Discrepancy in Church Practice

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Paul has demonstrated this method. What he says about: 1. God's order of Authority, is an example. 2. What he says about types and shadows, is another. Both of these doctrines were gained by reading between the lines or 'looking back in mind'. Even Jesus reads between the lines when teaching about marriage/divorce, Mt19.8.

Matthew 19:8 Jesus explains that Moses permitted divorce due to the "hardness of heart" of the people, but "clarifies" that this wasn't God's original intention for marriage! Jesus goes on to tell them it was established as a lifelong union from the very beginning. Jesus clarifies, He isn't reading between the lines. He is the LINE.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

There were people in Ro14 who held opposing views of the same scripture. Paul says this is OK. Multiple views of the same scriptures can't all be right, can they? Some must be wrong, which we usually call false doctrine. But the end result of Paul saying 'all are OK' shows Paul saying it regardless for reasons of either 1. the weak/strong view or 2. another view. Nothing about the nature of the Ro contrary views changes if either the weak/strong view is held or another reason is held. (I had not put forward any other.)

Don, if you honestly believe the above posting, then you would be saying that nothing matters. Not one doctrine in the Bible can be debated or discussed to be correct or incorrect. Instead of weak in the faith believers being neophytes who held different opinions eating meat offered to demons 1 Corinthians 10:20 were just that, opinions. That in time they would mature and their partial understanding would cease 1 Corinthians 13:11. You are telling us that the weak in the faith believer is just someone who taught scripture differently, and that Paul was cool with that? Well, all I can say is, kiss your word-serving position goodbye.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Looking a little further back in mind sees: 1. saints reading the scriptures, 2. drawing various contrary conclusions, 3. acting accordingly, (with some of them taking a strong stand and being argumentative about it.)

A question which is answered by my conclusion is: Why is it possible that various saints draw various contrary conclusions when reading the same scripture. The answer: God has (purposely?) written in the way he has, resulting in various conclusions.

How was Israel blinded?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

EXAMPLE. Gen3 says the serpent was more cunning than any beast, and it talks to Eve. We may interpret 'cunning' in a negative way as deceptive, because our uses of the word often indicates this to us. So does the story line. Obviously, because it was noted, Eve had been aware of the serpent's abilities (for who but Adam and Eve had this knowledge of the serpent's abilities to pass on?). Was she afraid of, intimidated by the serpent, this affecting her judgment? It is not wrong to think so, considering the evidence. But it shows her with fear before the Fall, when fear is often presented as a by-product of the Fall. Another may conclude differently because the evidence does not distinctly state so. To adamantly conclude that the Word demands that Eve be said to be afraid before the Fall, says more than the Word has actually said. No one should adamantly make such claims. No one has the right to say 'thus saith the Lord' unless God has actually said the words. Those who do so anyway, have added to the Word. Instead, caveats should be presented, by those when sharing what are only opinions of events.

That, of course, is not the whole story of interpretation of scripture, for deriving doctrine. Other factors may determine the lack of all readers coming to only one view. Lack of knowledge, pre-determined bias, or incorrect interpretive abilities can skew results.

Paul does not correct the views of these saints if he thinks any of these factors existed. 'Why not?' should have an answer, which believing that Ro14 only talks about the 'weak/strong' view, does not address. Or does it, if this is a wrong assumption? What conclusion can be presented in its absence? I conclude that the absence of any corrective teaching indicates that Paul believes that God has written some things purposely in such a manner that its reading does not always arrive at only one conclusion. Paul is OK with this because, seemingly, God is OK with it. If God isn't OK with it he would have written in ways which determine only one conclusion. He hasn't in every case. Is it wrong to conclude so? Is this rejected because it casts God in a bad light?

There you have it folks. Don is a done as the dinner dishes. If we take what Don is saying logically, which is hard for me to use Don and logic in the same sentence. But if we take his thoughts to their logical conclusions, then all 45,000 Christian Denominations are OK with God, and would've been OK with the Apostle Paul. Period, end of discussion. Don, believes that Pastor Doe, should've opened his pulpit to all opinions, all different teachings, and theories. Whatever popped in his head after he had a pizza fever dream, and scrawled it all down in his notebook. Jude 3 earnestly contend for the faith? Don, how can one earnestly contend for the faith? After reading your thoughts concerning God and the Apostle Paul not caring about what conclusion someone draws from the scriptures? Even the Apostle Peter with his words in 2 Peter 3:15-16, by your standards is merely his own opinion. Could be right, could be wrong? Hey, that's just what Peter thought because after all his faith might of been weak?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Therefore, in those situations where the Word does not lead to only one conclusion, Paul would say 'don't say that it does'. If not this, then Paul condones false doctrine when telling those with opposing views they are all OK. Something else must be concluded because it is unacceptable to think that Paul would condone false doctrine. Saying God does not write clearly, leading to various conclusions, is a softer way to say that he accepts multiple views, therefore not calling them false doctrine. Seeing Paul as giving this 'softer' explanation is more acceptable, in my opinion.

What? Exactly, more acceptable in YOUR opinion. Don, you have the wildest cognitive dissonance. You plainly post that your view cannot make a bit of Biblical sense. You posted that above, but yet you refuse to let go of your inclusionist doctrine. You really need head hunters in the Amazon to be saved, who never heard the Gospel but were just nice head hunters. You can't see what the scripture says, because you have an agenda.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

What is not clearly indicated in the Word should not (necessarily) be said to be clearly indicated. This is the principle shown in Ro14. Pastor J Doe's actions against B Smith have violated Ro14, when head covering doctrine is one example of doctrine with lack of clarity.

Yet, just reading through your own thoughts on Romans 14, you are violating Romans 14. Because you are making an issue of Pastor Doe's beliefs concerning head coverings. You being the "strong believer" and he being the "weaker brethren?" Who are you to judge another man's servant? To his own master he will stand or fall? Come on Don, your own false teaching has done you in.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

What flies in the face of the principle just stated, is knowing that Paul demonstrates at least twice, that what he teaches as fact and doctrine (God's order of authority, and, types & shadows) are things he learned by deductive reasoning. But Ro14 testifies against the thought that reading between the lines should always be said to lead to doctrine taught as fact every time.

When Ro14, 15.1-7 occupies such a large space in the NT, the principles it portrays should take a large place in the Apostolic preacher/Christian's understandings. That it doesn't may be proved wrong, but it is my opinion, coming without statistics, that it does not. Many times preachers have preached with great surety when the scriptures they refer to do not present this clarity. This should not be so, and preachers have ways to not do so, still getting their points across.

Don, you are very confused and contradictory. There is no way an Apostolic Jesus Name pastor would ever let you behind their pulpit. No, no way. You are so mixed up. I would normally feel sorry for someone like you, but you are too full of yourself. If Pastor Doe taught that women should wear Mouseketeer ears you should be cool with it. But, even if he did, he still wouldn't and shouldn't let you in a mile radius of his platform.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

What Dom will not now do, his past responses indicating this, is to show the reasoning used above as wrong. Instead, he will revile the person giving it, make distracting comments only loosely associated, but he will not show the reasoning wrong. He will portray himself as the authority all should unquestionably believe, even without presenting lines of reason why. I hope this time Dom will take efforts to prove my reasoning wrong. He has the ability to do so. But I'll not be holding my breath waiting. I wish to stay alive.

Don, I did both, I made fun of you, and I proved you wrong as an extra bonus. You are an Ecclesiastical Pterodactyl who is more in love with being a bud nipper than being a faith strengthener.