegeting surface reading of 1Co8-10, Ro14 but has not yet dismantled the logic I've used to present my views. The jury is out but not for some. Some have conclusively decided one way.

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. Or this: I regret being forthright and openly admitting I haven't yet read every post yet. I've been hammered for revealing this, in spite of this openness. And I may end up never again saying I agree with Dom on the conclusions of Ro14 he's made. When I've pointed out to Dom that I can't remember a time when he's said he agrees with anything I've said, I'm met with a 'cry me a river' response. What's up with this kind of response from those who discuss scripture in people who are kin. I think I know the method: "never give your opponent one iota of credit. It'll make you appear like a winner in the long run, always appearing to be above your opponent. Never admit you're ever wrong either, because this will always be used against you. This battle I have to win. I will portray myself as always right in my own Apostolic faith and do not ever admit to any error." Had Peter not fessed up to being wrong, but very reluctantly, then Gentiles might never have had the gospel shared with them. Some modern Apostolics could learn some lessons from him.


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. Stop denying something true.


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? And yet, in spite of the great multitude of abuse I've endured, here I still am. I haven't yet left. Apparently, I've got skin thick enough to endure because it is the Lord who has equipped me. Crank up your rhetoric! It may be that you will yet defeat me using methods learned from American political battles. What is mostly done here has not been using the sharpened Sword of Truth to fight with.


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. Errr, just what is it that you think you are now doing by posting in this thread, if not sparring? And, by the way, God bless you for contributing what you have, to make this forum available for discussion of important theological points and the correct practice thereof.


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. Ok, I'll agree with that. But I will also say that the way I used it is the traditional Apostolic way it has long been used and traditional Apostolic ways is what I'm accused of forsaking. Why then do you point this out?


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. OH!, and I've got an even better one. How about I keep hammering at Dom, telling him to comment on theological discussions instead, hoping that he will make a needed permanent change. Problem solved forever! And why didn't you think of this way?

I've made significant progressive with this method. In this thread he has actually made theological comments which he never did in my previous threads. See, where there's life there's hope. People can change. Even senior citizens. I am encouraged to believe the truths I've shared will eventually get through to some, because I believe the Word of God has got the power of Life in it.

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? Do you say this thinking I have said so? If so, you've misunderstood me. I've seen a man who has great knowledge of scripture and the world, who comments to me stuff which usually have to do with his perception of my personality or my lack of true spirituality, who doesn't take the time, until recently, to use what he has to knock down my views by theological discussion. 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. Sorry, votivesoul, this also isn't my view, of him.

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. My thoughts would be, that focussing on my personality is wasted, and time would better be spent on the subjects presented in my threads. I'm here to share scriptural thoughts and to discuss it.

Take a hike, hunt a moose, sing the Canadian national anthem, go to a hockey game, Don't forget the beaver and maple syrup and our propensity to be apologetic. 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. Of all creatures on earth man has the greatest ability and potential to change and adapt. None need be satisfied or make excuses for 'worse'. We all can change for the better, God giving grace to do it. And so he asks us to pray for it.

This has been great fun. I hope we can do so again, but next time around scripture.

5/5

[Evang.Benincasa]

