Discrepancy in Church Practice

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I love 'discussing' with you, Dom.

No you don't. You actually can't stand to be wrong. This post will be identical to all your other posts. Nothing changes, just more of your weeping, wailing, and gnashing of teeth.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

The things you say are so entertaining that it makes it fun to think about them.

They are entertaining because all your time in the church you felt any correction from the pulpit was entertaining. It was never meant for you. It was just meant for all the other sinners around you. You just couldn't wait for the chance to climb up behind the pulpit to filet some fish. You are a bud nipper, you see correcting others' incomplete teachings as your Superpower. When you yourself have zero business correcting anyone in a church family. You have no respect for anyone else's hard work in bringing people together to break bread, and share what they have. Hypothetical Pastor J. D. and his elders are over a church family who is in a church building. B. Smith is over nothing. All this entire thread is about is B. Smith wanting to get a word serving position. Period. So let's just forget what doily some sister wears on her head.

It is obvious that you want a pass due to your interpretation of Romans 14, to get some hypothetical cry baby in the pulpit. Tell B. Smith to grow up. If the pulpit is that important to him, then he should run an ad in the paper looking for a job to preach in some denomination. Because after all if B. Smith is half the man you are, he sees everyone under his interpretation of Romans 14.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

As of today I have not yet read every one of your posts.

Is that because you can't stand the sight of blood? Just gets you crazy to hear you aren't as called as you thought you were? Well, that might be a good sign. Maybe you will wake up and grow up? How long you been in Pentecost?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

B Smith is said to say things in this post they havn't said in the example given in post 1.

I thought you want us to read between the lines?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

In post 1 they are represented as believing a head-covering view derived from scripture, and denied by Pastor Doe to have a Word-serving position in church because of it.

OK, Pastor Doe has that right, because he is over the congregation. Like I have been saying over and over. If B. Smith doesn't teach what Pastor J Doe teaches then they can discuss it. If Pastor J. D. rejects what B. Smith wants to teach the church family. Then oh well, I guess it's GAME OVER!

But, Don, why don't you tell me what would be B.Smith's recourse of action if Pastor Doe doesn't accept B.Smith's Manna from heaven? Go ahead and tell me what would YOU do?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Today's post by Dom and my responses assumes B Smith had taken an active roll in sharing his head covering views with Pastor Doe. Though not included in post 1 lets assume the scenario as part of the example.

Lord have mercy on us all if everyone thinks and acts on the thoughts these words show: Whatever happened to going by the Book?

OK, but Pastor J. D. doesn't see the BOOK, like B. Smith sees the BOOK. Now what do you do? Pastor J. D. wants all women in his church to wear tin foil cone shaped hats on their heads. What is B. Smith going to do about it? In your interpretation of Romans 14, Pastor Doe is allowed to have his own opinion. B. Smith is allowed to have his own opinion. Nothing is even hinted that the Apostle Paul said these individuals could minister to the church their own opinions. Romans 14 doesn't teach individuals weak or otherwise getting word serving positions? B. Smith is still out of luck.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Yes, metaphorically he does.

Is that so? Then just believe metaphorically Pastor J.D. is teaching a complete view.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Plz, lets not look further until the current unscriptural practice has been dealt with. One at a time, is the wise advice often given. This is right. But their views are an incomplete view. The rationale you present here would tell the Baptist to continue without the new birth because the repentance they believe in is Biblical. Well, yes, repentance is Biblical but an incomplete representation of the Gospel. Those saints who side with Pastor Doe's representation of Ro14 (weak/strong saint view) fail to embrace the complete view that Paul presents (to accept those saints with contrary views on scripture which presents the ability of more than one correct view).

Does B. Smith go to a Baptist Church? Is Pastor J. D. over a Baptist Church? We are still talking about a UPCI congregation? If you attend a "Independent" KJV Onlyist "Ruckmanite" Baptist Church, and you went to the pastor with what you or I believe. They would tar and feather you, and I. No amount of pleading or kneading will get us room at the table. Don, you are posting above that Pastor J. D. the elders, and the saints "fail to embrace a complete view" of your understanding of Romans 14. So, to give the opportunity for B. Smith to hold a word serving position where he can teach his own view on head coverings. What isn't penetrating your rock block noggin is that the pastor, elders, and the church family don't have to see anything the way B. Smith sees it. They all can be sliding into an eternal lake of burning fire! Yet, if they aren't willing to see what the other guy is seeing there is nothing he can do, other than pray, wait, or hit the gate.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Why does this escape your cognition?

Don, you are the one with a cognitive dissonance. You believe that you are right and everyone else in the church is wrong. It just doesn't work that way. If B. Smith is in a church family, which has a pastor over it, then it is up to the pastor who gets and who doesn't get a word serving position. How long have you been in Pentecost and you knoweth not these things?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Do not follow the likes of Pastor Doe because it will be following someone who misses parts of scripture, important parts.

