Discrepancy in Church Practice

[Evang.Benincasa]

In the light of the entirety of the Pauline epistles Romans 14 is dealing with those weak in the faith (immature) arguing their positions against the elders in the faith (mature). Paul wants the elders who are mature to guide the immature with patience. Not overwhelming them to the point of discouragement to the point of destroying what little faith they have left. Paul wants the elders to not use their freedom to the point where the weak brother is led astray. In Galatians 2:13, where Peter's hypocrisy in Antioch caused even Barnabas to follow him in avoiding Gentile believers, contradicting the Apostolic truth, until Paul confronted Peter publicly. In Romans 14, Paul is addressing elders on how to act with an around weaker believers. No where in the New Testament can we see were the Apostle believed we should be weak in the faith indefinitely. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. Paul taught those coming to the faith had it partially, knowledge was partial, the prophetic only could be understood partially. Yet, all the partial understanding becomes complete when we become an adult in Christ. We then see the full picture. The only thing which would cause even that little we had in the beginning to vanish away, would be the unwillingness of yielding to the love of God. Paul wanted the elders to work with the weaker saints with the love of God. Therefore helping them grow in strength and knowledge to fully mature adults.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

In the light of the entirety of the Pauline epistles Romans 14 is dealing with those weak in the faith (immature) arguing their positions against the elders in the faith (mature). Paul wants the elders who are mature to guide the immature with patience. Not overwhelming them to the point of discouragement to the point of destroying what little faith they have left. Paul wants the elders to not use their freedom to the point where the weak brother is led astray. In Galatians 2:13, where Peter's hypocrisy in Antioch caused even Barnabas to follow him in avoiding Gentile believers, contradicting the Apostolic truth, until Paul confronted Peter publicly. In Romans 14, Paul is addressing elders on how to act with an around weaker believers. No where in the New Testament can we see were the Apostle believed we should be weak in the faith indefinitely. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. Paul taught those coming to the faith had it partially, knowledge was partial, the prophetic only could be understood partially. Yet, all the partial understanding becomes complete when we become an adult in Christ. We then see the full picture. The only thing which would cause even that little we had in the beginning to vanish away, would be the unwillingness of yielding to the love of God. Paul wanted the elders to work with the weaker saints with the love of God. Therefore helping them grow in strength and knowledge to fully mature adults.

Matthew 13:11-13 explains that understanding the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven is a gift given to the devoted disciples of Jesus Christ but not others. This is why Jesus spoke in parables because the unwilling "see but do not see, and hear but do not hear to understand." This passage emphasizes a spiritual principle: those with a receptive sincere mind gain more knowledge, while the unreceptive lose what little they once had, explaining Jesus' use of stories to reveal truths to only the devote faithful while concealing them from the stubborn immature. The Apostle Paul explains how the love of God, charity works through the life of a disciple to bring them to full maturity 1 Corinthians 13:1-7. Paul starts off the chapter by saying even if he could speak with the language of man (elementary) and the language of angels (advanced) yet have not charity those languages are useless as white noise.
This is how Paul desired to have the elders in Rome to treat those who weren't yet mature as they were. Paul ends the chapter, using the same thought as Jesus in Matthew 13:11-13. When Paul points out 1 Corinthians 13:8 that God's love/charity never stops, continues to reach for us and in us. Yet, if we refuse to allow God's love to work through us, the prophetic will stop, speaking in tongues will stop, knowledge will become useless. Knowledge, and the prophetic was partial with the younger saint, but when they become fully grown what they knew as partial knowledge would become complete. They would know as they are known. Paul finishes it with "when I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became an adult, I stopped acting like a child. Matthew 25:14-30 is the parable of the talents each individual is given a certain amount by the Master. All had increase their talents with profit. Yet, one individual never does anything with what he was given. He buries his portion. At the return of the Master the servant who buried what he was given is rebuked. The Master tells him "you wicked, lazy servant!" In Matthew 25:28-29 “Then he ordered, ‘Take the money from this servant, and give it to the one with the ten bags of silver. To those who use well what they are given, even more will be given, and they will have an abundance. But from those who do nothing, even what little they have will be taken away." Paul in 1 Corinthians 13 applies the same thought of allowing God's gift to mature us, and increase us. Spiritual understanding and growth require receptivity, while refusal leads to loss, illustrating how those who use what they're given (faith, love, knowledge) receive more, while the unwilling or stagnant are diminished, this is the New Testament theme of stewardship and spiritual maturity. Romans 14 Paul explains how the elders are to welcome the immature saint, but not to argue with them over their immature opinions, focusing on unity and mutual understanding rather than judging them to condemnation. Paul's main focus as always is to seek unity, fellowship and maturity. "This will continue until we all come to such unity in our faith and knowledge of God’s Son that we will be mature in the Lord, measuring up to the full and complete standard of Christ." The Apostle never intended for the saints to remain weak in faith, but to grow strong with the help of the elders and the leading of the Holy Ghost.