Rabbinic Talmudic system teaches the subtext of Torah. This is referred to method called “Drash” (exposition/inquiry), Remez (hint/allusion), and Sod (secret/mystical meaning). Some rabbis posit that the text is not merely a historical or legal document, but a “multi-layered, living document containing infinite wisdom.” Rabbis teach that the true meaning often lies beneath the surface. Therefore requiring mystical interpretation to uncover the spiritual, psychological, and mysterious hidden truths which lay underneath. This isn’t how the Apostle Paul, or the other Biblical writers intended for students to glean God’s truth. Romans 14, Romans 15 is not trying to reveal secret meanings lying somewhere under the above text. Romans 14, Romans 15, and 1 Corinthians 10:20, have zero to do with head coverings. The matter of head coverings are plainly dealt with in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. The Apostle isn’t teaching subtextually to show the readers something deeper, something mystical hidden beneath his words. The Apostle Paul addresses head coverings that women should cover their heads while praying or prophesying, and men should not. The Apostle points to the practice as a symbol of God’s ordered headship. It emphasizes respecting divine, angelic order and gender distinction being paramount. Paul’s final word of strict admonition was if anyone had a problem with what he taught on head coverings, then tough luck, because that’s how all the churches practice the teaching. Romans 14, and Romans 15, 1 Corinthians 10:20 cannot help B. Smith, or Pastor J.D.. Paul made it all crystal, painfully so, and you can kick rocks as far as he was concerned if you had a problem with what he taught. So, this whole thread is built on the premise that B. Smith, and Pastor John Doe, can resolve their issue within the teaching of Paul concerning Romans 14, Romans 15, and 1 Corinthians 10:20. Therefore, one cannot claim some hidden meaning behind what the Apostle Paul said in Romans 14, Romans 15, and 1 Corinthians 10:20 to defend arguing over head coverings, or being allowed to challenge ministerial leadership over what they believe concerning 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. There you have it folks! I’ve posted it yet again! Anyone care to refute what I just posted? Paul wasn’t working an On The Job training with the Apostolic church trying to figure it all as he went along. The Apostle fully understood and was well aware of the scriptures concerning everything he taught. He made it as plain as rain. He wasn’t confused or teaching some Mithratic Kabbalah subtext mystery school baloney. No way can B. Smith go wee wee wee all the way home, because he and Pastor J.D. can’t see eye to eye on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. Romans 14, Romans 15, and 1 Corinthians 10:20 cannot settle their issues concerning 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. It is what it is.

[donfriesen1]

Those who say that cast not your pearls before swine does not require sub-text reading to correctly understand it, that those who do use it to correctly understand it are following gnostic wisdom, may only be showing unnecessary religious bias/bigotry leading those who quoted cast not your pearls to thinking these are the swine referred to, when telling those who say it uses gnostic wisdom to correctly understand it, that they also should have also used the same sub-text methods to correctly understand it. But this calling someone a swine would be needless use of inflammatory rhetoric which shouldn't have been done, and doesn't have a real place in a Bible discussion forum which asks for rules of decorum. Instead, the writer could have simply said, to lessen the likeliness that the resultant needless name-calling back-and-forth achieves nothing other than mud on the face and hands of both, that the purpose of the forum is Bible discussion among friends and that Jesus obviously did not mean it to be understood literally, that sub-text reading is demanded to be used or it makes Jesus look foolish if understood literally, like that which those who say no sub-text reading should be done, look like. The writer should have already known that everyone, including those who say reading between the lines should not be used to understand the Bible, that everyone already uses reading between the lines and that those who say reading between the lines shouldn't be used are not really serious when saying that it shouldn't be used in correct Bible interpretation. They can't seriously be serious, can they? Reading between the lines is so commonly done that many do it even without realizing it. Those who would seriously say it shouldn't be used have purposely put a veil over their own eyes when saying others shouldn't. This is dangerous practice, seriously. If they seriously are serious in saying it, it then demonstrates vast gaps in the correct methods of understanding the Bible. Why this waste of time and resources, in myself and others? It signifies we have issues. Lets talk about the issue raised in post 1, instead.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Those who say that cast not your pearls before swine does not require sub-text reading to correctly understand it, that those who do use it to correctly understand it are following gnostic wisdom, may only be showing unnecessary religious bias/bigotry leading those who quoted cast not your pearls to thinking these are the swine referred to, when telling those who say it uses gnostic wisdom to correctly understand it, that they also should have also used the same sub-text methods to correctly understand it. But this calling someone a swine would be needless use of inflammatory rhetoric which shouldn't have been done, and doesn't have a real place in a Bible discussion forum which asks for rules of decorum. Instead, the writer could have simply said, to lessen the likeliness that the resultant needless name-calling back-and-forth achieves nothing other than mud on the face and hands of both, that the purpose of the forum is Bible discussion among friends and that Jesus obviously did not mean it to be understood literally, that sub-text reading is demanded to be used or it makes Jesus look foolish if understood literally, like that which those who say no sub-text reading should be done, look like. The writer should have already known that everyone, including those who say reading between the lines should not be used to understand the Bible, that everyone already uses reading between the lines and that those who say reading between the lines shouldn't be used are not really serious when saying that it shouldn't be used in correct Bible interpretation. They can't seriously be serious, can they? Reading between the lines is so commonly done that many do it even without realizing it. Those who would seriously say it shouldn't be used have purposely put a veil over their own eyes when saying others shouldn't. This is dangerous practice, seriously. If they seriously are serious in saying it, it then demonstrates vast gaps in the correct methods of understanding the Bible. Why this waste of time and resources, in myself and others? It signifies we have issues. Lets talk about the issue raised in post 1, instead.