That's why the church building has an exit sign over the doors. If you don't want to "follow" the guy, you leave! Bye Bye Charlie!

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Don't be a Pastor Doe, who fractures the body of Christ by unscriptural actions.

Don't be, just call an Uber, and take your bat and ball and go home. It is simple as that. Therefore they will be left all by themselves while they fracture the body of Christ in their little podunk church in the backwoods of Nowhere Canada. While you are at home curled up in the fetal position.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

You, Dom, applaud Pastor Doe's booting out the saint Paul says should be accepted, rejecting an important part of Ro14.

Hey, Pastor J.D. is probably a bigger problem than B. Smith. It really sounds like they deserve each other. Also the Apostle Paul would give you a Billy Jack roundhouse kick to the temple if he ever heard your interpretation of Romans 14. I shudder to think what it would be like to be in a Bible study group with you teaching it. I probably jump out a window after enduring it for an hour.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

And would you applaud others who also do so? Right. But they have suffered lack. Pastor Doe has taught them that Ro14 is only about the weak/strong saint. They have not been taught the rest of Ro14. They are blind to a part but whole heartedly only agree with the part they are taught, as they should. The question before us is whether they are wrong or right to say so.

Don, I have explained this over and over. If B. Smith has 24 kt gold manna from the throne room of God. He needs to go through the leadership of the congregation. It is the same thing no matter what denomination sign you place over the door. Again, how long have you been around Apostolic Pentecostal Churches? All you want for me to say is that your Inclusivism rendering of Romans 14 is right, Pastor Doe is wrong for not believing like you, and B. Smith deserves the pastor's parking space. B. Smith needs to start his own church and teach whatever nonsense that pops in his rock hard head. This isn't rocket science. I wouldn't want to stay in a place where you were the pastor, I would run out of there like my head was on fire. But, If you were my leadership, and we had a difference of teaching, I would first take it to you and you alone. I wouldn't expect you to place a bishop's mitre on my head if I didn't believe like you, and you didn't want my view to be seeded around your church family. If I couldn't deal with that, then exit stage left. I would be more than happy to vacate the premises. But, if I wanted to stay with my loving brothers and sisters, and my eldership. Then I would have to get praying that the Lord opens their eyes, and then hope to Jesus for the maturity to WAIT! Because if what you have is platinum Truth of God, then it is up to God to give the increase. NOT YOU OR I. Not B. Smith.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

The Baptist is right to believe about repentance, should continue to hold to it, but embrace the full gospel, right?

We aren't talking about Baptist Ruckmanites. If you were attending a Ruckmanite church you aren't attending it to CHANGE IT. You are attending it to agree with their beliefs. If you get an epiphany on Jesus name baptism and take it to one of their elders? Than good luck sticking around. This is why we are up to 45,000 different denominations. Because they all see one Book differently. Only ONE can be right. Narrow is the way, and strait is the door which leads to eternal life, and few there be who will find it.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Answer this question if you would plz. The example given in post1, as a hypothetical of the real, is it realistic in your mind that it reflects reality? In my mind, it has been duplicated many times in the real world in different ways. Pastors have used an authority which is fictitious. They do not have authority to override the teaching of Ro14. That is the reason this post was given. It hypothetically represents the reality of a mistake that may have long been made.

Don, whether or not you or I believe that a pastor has no authority to go against your beliefs concerning your interpretation of scripture. Doesn't matter to that pastor. All kidding aside, that is the guy who is paying the bills, painting the building, mowing the lawn. He may be doing a totality of all the heavy lifting. He visits the shut ins, he holds umbrellas over little MeMaw's heads at the bus stop, etc. In short, he is the one who makes the decisions. If he has a church board, or an elder board they all make decisions together. They all agree on the scriptures and who preaches over the pulpit. the pastor will determine who gets a WORD SERVING POSITION, and who doesn't.

I can't change that, you can't change that. We are outsiders and it's there show. If you and I were to visit these nice people. We would attend as visitors. If they start preaching a bunch of howling mess over the pulpit. You can meet with the elders, talk with the pastor in private. You can grin and bare it, when the service is over you can give your kind farewells to all the nice people. You can get up and leave during the preaching. All in all, outside of these things I mentioned there is little you can do. These people are going to believe what they believe no matter how we feel about it. They have what they have and are happy to have what they have. It's that simple. No matter how you believe Romans 14 should be shake and baked, doesn't matter to them in the slightest. They either want you to get on board, or simply get lost. There is actually nothing more to say concerning this matter.