[donfriesen1]

Dom , aff, 41

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Plz read the following slowly. Speeding through may lead to not grasping important parts.


Don, you don’t understand Romans 14. Do I have perfect understanding of all things in the scripture? No. But I do have partial, including Ro14. Plz do not say that you are different from others, that you have perfect understanding of all.Paul isn’t saying to tolerate false doctrine. Of course, but... Think through the following.

When Paul shows 'that those who hold opposing views on the same subject are OK to do so' he gives the appearance that both views are OK, even while they are opposing views. Both views can't be 100% right, right? Am I right? Thus, one or both could be false doctrine.

This is especially true in those who believe that God always shines doctrinal light with perfect clarity, for every doctrine. Does Paul believe this, about God? If he does, then why would he say all those with opposing views are OK. He wouldn't.

Does Paul condone false doctrine? No. But why does he condone two opposing views of the same topic? It appears from this that he condones false doctrine. There must be another reason why he does so, when he wouldn't condone false doctrine.

It may be that the following tells us why he does so:

Paul believes God does not always shine Light perfectly clearly, so everyone will see every doctrine clearly and with the same view. By saying both of those Ro saints are OK to believe what they believe, he demonstrates that he believes that God does not always shine Light perfectly. If it is not this conclusion, but that he believes God always gives Light perfectly, then he has shown acceptance of false doctrine in those with opposing views.

Thus, Ro14 is not only about weak/strong saints putting up with each other until their understandings mature. Ro14 is instructing (by reading between the lines) that not all topics have only one correct interpretation.

This had rubbed my Apostolic sensibilities the wrong way. They told me God would always only give scripture for doctrine which can only have one result. But, who am I to argue with Paul? I then changed my sensibilities to align with Ro14.

Paul shows us, from reading Ro14 'between the lines', that he demonstrates that multiple views of some doctrines are acceptable, if you believe he does not see God giving Light perfectly every time. That he says that all Romans with contrary views (on some subjects only) are OK to hold them, he must then believe that God does not always shine Light clearly or that he believes that holding false doctrine is OK. It can't be both. The former is more palatable.

If Pastor Doe rejects B Smith on one such unclearly given doctrine, then he sins against Ro14. That Apostolic Orgs have demonstrated that multiple head covering doctrines are acceptable, demonstrates that they (some of them anyway) believe that head covering is an unclear doctrine with more than one such conclusion, that this topic has multiple acceptable views.

Doe is practicing contrary to accepted Org practice and Ro14, if head covering is truly a subject which fits into 'multiple acceptable views'. Not being present when those Apostolics first decided to accept multiple head covering views does not provide light as to why it was done. We only guess that it was done for reasons of Ro14.

Even if they didn't use Ro14 as a guide, this doesn't negate the conclusions of Ro14. It is true regardless of which reasons Apostolic Orgs accept multiple head coverings.

Doe is wrong on both: Org counts and Ro14 counts. This indicates that the past demonstrated a lack of Apostolic teaching on Ro14. It demonstrates a future need to highlight it for its proper practice in all those wanting to be 100% NT - the Apostolic.

