Discrepancy in Church Practice

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Does Ro14 only apply when they do?

Don, I deal with individuals from all kinds of different Christian persuasions. From cults to denominations. When they make statements with a chapter and a verse. It means something totally different from which the original Christians and apostles meant it to mean. I mentioned something concerning B. Smith wanting to get licensed by the UPCI? But, when you answer with "Does Ro14 only apply when they do?" we can only deduce the chapter and verses' meaning based on what you believe the chapter means. Which from reading your postings, nothing would matter either way. Whether or not B. Smith got a license with the org, or whether he believed that the story of the little drummer boy is actually a part of the New Testament. According to your interpretation of the Pauline epistle, the apostle didn't see any harm . As long as the weak and the strong saints can sing kumbaya around the campfire. All is OK with God and the Apostle Paul.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Answering the question I posed would get you on track, Dom. The topic of the thread is correct Bible interpretation and its correct application. You again demonstrate you lack the correct understanding which you accuse me of having.

No, I totally understood the topic. You brought up the UPC org licences preachers who are not in agreement with the majority-held head-covering doctrine. This is why Bowas and I thought you were reopening your topic from the newly closed thread. You also accused the UPC org as not being able to determine just one Biblical head-covering doctrine. You then went on to accuse the UPC to be showing an accommodation for some acceptance of false doctrine? You go on with can there be two correct Biblical head covering doctrines? You reply with the negative. Then claim two are accepted by the UPC. Then you set up your argument, saying "If two are accepted, then could not three or more also be?" You then introduce the readers to your supposed hypothetical the jilted B. Smith, and his unyielding hypocrite pastor, Pastor John Doe. This would lead me to make inquiries and explain my thoughts concerning this so called hypothetical which includes your belief on Romans 14, and God and Paul not being black and white, but intentionally vague. The direction of the thread has everything to do with your first post.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Is Pastor John Doe's church family the only game in town? What in your 'discernment system' motivates YOU asking another irrelevant question? Does Ro14 only apply if there are many churches in town? No.

Would B. Smith's going to another church then suddenly solve a problem which may be practiced in many churches by multiple ministers? No. If this were only an Org issue and not a Word issue, then the Org/Man may have the answer. The Word has the answers for this Word problem: compliance by all to Ro14.

Would B. Smith going to another church solve the problem? At this point in our discussion I must emphatically agree with you. The answer must be a flat out no. Because if B. Smith is even half of the person you are, I couldn't possibly see anywhere this guy could land. I mean, who would want to go through the mental anguish of dealing with someone who can't be fellowshipped no matter how hard you tried. Why subject your elders, and saints to a person who is only focused on getting his way behind a pulpit? Everything about B. Smith is he is right and everyone else is wrong. He doesn't even follow his own belief concerning Romans 14. Because instead of giving Pastor Doe, the org, the elders, and the church family a break on what THEY believe. He just wants to get his word-serving position, no matter who suffers his continuous nagging on the subject.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

The church world is fractured because of the attitudes you show here. Had efforts been made by those involved in church splits over doctrine, using the principles Ro14 reveals, then many splits would not have occurred.

Here we go again, you are claiming that if everyone believed your interpretation of Romans 14 there would've never been any church splits? Do you know that the Pauline epistles deal with church splits!?! 2 Timothy 1:15 This thou knowest, that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me; of whom are Phygellus and Hermogenes. 2 Timothy 4:10 For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia. 2 Timothy 4:16 At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge. Philippians 2:21 For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's. Galatians 1:6, and Galatians 5:7. Paul the one who you accuse as being vague and unclear just so everyone can get along. Had issues with the early church splitting up and going their own ways. I guess the Apostle Paul wasn't as smart as you Don?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Your propagation of them encourages the disunity which is counter to the unity Jesus prayed for. I'm guessing that your time in the UPC was cut short because those who disfellowshipped you, using 'counter to Ro14 understanding' causing needless division between you and it. Am I right bro, in my guess?

I was never in the UPC. Don, you are a mess.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Thus, bro,

Don't bro me, if you don't know me 1 Thessalonians 5:12.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

you now seem to fight against that which caused the pain of improper 'giving you the boot' and needless separation, had Ro14 been followed. So what again is the reason you are fighting this view of Ro14, pray tell, when it would have negated your pain?

Why? Because you are incorrect on your interpretation of Romans 14, and 15. It is just that simple. You are just arrogant narcissist who can't get over being challenged that you should just sit in a pew and live for God. Stop bothering all the nice ministering elders around you. Just live for God, maybe get a nice bird feeding ministry in the park? How about shoveling snow? You can have a nice snow shoveling ministry?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Oh right, I almost forgot. Some ecclesiastical nut job dares to proclaim that scripture shows them causing needless division (in God's eyes, but not the district eyes you so lovingly often reference)

Don, don't worry if you forget. I will always remind you. If I don't, there will always been a servant of God who will.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Seems like a lot of sour grapes,(I think you may speak from personal experience. Have you moved on in spirit, from a circumstance causing you sour grapes? Hypothetically, had something in your past been treated in light of Ro14, then it may have had results different than it did. Is this the reason why you many times in this thread keep referring back to the Org?, in posts 17, 20, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29) no real solution Says who? This has not been said by someone who wants to contend for the faith once delivered ("I don't visit anyone's church to contend for the faith once delivered unto the Saints." Post 20.) YOU reach your objective (no real solution), Dom, when you don't have an objective to reach. YOU don't want a solution. but no real solution other than B. Smith wanting contend for the faith with people who want to show him the door. Who has greater authority for a solution in this matter? Pastor Doe, the Supt, or Ro14? Ro14 has the authority and it shows that B. Smith should be accepted; not judged, nor rejected; with many other words used to show him as OK while holding some doctrines contrary to Pastor Doe. Ro14/the Bible does not give any Pastor authority to reject anyone, as a solution, unless on matters clearly outlined an undeniably scriptural/only one conclusion. Paul's teaching in Ro14 is only about doctrines which are not able to clearly show only one correct conclusion.

Again, B. Smith (Don) shouldn't be accepted in a word-serving position. He has to and must be judged as prerequisite found in 1 John 4:1. B. Smith is just bad fruit, and Pastor John Doe has judged it so. Again, it's the guy's pulpit, and his church family. You teach Brand X doctrine, which by what I have been replying to has little to do with your ideas on head coverings. You believe in a whole lotta bad stuff. Where in fact, Pastor John Doe doesn't have to even bid you Godspeed 2 John 1:10-11. Hey, seriously, Don you are really out there.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

And this is a bad thing, right Dom? Listen to yourself here. Do you really believe what you say?

Oh, by all means. Don, I am as serious as a heart attack. There is no way an Apostolic Jesus name Holy Ghost filled Tongue Talking man of Godliness, would let you in 50 miles of their platform or pulpit. Another thing you are pretty dishonest the way you spilt my post to make it sound like I was against you "spouting scripture to peel the paint off the foyer." Then commenting with "And this is a bad thing, right Dom?" So let me help you out. anyone can go back and read my original untampered posting. It is apparent as to what you were trying to do. So, be careful, and please don't do it again.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

The real solution is to follow what Ro14 teaches: acceptance of all who hold contrary doctrine (on topics which are not shown as 'one' doctrines. See below about 'one'.)

Dom drifts from reality here with these comments.

Well, boys and girls, this is why Don had to kiss his word serving position goodbye.