B. Smith shouldn't expect miracles, if Pastor J. D. doesn't agree with what B. Smith teaches then oh well. I suggest these two hypothetical individuals get into some good hot hypothetical prayer.

[Evang.Benincasa]

I would like to add this thought. Just because you are the boss, or owner of a company doesn’t mean you know everything. Just because you are a worker doesn’t mean the boss or owner will take your much needed advice. Just because you’ve been doing something for 30 years doesn’t mean you’ve been doing it right. Also just because you’ve made some mistakes as a boss doesn’t mean you always get things wrong. Life in the secular world is complicated at times. Same for the church. Everyone is just trying to get a job done. We are the ones who bring drama into a complicated situation. We who are living and working for God, should allow God to lead. If we get out of His way, then we can follow in His way.

[donfriesen1]

God bless Evang. Benincasa. God loves him with an everlasting love. Those who do not love those who God loves set themselves against God.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Nothing strained at all. Paul starts out with labeling one individual as weak in their faith, and in Corinth they are labeled weak in conscience. Obviously if we follow the totality of Paul's teachings to the first century church he doesn't want everyone to remain weak in faith and conscience. Paul called for spiritual growth. Paul stressed that mature saints must protect the conscience of less-mature believers (the "weak") from stumbling into sin, even if it means temporarily restricting their own freedoms, because the goal is unity and building others up, not religiosity to the point of causing harm. This is the entire point of what is seen in 1 Corinthians 8-10 and Romans 14.

When Paul includes in Ro14 that which he had not included in 1Co, we then see he is referring also to a principle he applies to those areas of scripture which he knows are capable of having multiple interpretations. In this we may be seeing the understanding of Paul maturing as he gains more experience. Ro is written after 1Co, after Gal. And Col yet to come.

It still remains true that Paul does not teach those Ro's, those who have contrary views, what they should believe on this subject. He isn't seen correcting their improper views if he thinks they have them.

To think he knows they have knowledge of his earlier writings may be describing him as slopily relying on something which may be untrue for an individual, but which is true for their church. Do we have evidence beyond assumption that this knowledge was common, that every saint in Ro knew what the Co church knew along the lines of a particular practice or doctrine? In today's world that would be like the saints in Nome knowing what hot topics were discussed by saints in Dubai. Possible, but likely? Only, maybe possible.

It remains true that many things he says in Ro14 are not specific to only days or foods. He applies and speaks of that which is a principle which applies to other areas of God's Word.

So, I would yet disagree, when your view would conclude that it is acceptable to place a foundation which will later need to be taken down. Seeing Paul telling a new saint (new is your concept) to hold false doctrine temporarily for peace sake, which they later will find out is wrong, is the same as telling them that their shaky foundation is good to be built in a shaky way because it'll later be torn down to be replaced with a good foundation. Saying as you say shows disregard to the things which aren't only applicable to only days and foods. Surface reading, and then applying what was read to only two topics, insults the God who asks us to dig deeper, who gives us our noodle to dig deeper for greater purposes in the things he has provided. You have such a noodle Dom and also great knowledge of many things secular and Biblical.

Read Ro15.1-7 and tell me you believe he only speaks on two topics, days and foods. No one should say so, you included. Days and foods were the hot topic that applied to Rome but the principles apply to more topics than just these two. I hope you believe this is true. Confirm it by saying you do.

Paul is smarter than to allow the impression that false doctrine is acceptable for a temporary time, much smarter. Nip mistakes in the bud would be his philosophy. Build up from a strong foundation of true doctrine. He would never condone false doctrine or to build on a weak foundation; which is the gist of your thoughts.

What evidence can you present to brace your shaky views? Referring to 1Co8-10 confirms what about having a foundation which is weak? Is 1Co8-10 relevant to Ro14. Yes, very. If Ro is written after 1Co we then might then think this shows Paul is maturing in his theology and practices.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

God bless Evang. Benincasa. God loves him with an everlasting love. Those who do not love those who God loves set themselves against God.

OK.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

When Paul includes in Ro14 that which he had not included in 1Co, we then see he is referring also to a principle he applies to those areas of scripture which he knows are capable of having multiple interpretations.