I’ve explained this in previous posts. Paul is telling the stronger mature brethren not to destroy the already weak faith of the new converts. And I've said I've agreed. But deeper reading/thinking of Ro14 shows other conclusions which aren't contradictory to that thought. Other Biblically seen occurrences of the use of reading-between-the-lines are seen revealing truth, showing the conclusions I've presented as acceptable. If the reasoning used to reach these conclusions is faulty, then plz share with all here in AFF how so. I would welcome all such thoughts. Paul had already established his thoughts on meat offered to idols that it was demon worship. That the table of Christ cannot be mixed with demon worship. The weaker brethren’s remedy for this is just not to ever eat meat again. But only become holy vegetarians. Paul wants to educate the weaker saints, but not by destroying them. He also brings up the point if you are bid to go to the butchers, eat what is set before you. Yet, don’t ask questions wether or not the meat was offered to idols. Just eat it, but if someone brings it up that the meat was indeed offered to an idol push back the plate. Not for you, but for those who may get the wrong idea about you. Paul is trying to teach wisdom concerning the neophytes in the first century.

I see that Pastor Doe saw you as an extremist? I can’t imagine why he had that idea? Hoho, you are so funny. I am the creator of fictional Pastor Doe. You know more of him than the creator. Doe sees anyone who sees scripture in ways other than he does, as holding false doctrine.

Had Paul met Pastor Doe, he would have explained to Doe that the scriptures show that God does not always give doctrinal light with great clarity in every topic. He would say to Doe that more than one conclusion is OK, "just like I described in writing Ro14".

Is Doe a proud, unbending Apostolic?

Some think only Apostolics have the perfect understanding of everything Biblical, leading them to think 'we cannot ever be wrong'.

If Doe thinks this, then he will kick Paul in the butt, and usher him out the door.

But even the Word shows one of the earliest Apostolics as being reluctantly proved wrong about their Bible interpretation, admitting it, then preaching to Gentiles to receive them into the church. Thank God, we have an example exemplifying that change is possible for Apostolics willing to listen to and think through rational explanations of scripture.

.

[donfriesen1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1 View Post
We've watched the methodologies you've used in the past. Saying this about you is not being like the racists who automatically paint everyone of the same skin colour the same negative way. This view of you has been learned from experience here in AFF. All can see it reading your replies in threads.

But disprove this opinion of you

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You associated me with Jew hating Muslims. Now you are claiming you weren’t trying to associate me with what? Don, I think you might be psychological projecting your beliefs unto me? I don’t have to disprove your opinion on me. It’s your opinion. I’ve already formed an opinion of you with the evidence you have supplied. You believe you are God’s gift to us, a sighted guide to the blind. But, that’s where you landed from your journey through Pentecost.

You associated me with Jew hating Muslims. Now you are claiming you weren’t trying to associate me with what?

The methodologies are the same. I am associating methodologies. Nothing more. I have been associated in other threads with a guy named Sean, and another whose name escapes me. These two were characterized as bad guys. When I am associated with them as a bad guy, the guilt attached to them is attached to me. Therefore, I am judged by the judgment they had received, which is unjust use of judgment, not according to Bible standards.

Recently, attempts were made to associate me with Jehovah Witnesses, without evidence there to. The guilt Apostolics hang on JW's does not belong on a Apostolic.

I've had doubts thrown on me by posters in AFF as to the verity of my being an Apostolic, again without evidence.

I've posted much using good logic with abundant quotes of scripture to qualify opinions and i am not called a Bible Thumper for doing so but other perjoratives.

My allegation, thus, of some in AFF using methodologies similar to those some Muslims have in their hatred for Jews, is not without support.

I don’t have to disprove your opinion on me. It’s your opinion.

Agreed. But plz, as you've recently demonstrated yourself as doing, do restrict you posts to opinions of my thoughts and do not degrade the character of the individual giving them. Many times I thought you crossed the line - attacking me and not attacking thoughts. I welcome, and have begged and cajouled for any constructive opinions of my thoughts. When failing to do so, your taking efforts to criticize character instead, it demonstrates what is seen in many Muslims against any Jew. Lack of critcizing my thoughts while taking the time to criticize my character uses the same thought-patterns those who are racists use. They dispise without having reason too. Shame on you for doing so.

You may now, as you've done in the past, characterize me as a cry baby. But if I were a cry baby as you say I am, I would long ago have left the scene, not wanting to put up with what you justify as being good. But don't stop calling names. We won't recognize you if you do.

Don, I think you might be psychological projecting your beliefs unto me? You believe you are God’s gift to us, a sighted guide to the blind.