Jesus saying, in Matthew 7:6 "give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you." Or in Matthew 15:26 "It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs." Or in Luke 17:2 "It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones." This is what is called metaphor used in language, which is figure of speech that directly compares two unrelated things by stating one is the other to highlight shared characteristics, enhancing description and meaning. The Greek μεταφορά means to go beyond, or to cross over, and therefore illustrates what the speaker is trying to say to his or her audience. What Jesus is talking about in Matthew 7:6 is no way "reading between the lines." His audience wouldn't of been standing dumbfounded by His metaphor, they would of totally understood what He was saying. Swine as well as dogs were unclean, and to give them holy items would then make those items unclean. Because dogs, and swine being ignorant animals have no idea what to do with the holy. No reading between the lines was necessary, because Jesus was being as clear as crystal. Again, God is clear to His devotees. Yet, the insincere grope around due to their spiritual blindness, and never come to the knowledge of truth, Deuteronomy 28:29, 2 Timothy 3:6-8 .

[Evang.Benincasa]

What metaphors are being used in Romans 14, Romans 15, and 1 Corinthians 10:20? The Apostle was being Crystal clear on what he wanted from his elders “stronger“ brethren as they welcomed the new convert Gentiles. These Gentiles held opinions how they would deal with certain days and meat offered to devils.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Let’s talk about the issue raised in post 1, instead.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Rabbinic Talmudic system teaches the subtext of Torah. This is referred to method called “Drash” (exposition/inquiry), Remez (hint/allusion), and Sod (secret/mystical meaning). Some rabbis posit that the text is not merely a historical or legal document, but a “multi-layered, living document containing infinite wisdom.” Rabbis teach that the true meaning often lies beneath the surface. Therefore requiring mystical interpretation to uncover the spiritual, psychological, and mysterious hidden truths which lay underneath. This isn’t how the Apostle Paul, or the other Biblical writers intended for students to glean God’s truth. Romans 14, Romans 15 is not trying to reveal secret meanings lying somewhere under the above text. Romans 14, Romans 15, and 1 Corinthians 10:20, have zero to do with head coverings. The matter of head coverings are plainly dealt with in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. The Apostle isn’t teaching subtextually to show the readers something deeper, something mystical hidden beneath his words. The Apostle Paul addresses head coverings that women should cover their heads while praying or prophesying, and men should not. The Apostle points to the practice as a symbol of God’s ordered headship. It emphasizes respecting divine, angelic order and gender distinction being paramount. Paul’s final word of strict admonition was if anyone had a problem with what he taught on head coverings, then tough luck, because that’s how all the churches practice the teaching. Romans 14, and Romans 15, 1 Corinthians 10:20 cannot help B. Smith, or Pastor J.D.. Paul made it all crystal, painfully so, and you can kick rocks as far as he was concerned if you had a problem with what he taught. So, this whole thread is built on the premise that B. Smith, and Pastor John Doe, can resolve their issue within the teaching of Paul concerning Romans 14, Romans 15, and 1 Corinthians 10:20. Therefore, one cannot claim some hidden meaning behind what the Apostle Paul said in Romans 14, Romans 15, and 1 Corinthians 10:20 to defend arguing over head coverings, or being allowed to challenge ministerial leadership over what they believe concerning 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. There you have it folks! I’ve posted it yet again! Anyone care to refute what I just posted? Paul wasn’t working an On The Job training with the Apostolic church trying to figure it all as he went along. The Apostle fully understood and was well aware of the scriptures concerning everything he taught. He made it as plain as rain. He wasn’t confused or teaching some Mithratic Kabbalah subtext mystery school baloney. No way can B. Smith go wee wee wee all the way home, because he and Pastor J.D. can’t see eye to eye on 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. Romans 14, Romans 15, and 1 Corinthians 10:20 cannot settle their issues concerning 1 Corinthians 11:2-16. It is what it is.

I’ve answered post one so many times it isn’t funny. My post here, also does an adequate job of putting this subject to bed. If Don, wants to say I haven’t answered post one, then he needs to point out in my posts how I haven’t answered post one. He never does that, he just complains about how no one can answer him.