He doesn't say multiple interpretations. Paul said meat offered to idols was demon worship, 1 Corinthians 10:19–22. With the Pauline epistles they aren't fragmented. They are whole and should be understood in their entirety. Paul tells us these new converts "weak saints" were having concerns over Holy Veganism which was their opinions. Not doctrines, but Paul calls them opinions. The Greek διαλογισμῶν actually means disputing over opinions. In some English translations the word is translated "quarrel over opinions" Paul didn't see them as different doctrines these people were holding. They were weak in the faith, they weren't elders within the Church. Therefore they wouldn't of been allowed to lead in Bible study. That is very apparent in Paul's thoughts on these "weak faith" brethren. Paul made it very clear that meat offered to idols was indeed demon worship. Hence, his admonishment to bare with these weak individuals with love, "receive one who is weak in the faith" instead of shutting them down in word, and behavior by ignoring them and eating when you are alerted that the meat you are eating is offered to demons 1 Corinthians 10:25-27. If the elders exercised their freedom to eat and it causes the "weak" brethren to fall into sin or violate their own conscience, that action is a sin against the brother and Christ. Paul is instigating peace among the elders to the weaker youngers so they would be encouraged to grow in knowledge. Therefore the elders wouldn't be offending Christ by standing in His way, since He was the Master who was able to make His servant stand Romans 14:4. This was in no way setting a precedent for weaker saints having a word serving position in the Body of Christ.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

In this we may be seeing the understanding of Paul maturing as he gains more experience.

Ro is written after 1Co, after Gal. And Col yet to come.

Seriously? So, Paul the Apostle, the writer of the Pauline Epistles had to mature as he gained more experience, but not the "Weaker Saints" as I have been repeating myself over and over again. Whatever. I see that word serving position in about a million pieces on B. Smith's kitchen floor.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

It still remains true that Paul does not teach those Ro's, those who have contrary views, what they should believe on this subject. He isn't seen correcting their improper views if he thinks they have them.

I guess 1 Corinthians 10:19-22 really messes you up. Because Paul always believed that idols were demons. He was a "Hebrew of the Hebrews" Philippians 3:5. Who most certainly understood the spiritual dangers of demon worship Deuteronomy 32:16-17. Paul actually refers to Deuteronomy 32:16 in 1 Corinthians 10:22. No, Don, this wasn't Paul the Apostle's first rodeo. The weaker saints weren't involved in demon worship. In their strictness of avoiding meat offered to demons, they became Holy Vegetarians. Paul wanted the elder, more experienced men and women, to welcome the weaker in faith, welcome them, not to snuff out what little faith they had left. Paul, desired these weaker brethren to be nurtured by the Holy Ghost until they came to full age.

"What say I then? that the idol is anything, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is anything. But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?"

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

So, I would yet disagree, when your view would conclude that it is acceptable to place a foundation which will later need to be taken down. Seeing Paul telling a new saint (new is your concept) to hold false doctrine temporarily for peace sake, which they later will find out is wrong, is the same as telling them that their shaky foundation is good to be built in a shaky way because it'll later be torn down to be replaced with a good foundation. Saying as you say shows disregard to the things which aren't only applicable to only days and foods. Surface reading, and then applying what was read to only two topics, insults the God who asks us to dig deeper, who gives us our noodle to dig deeper for greater purposes in the things he has provided. You have such a noodle Dom and also great knowledge of many things secular and Biblical.

Well, there are some problems with your thinking ( which frankly isn’t unusual for you ) yet, the issue is immaturity of the believers in question. They are weak in faith due to their newness to the congregation. Hence the elder brothers and sisters are asked to welcome these individuals but not with argumentative correction. The issue is immaturity which causes these saints to have weakened faith concerning how they can’t understand the spiritual realm of the Body of Christ. Always walking in fear isn’t what Jesus or the Apostle have in mind. They also don’t want the immature weaker brothers to be run out of the church. Also having what little faith destroyed and therefore offending Christ Himself in doing so. But, I could only imagine you are the type to clean the fish before they are caught.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Read Ro15.1-7 and tell me you believe he only speaks on two topics, days and foods. No one should say so, you included. Days and foods were the hot topic that applied to Rome but the principles apply to more topics than just these two. I hope you believe this is true. Confirm it by saying you do.

No circumcision of gentiles would be top of the list. Paul is dealing with their opinions concerning their fears of sinning. These immature weak in faith saints were taking their beliefs concerning demon worship to a carnal extreme. Paul is dealing with the arguing with these immature saints to the point of weakening their faith even more. The topics in Romans and 1 Corinthians have zero to do with head coverings or giving some numbskull a word serving position. Therefore your hopes to bend scripture to fit your agenda falls flat. B. Smith is still out of luck.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Paul is smarter than to allow the impression that false doctrine is acceptable for a temporary time, much smarter. Nip mistakes in the bud would be his philosophy. Build up from a strong foundation of true doctrine. He would never condone false doctrine or to build on a weak foundation; which is the gist of your thoughts.

Well this clearly shows you haven’t the foggiest idea of what is happening with Paul admonishing elder brothers and sisters. He doesn’t want any nipping in the bud when it comes to weak saints. Their opinions are just that,
opinions. They are immature. Therefore need a little tender care to bring them to full maturity. They are not yet elders, but still babes in Christ. Nipping them in the bud, might just cause a backhand across the head from Jesus Christ, who is their real Master. To whom they stand and fall. Not you, not me, not B. Smith, and not Pastor J.D..