Right back at you Dom. Stop projecting your wrong onto others. Everyone thinks their opinion of the Bible is the correct opinion. You included. Any who do so should not have labels attached to them by others, if they do. But do show how their opionons are wrong. They've been aired here in AFF for that reason. Just name calling, like you often do, does not show how opinions are wrong. It adds nothing to debate but does show you using methodolgies which are similar to those Muslims use against Jews.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

We've watched the methodologies you've used in the past. Saying this about you is not being like the racists who automatically paint everyone of the same skin colour the same negative way. This view of you has been learned from experience here in AFF. All can see it reading your replies in threads.

But disprove this opinion of you

The methodologies are the same. I am associating methodologies. Nothing more. I have been associated in other threads with a guy named Sean, and another whose name escapes me. These two were characterized as bad guys. When I am associated with them as a bad guy, the guilt attached to them is attached to me. Therefore, I am judged by the judgment they had received, which is unjust use of judgment, not according to Bible standards.

Recently, attempts were made to associate me with Jehovah Witnesses, without evidence there to. The guilt Apostolics hang on JW's does not belong on a Apostolic.

I've had doubts thrown on me by posters in AFF as to the verity of my being an Apostolic, again without evidence.

I've posted much using good logic with abundant quotes of scripture to qualify opinions and i am not called a Bible Thumper for doing so but other perjoratives.

My allegation, thus, of some in AFF using methodologies similar to those some Muslims have in their hatred for Jews, is not without support.

Agreed. But plz, as you've recently demonstrated yourself as doing, do restrict you posts to opinions of my thoughts and do not degrade the character of the individual giving them. Many times I thought you crossed the line - attacking me and not attacking thoughts. I welcome, and have begged and cajouled for any constructive opinions of my thoughts. When failing to do so, your taking efforts to criticize character instead, it demonstrates what is seen in many Muslims against any Jew. Lack of critcizing my thoughts while taking the time to criticize my character uses the same thought-patterns those who are racists use. They dispise without having reason too. Shame on you for doing so.

You may now, as you've done in the past, characterize me as a cry baby. But if I were a cry baby as you say I am, I would long ago have left the scene, not wanting to put up with what you justify as being good. But don't stop calling names. We won't recognize you if you do.

Right back at you Dom. Stop projecting your wrong onto others. Everyone thinks their opinion of the Bible is the correct opinion. You included. Any who do so should not have labels attached to them by others, if they do. But do show how their opionons are wrong. They've been aired here in AFF for that reason. Just name calling, like you often do, does not show how opinions are wrong. It adds nothing to debate but does show you using methodolgies which are similar to those Muslims use against Jews.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Quote:
We've watched the methodologies you've used in the past. Saying this about you is not being like the racists who automatically paint everyone of the same skin colour the same negative way. This view of you has been learned from experience here in AFF. All can see it reading your replies in threads.

But disprove this opinion of you

You were called out for calling me a Jew hating Muslim by another poster. So, since you used "we've" noticed, I think now would be a good moment for you to produce the people who make up the "we?" Who are these people who agree with you? Can we hear their testimony? It would be interesting to find out you even have friends. You bring up Sean? So, let me refresh your memory, Sean was banned. Can you tell me why he was banned?

I'll wait.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Not some, just you. I called you and you alone an ecclesiastical narcissist.

The term is employed to describe those who always want everyone to shut up and listen to them. No discussion is involved. They might claim that they would change their view if shown scripturally their error. But, that is usually a form of baiting individuals into gladiator school. Their minds are thoroughly made up. As is yours. Which by the way is perfectly fine. Believe as you want to believe,the only thing is, is that people are here on the forum (all three of us) not to be your echo chamber.

Actually I wasn't talking about myself. I was under the impression you were restarting a closed by the admin thread. the bear would be the admin. Not me. You poke me and others constantly in your your posts. Like answering Votivesoul in the I AM=father thread, by calling out to me in your answer to him? Own your own behavior.

Human nature? Don, do you believe people can get the Holy Ghost? That the Spirit of God can dwell in them and lead them? Don't you believe that through repentance, and receiving of the Holy Ghost you will get a changed nature? 2 Corinthians 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
1 Corinthians 2:10-13 which states that we have received the Spirit of God, which reveals the things of God to us. Therefore it is God who brings you from the old creation to the new creation. You put off the old man, and put on the new man, Ephesians 4:22-24. Paul addressing the Roman Apostolic Church would've taken a changed nature into consideration. We don't have to make people do things. If the have the Holy Ghost they will have holiness. Paul wasn't a babysitter, or a despot. Romans 14 took into consideration the weakness of the faith of the neophytes, and therefore knew that the Holy Ghost in them would be the author and finisher of their faith Hebrews 12:2.