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

What evidence can you present to brace your shaky views? Referring to 1Co8-10 confirms what about having a foundation which is weak? Is 1Co8-10 relevant to Ro14. Yes, very. If Ro is written after 1Co we then might then think this shows Paul is maturing in his theology and practices.

Wow, the Apostle Paul is the one who you say is maturing rather than weak saints? You are so messed up and blind that you have the Apostle Paul being weak in the faith and therefore evolving as he pens his epistles. I can see very clearly why Pastor J. D. would have to be out of his ever loving mind to hand over a word serving position to B. Smith. For a guy who’s been in the Apostolic movement for such a long time you didn’t sweeten with age. Painfully like too many others you became a lesson in what not to do. This part of our discussion is circling the drain with your new epiphany that the Apostle was evolving as he penned his epistles. This as I’ve mentioned multiple times before only places not just the Apostle but his entire teachings in question?

In Galatians 1:15-18 it says, that after the Apostles’ conversion, Paul did not immediately go to Jerusalem but went to Arabia, then returned to Damascus, and only after three years went to Jerusalem. During this "waiting" period, Paul studied and likely received direct revelations from Jesus Christ, rather than instruction from the original apostles. Galatians 2:1 explains how the Apostle Paul's second journey to Jerusalem was fourteen years after his first. He was accompanied by Barnabas and Titus, to present the gospel he preached to the Gentiles to the church leaders, ensuring his ministry wasn't in vain and confirming that Gentile believers weren't required to follow Jewish law, like circumcision, for salvation, as highlighted by Titus's uncircumcised state being OK. Paul went to meet with the apostles, Peter, James, and John to confirm teachings for the churches were accepted, especially concerning issues raised by Judaizing Apostolics demanding Jewish traditions for salvation in Christ. Paul didn’t just run with an epiphany, he made sure it was bullet proof. He didn’t run in vain, but bounced it off his ELDERS. Paul wasn’t winging it as you pose in these ridiculous posts of yours. Don, this thread isn’t helping you because they only prove you shouldn’t be let loose on the public at large. Like I previously said, if B. Smith is anything like you “hypothetically” then seriously there is such a great reason Pastor J. D. would rather just have him sit and receive teaching. Not be allowed to further his flawed teachings. You aren’t a weak in the faith Saint. You’ve been in this so long you should know better. But, you see yourself smarter and therefore the one who should lead us into your cultish ecclesiastical ditch.

[donfriesen1]

Priscilla and Aquilla completed Apollos.


Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1 View Post
I love 'discussing' with you, Dom.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

No you don't.

Hi, Dom. Sorry about that, Dom. But you don't get to decide for me what I enjoy or don't. You also don't get to decide if I'm Apostolic or not. Nor if you are the top dog or cop, of AFF.

I do enjoy examining the points of scripture you present. I also enjoy pointing out the weakness of your views, thinking that it shows the AFF audience the deficiency of the Apostolic view with you as its representative.

The following will simplify for you. If you want to defeat/show in error what I say about Ro14, then take these steps:
1. disprove that the Bible is capable of being read 'between the lines'.
2. disprove what the Bible shows in Ro14, coming from reading between the lines.

Thus far (I haven't yet read/responded to all your posts), you have said to readers that Ro14 is only about weak/strong saint relations. I agree with this. But this is an incomplete view.

Priscilla and Aquilla didn't set out to disprove to Apollos what he preached, when he wasn't wrong, but explained to him the way of God more accurately Ac18. His view was not wrong, just incomplete. So I do also, with my Ro14 commentary.

Your view, the weak/strong saint view, shows what readers of the OT will often see - the Lord defending the weak righteous against the strong carnal. This practice does not die with the OT, but continues as a demonstration of righteousness/justice values which God holds dear. Nothing I say about Ro14 contradicts this view or your view of Ro14. It completes it.

Do not continue with your efforts to disprove me an Apostolic. God has demonstrated that I am, by his Word. If you continue, you place yourself as contradicting God. This would be silly for anyone to do. It would also be silly to argue against that which is seen as truth by reading Ro14 between the lines.

Why have you not yet disproved my view, with the many words you've written? Do you lack discernment to see that if you destroy the foundation the building crumbles? Of course, if you are too busy portraying my character as bad, or my lack of being Apostolic, then it doesn't leave much time to attack the foundation. This shows your weakness as not understanding the right steps to take. Does it also demonstrate why you do not grasp what reading between the lines in Ro14 fails to show you?

Give it up Dom. Stop fighting God. Accept what is seen in reading Ro14 with a between the lines method. Accept that Paul shows that God allows the holding of multiple contrary views of scripture (the scripture he has presented which naturally allows for multiple views) as acceptable. Apostolic's have wrongly projected that God always speaks with clarity, resulting in those who have varying opinions as seen believing false doctrine. Ro14 sees Paul showing otherwise. Apparently?, some Apostolics have not 'caught up' to Ro14; 15.1-7 in their beliefs and practices.

Instead, what we see is someone who thinks they represent all Apostolics, fighting what Ro14/Paul portrays. This is sad.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Priscilla and Aquilla completed Apollos.

Apollos was one who only knew the Baptism of John, just like others in Ephesus found in Acts 19:1. Apparently there was individuals in Ephesus who didn't have understanding of the infilling of the Holy Ghost and Jesus name baptism. Apollos being one of them.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I love 'discussing' with you,

No you don't.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Dom. Hi, Dom. Sorry about that, Dom. But you don't get to decide for me what I enjoy or don't. You also don't get to decide if I'm Apostolic or not. Nor if you are the top dog or cop, of AFF.

I'll decide whatever I want. You are pretty pleased with yourself. As far as top dog? That would be your ecclesiastical fantasy.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I do enjoy examining the points of scripture you present.

No you don't.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I also enjoy pointing out the weakness of your views,

You see, this is what you love. You are a blind guide yearning to have poor souls follow you right into a bottomless pit. You love the idea of being a bud nipper, you don't wait for the individual to digest, to contemplate, to muse over your opinion. Like I have said in previous posts to you, you are the one who has received the light. You can read between the lines, you are the one to show us the Bible truth. Only armed with your tapping white cane and dark sunglasses. Marching so proudly towards the abyss.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

thinking that it shows the AFF audience the deficiency of the Apostolic view

Yes, Don, all done through your own confirmation bias, fueled by your cognitive dissonance. Any pastor spending enough time with you would determine this ability of your's. Quickly accessing the situation would smartly show you the exit and call you an Uber.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

with you as its representative.

The following will simplify for you. If you want to defeat/show in error what I say about Ro14, then take these steps:
1. disprove that the Bible is capable of being read 'between the lines'.
2. disprove what the Bible shows in Ro14, coming from reading between the lines.

I already had accomplished this. Quite a few times I may add. Yet, since you are trapped in your own private religious delusion you are incapable of seeing any side but your own. You are driven by the thought that you are correct with your interpretation of Romans 14, 15, and now the evolution of Paul the Apostle. Hence making the Pauline epistles just mere suggestions, because after all, Paul was in transition. If it doesn't teach a flawed Apostle Paul, learning as he goes, I can't fathom anything to say in your defense. Imagine you telling me you are the harbinger of Paul's Truth, I'll retire to Bedlam.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Thus far (I haven't yet read/responded to all your posts), you have said to readers that Ro14 is only about weak/strong saint relations. I agree with this. But this is an incomplete view.

You haven't read all my posts? How then can you say I haven't answered your arguments? That's another thing, why no self respecting pastor, and elders would allow you a word serving position. You are not honest when it comes to discussions, How can they turn saints of God over to you, when you crash out and start making untrue claims? Your word serving position is going down as fast as the Titanic.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Priscilla and Aquilla didn't set out to disprove to Apollos what he preached, when he wasn't wrong,

Well, actually they did. As well as the Apostle Paul in Acts 19:1-7. Just like the 12 men who Paul dealt with the same thing was dealt with Apollos. In Paul, we have an expanded view, with Priscilla and Aquila we have just the points where they teach Apollos, and CORRECT him. They weren't adding on to his previous beliefs, but expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly. Therefore removing the baptism of John, with Holy Ghost infilling and the baptism of Jesus.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

but explained to him the way of God more accurately Ac18. His view was not wrong, just incomplete.

Yes, Apollos' view was wrong, same as the 12 men who also only knew John's baptism. Apollos didn't know about the Holy Ghost, or the baptism of Jesus.
Apollos was missing the full message of Jesus’ resurrection and the Holy Ghost. The same as the 12 disciples in Acts 19:1-7. Apollos' teaching was accurate concerning Jesus as the Christ, but insufficient concerning soteriology until Priscilla and Aquila CORRECTED him. While Apollos wasn't wrong concerning Jesus as the Christ, he was wrong on BAPTISM! The infilling of the Holy Ghost! Don, I wouldn't allow you to teach "Trix are for kids!"

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

So I do also, with my Ro14 commentary.

Oh, now you are Priscilla and Aquila, teaching all us ecclesiastical pygmies the way of God more perfectly? Don, maybe if you read the words of the scripture instead between the lines, you might be able to find the narrow way, and the strait gate.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Your view, the weak/strong saint view, shows what readers of the OT will often see - the Lord defending the weak righteous against the strong carnal. This practice does not die with the OT, but continues as a demonstration of righteousness/justice values which God holds dear. Nothing I say about Ro14 contradicts this view or your view of Ro14. It completes it.