Don, right here we can see you don't understand the scripture. Weak in faith is just that, weakness in belief and trust in God alone. Not in human discipline! We in the Kingdom of Jesus Christ are to help the weak brethren to seek after the Holy Ghost. Through prayer and supplication, reading the scripture as led by the Holy Ghost. We aren't to train them as we would an apprentice on a job. Jesus Christ is the Head of the Body. Not me, not you. I'm not the author and finisher of anyone's faith. I'm just a brother who can only be available if needed. This isn't about some sort of human discipline of memorizing rules and regulations on meat or tofu.

Don, the weakness Paul is describing is told to us! It is weak in faith, which is weak in belief. In Romans 15:1 Paul tells the mature elders that they are to support the "failings" of the neophytes. In verse 2 Paul says to support the near brother and build them up. Encourage them in the Holy Ghost. Paul isn't looking to encourage Holy Vegetarianism!

Paul understands that everyone who is sincere will allow the Holy Ghost to work through them and in them. They will no longer speak like children, or act like children. That when they become full mature adults they will put childish understanding away. They no longer will use the gifts partially, but walk in them fully. As mature elders of the Body.

I never posted what you are saying above. Because I don't believe or teach as you are saying above. Anyone reading my words who actually know me, would say you are misrepresenting me. Because they know me. What's sad is that you throw your rebuke at me, then you quote 2 Timothy 4:2 None of what is said in 2 Timothy 4:2 is to be done with carnal human discipline in mind. It is to be applied to the sincere saint of God who has the Holy Ghost, and is being led by the Holy Ghost. Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. These words in a nutshell are exactly what Paul is saying in Romans. The main word Timothy is to focus on is longsuffering. Which is being patient with those he is convincing, rebuking, exhorting, and teaching. The Holy Ghost is the main power to make anything in that list even work. If the strong brother, and weak brother don't allow the Holy Ghost to work charity through them. Then absolutely zero will happen. Listen, you may shut someone up after you beat them up in the church office. They may go out and be sitting down physically, but in their heart they're standing up. If the Holy Ghost doesn't push the buttons and blow the whistles, you will have nothing but an ecclesiastical side show.

Paul is telling Timothy the evangelist to deal with individuals who are elders. They aren't weak brethren as in new converts. Those who Timothy was to deal with aren't labeled as weak in the faith. Don, you are all over the place.

Don, you are not understanding what is happening in Romans 14. Paul is dealing with new converts and elders. New converts need their faith strengthened so they aren't worried about where the meat is coming from. Or if they are breaking the sabbath if they help someone get their oxen out of a ditch. Paul isn't dealing with with elders desiring to be teachers of the Law.
In Romans he is dealing with the same thing he dealt with over in Corinth. Weak brethren Romans 14, and 1 Corinthians 8:10. Elders needed to watch what they were doing in order not to not cause a young new convert to stumble.

Paul wouldn't of ever advocated to Timothy to have weak faith elders to teach anything, let alone the Law of Moses. Don do you think your a weaker brother because you hold a third view from Pastor Doe, and the Organization?

Para 1.

Not some, just you. I called you and you alone an ecclesiastical narcissist.

This post of Dom's is about points Dom makes about Ro14, and about what Dom thinks about me. I'll not take time to reply to his dislike for me.

Actually I wasn't talking about myself. I was under the impression you were restarting a closed by the admin thread. the bear would be the admin. Not me. You poke me and others constantly in your your posts.

Dom says "I was under the impression". Speedy reading of a post can cause this, creating wrong impressions.

Questions raised in para 3 are not relevant to this thread. They may only have been said by Dom to cast doubt that I am an Apostolic.

Para 4 does not directly respond to what I say about Ro14.

I agree that Paul speaks in Ro14 to those who are weak. Para 5.

Para 6. Dom says

I never posted what you are saying above. Anyone reading my words who actually know me, would say you are misrepresenting me.