The strong carnal? The righteous weak? As I always say. "let them talk and they will bury themselves with their many words." Don, your doctrine of the Gospel of Inclusion gets stronger with everyone of your posts. So, the elders of the church were carnal, not the ones who had weak faith? The ones who believed it was dangerous to eat a hot dog because someone might of offered it to Satan? Good God in Zion!

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Do not continue with your efforts to disprove me an Apostolic.

Continue my efforts? Don, I don't have to do anything. I just post, you are the one sticking your own ecclesiastical foot in your heterodoxical mouth.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

God has demonstrated that I am, by his Word.

Don, don't blame God for your wresting of the scripture, 2 Peter 3:16.
You misinterpret the Bible to force it to mean something other than the Apostle Paul's intent. All to suit personal bias.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

If you continue, you place yourself as contradicting God.

Oh, now you are God? You are certifiable.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

This would be silly for anyone to do.

Yes, I agree. It is pretty silly for you to now claim that criticizing your religious nonsense would be contradicting God.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

It would also be silly to argue against that which is seen as truth by reading Ro14 between the lines.

Don, seen by you. You fabricated an entire agenda just to allow some bozo to have a word serving position to teach what he believes about head coverings. Priscilla and Aquila weren't disccussing head coverings. Paul writing the Roman Church wasn't talking about weak in the faith saints and their opinions on head coverings. B. Smith needs to call his own Uber.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Why have you not yet disproved my view, with the many words you've written?

Well how would you know? Since you told me you haven't read all my posts?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Do you lack discernment to see that if you destroy the foundation the building crumbles?

No, I haven't lost discernment. I have discerned that you don't believe fat meat is greasy.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Of course, if you are too busy portraying my character as bad, or my lack of being Apostolic, then it doesn't leave much time to attack the foundation.

Don, you make it all too easy. I don't have to busy myself to portray your bad character, or that you are not Apostolic. You do that all by yourself. From the first time you ever posted with us. You constantly stay on the same line of your teaching. God isn't clear to His followers, Gentiles who have never heard the Gospel live righteously by the leading of their conscience. And now the Apostle Paul was a learn as you go Apostle to the Gentiles. Keep posting and I guarantee you have a whole lot more nonsense in your bag of tricks.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

This shows your weakness as not understanding the right steps to take. Does it also demonstrate why you do not grasp what reading between the lines in Ro14 fails to show you?

There is probably a whole lot more that you believe which I don't believe.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Give it up Dom.

No, you give it up.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Stop fighting God.

Don believes he is God.

I bet the pastor and elders really had their eyes roll over white when you informed them. I could only imagine the pastor's wife looking over at her husband with one raised eyebrow.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Accept what is seen in reading Ro14 with a between the lines method.

No.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Accept that Paul shows that God allows the holding of multiple contrary views of scripture (the scripture he has presented which naturally allows for multiple views) as acceptable.

B. Smith is an idiot, and Pastor J. D. and church family will be moving. Leaving no forwarding address for B. Smith.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Apostolic's have wrongly projected that God always speaks with clarity, resulting in those who have varying opinions as seen believing false doctrine.

Is that so? So, Don, is accusing me of saying he is not APOSTOLIC!!??!!

Read'em and weep, read'em and weep. With his own hand he typed out the above. Don, sees Apostolics as the "other" who he is their only salvation. Don, would you happen to have a top hat and a seer stone?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Ro14 sees Paul showing otherwise.

Really? You mean the Apostle who you say was "weak in the faith" himself?
B. Smith is a big dummy, and Pastor J. D. deserves a reward for putting up with the guy....hypothetically.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Apparently?, some Apostolics have not 'caught up' to Ro14; 15.1-7 in their beliefs and practices.

That's because the Apostolics are waiting for you to decipher the rest of the golden plates.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Instead, what we see is someone who thinks they represent all Apostolics, fighting what Ro14/Paul portrays. This is sad.

I never said I represent anyone, but myself. You on the other hand think you hold the keys to the kingdom. You make statements concerning the scripture but provide no logical proof to defend what you claim. You need help worse than the breath of life, but since you believe you are a prophet, apostle we are the ones who need your help. So, you twist and turn all the while believing you are the one who should lead. B. Smith needs to apologize to Pastor J. D. and the entire church family. Then go call an Uber.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

God bless Evang. Benincasa. God loves him with an everlasting love. Those who do not love those who God loves set themselves against God.

What is this weird, passive aggressive nonsense?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Hi, Dom. Sorry about that, Dom. But you don't get to decide for me what I enjoy or don't. You also don't get to decide if I'm Apostolic or not. Nor if you are the top dog or cop, of AFF.

Don, let me explain something to you. I hope you attend carefully to my words.

Evangelist Benincasa has a full line of credit here at AFF. He is an original member since this forum was founded, whose years of experience and expertise in the Apostolic Faith and Ministry have been proven over and over and over again.

You, on the other hand, are merely a Donny-Come-Lately, who has no credit here at AFF. Not yet at least. And by the looks of it, that doesn't seem like it's going to change any time soon. But it's up to you.

"Dom" as you have taken liberties to call him, has earned his place and has the respect of his fellow posters (few though they now may be).

Don has not earned his place and does not have the respect of his fellow posters (few though they now may be).

Get it?

You want everyone to receive you as an Apostolic? And yet you continually teach contrary to the most fundamental Apostolic hermeneutic available to you. When asked if you are a current member of an Apostolic Church, you play coy. You've created this ridiculous hypothetical about some dude you've named BS (how appropriate, btw!!!) holding to YOUR view of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, even though you admitted that as far as you know, you're the only person in the whole world who believes the IV, as you call it, thereby showing you're the BS of your own hypothetical. Yet when challenged to just admit it, you temper tantrum around the question.

If you're as Apostolic as you say, how about "Let your yea be yea and your nay be nay"?

So, let's not dance anymore to your tune. Answer these questions:

1.) How long have you been in the Apostolic (i.e. Oneness Pentecostal) Faith?
2.) When were you baptized in the name of Jesus?
3.) When did you receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit, speaking with other tongues?
4.) Are you currently attending an Apostolic (i.e. Oneness Pentecostal) Faith Church?
5.) Are you the BS of your own hypothetical in this thread?
6.) Are you the one who was denied a "word serving position" at your local congregation for holding the IV view?

Come clean, Don. Come clean, or get lost.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

.

Dom says in post 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
Let's all say 'God bless Evang. Benincasa'. He's a strong, faithful warrior of the Apostolic Faith. Let's not forget that those who do so should be honoured, having dedicated their lives to the Lord's work.

Don, you aren't the topic of Romans 14, or Romans 15:1. You aren't a new convert, which Paul is referencing. Sorry, but trying to place yourself as a weaker brother of Romans is lame attempt to prove your teaching of "Anything Goes" Apostolic Paul. Good grief, Dom! You can't even take a compliment and thank someone for it.

This is Dom's wish, that I be portrayed as one who thinks that Paul's theology is anything goes. He quotes my post, 45, in his post 47. It is there where I had said that Paul says: If anyone does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed. O Lord, come! Clearly this does not indicate me thinking of Paul as a "Anything Goes" Apostolic Paul. Dom's wants you to think I have an "Anything Goes" theology when I indicate I do not. Why does Dom want me to be seen as something which I do not portray? What is the motivation of someone who wants another to appear as being different than they portray themselves to be. But, I must say, you certainly proved that no Apostolic Jesus name preacher would be stupid enough to even have you hand out prayer cards. Dom again shows his infatuation with a man by focusing on a man instead of Bible discussion.

After much reminding that this is a discussion forum for Bible topics its good to see that Dom has taken my advice. He has dramatically increased his amounts of actual Bible quoting and actual putting forward of scriptural-based thought. Keep it up Dom!

And while you're at it, decrease the volume of words which are directed to the character of a man. Unfortunately, he has not reduced this much, if at all.

What motivates the focus of a man to post about a brother's character, instead of focussing on Bible discussions? I would much rather not need to defend myself against Dom, but I feel I am forced to do so. If the proliferation of words against my character are believed by readers, and not countered with truth, then undiscerning readers will be overwhelmed and think negatively of the Bible thoughts I share in threads/posts, minimizing their impact. If they are indeed good Bible thoughts, then what the Lord wants to say through me will be minimized. The church will then not be what the Lord wants the church to be. The teaching of Ro14 and the truths it contains must be practiced by Apostolics to be fully functional NT believers.

And instead of taking the time to dismantle the foundations of my thoughts, he proclaims he has done so, just as I predicted he would many, many posts earlier. (see post 36, where I said "Readers, I'll remind you what I said in post 21, which I now quote "I will predict that your future comments will claim that what (hasn't been here and now said) are the arguments you supposedly gave, which had refuted my contentions. But what you have said thus far falls far short of refuting." I made this prediction in post 21, writing it before reading his post 20.".The many volumes of knowledge and experience he actually possesses is wasted in vain characterizations of another Apostolic as an unApostolic, when they could be used in attempts to show the error of the reasoning I've used in my Ro14 commentary. Wasted, just wasted. Most readers aren't fooled by 'no arguments' presented as 'arguments', Dom.