True, I never said so in so many words. But those who believe that Paul believes that God always speaks with perfect clarity for every doctrine must be concluded to think that Paul condones false doctrine. When telling those saints in Rome who believe 'contrary things', that they are all OK to do so, then would see some with false doctrine, if God is always perfectly clear. When you teach that Ro14 is only about weak/strong saints, it does not address the fact that Paul says those holding opposing opinions are OK to do so. It gives the impression he condones false doctrine. You do not address this part of my coclusions in your beliefs. Because you don't, others are left believing otherwise.

Dom says this will only work for... and then he gives a reason. The reason he gives is good but it does not address the issue of Paul allowing saints all to hold opposing views of the same doctrine. Thus, you again skirt the main point of the thread. Why do you not address the main point in your comments, Dom?

Para 7. What Dom says does not address the main point of the thread.

Para 8. Dom again does not talk about the main point of this thread. If he keeps talking about another thing, does he do it purposely, to purposely avoid talking about that which he can't, as a diversionary tactic? Maybe. But am I the only one to think so?

Dom here says I don't understand that the Ro14 talk is about weak/strong saints. I've said that I agree with this point, so I must actually be understanding, right, Dom?

What I don't understand is why Dom won't talk about the main point of the thread. Surely an Evangelist should be able to see that God often reveals truth when those who read his Word read between the lines to discover it, right?

Limiting God, by saying Ro14 is only about weak/strong saints, does not show him with the abilities which reading between the lines does. God is greater than you make him out to be, Dom. Don't limit the limitless God.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You were called out for calling me a Jew hating Muslim by another poster. True. So, since you used "we've" noticed, I think now would be a good moment for you to produce the people who make up the "we?" Who are these people who agree with you? Can we hear their testimony? The we is those who read this thread. It would be interesting to find out you even have friends. You bring up Sean? So, let me refresh your memory, Sean was banned. Can you tell me why he was banned? No.

I'll wait.

In the interests of brevity, plz restrict your comments to the main reason this thread was started - sharing of Bible thoughts.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Another thing, if you don't like what an organization believes or how they do their business? Don't be a part of that organization. It's that simple. Don, is all this belly aching because the UPCI kicked you to the curb? Move on buddy. A public forum is no where to lick your wounds. Also in the UPCI they have districts and it is up to the district board, whether they give the pass on what a preacher sees as far as doctrine. You fell under the wheels of a chariot with the Canadian UPCI? All I can say is oh well. Live for God, and don't be obnoxious. Maybe they'll invite you back.

In the interests of brevity, plz restrict your comments to the main reason this thread was started - sharing of Bible thoughts.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Another thing, if you don't like what an organization believes or how they do their business? Don't be a part of that organization. It's that simple. Don, is all this belly aching because the UPCI kicked you to the curb? Move on buddy. A public forum is no where to lick your wounds. Also in the UPCI they have districts and it is up to the district board, whether they give the pass on what a preacher sees as far as doctrine. You fell under the wheels of a chariot with the Canadian UPCI? All I can say is oh well. Live for God, and don't be obnoxious. Maybe they'll invite you back.

In post 4 Dom says Don, is all this belly aching because the UPCI kicked you to the curb? Move on buddy. A public forum is no where to lick your wounds.

You keep bringing my church and a church Org into this thread. I'm trying to not make a public forum a place to lick any wounds I might have, while you keep referencing it: post17, 20, 23, 24, 26, 28, 29.

Let's talk Bible, shall we?

In light of the fact that you state that I am not your friend, the following: This forum is called "Apostolic Friends" for a reason.

I'm encouraged to see you making some scriptural comments on the subject: 'Ro14 practice', in Post 13, 20, 22, 23, 25, 29 and not just making abrasive comments about me. Keep it up!

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You were called out for calling me a Jew hating Muslim by another poster. So, since you used "we've" noticed, I think now would be a good moment for you to produce the people who make up the "we?" Who are these people who agree with you? Can we hear their testimony? It would be interesting to find out you even have friends. You bring up Sean? So, let me refresh your memory, Sean was banned. Can you tell me why he was banned?

I'll wait.

I didn’t bring this up YOU did. Now you get called on the carpet you refuse to address it? You accused me of being a Jew hating Muslim. You then brought up Sean. Why was Sean banned?