Discrepancy in Church Practice

[Evang.Benincasa]

Don, I clearly showed where you are teaching contrary to Paul.
Yet, you posted that you haven’t read all my posts? So, therefore, how did you reach such a conclusion without proving all things, holding fast to that which is good? You never read all my posts dealing with this discussion? We see you quote post numbers? But then post you haven’t read all my posts? Like I’ve stated before, we aren’t friends, we aren’t brothers, and my opinion is you aren’t a Christian, let alone Apostolic.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Don, I clearly showed where you are teaching contrary to Paul.
Yet, you posted that you haven’t read all my posts? So, therefore, how did you reach such a conclusion without proving all things, holding fast to that which is good? You never read all my posts dealing with this discussion? We see you quote post numbers? But then post you haven’t read all my posts? Like I’ve stated before, we aren’t friends, we aren’t brothers, and my opinion is you aren’t a Christian, let alone Apostolic.

But, it doesn’t matter my opinion of you, or your opinion of me. You don’t really care about what I think about you, frankly I don’t care what you think about me.
I’ve answered all your objections, and wherever it lands that will be determined by others. You defending yourself just proves my opinion of you and your teaching. You know what I’m saying is true. So, contemplate this on the tree of woe.

[donfriesen1]

Part 1 of 2.

Originally Posted by votivesoul

.

Don answers votivesoul's post 119.

Thank you for posting and expressing yourself. Much appreciated.

Quote:
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? It's not nonsense.

The use of inflammatory words such as nonsense puts up defensive barriers in those they are addressed to. Words that aren't inflammatory, there are many, which convey displeasure in less offensive means, better create openness. Barriers popping up needlessly prevent openness and the trust needed for convos.

In spite of negative feelings that I have toward Dom because of the nastiness he has shown to me, I realise that God loves him as much as God loves me. I wrestle down those bad feelings with that knowledge. God does not have favourites. As a child of God Dom deserves to be respected and loved. If I disrespect him, then I place myself at odds with the One who loves him as he is - as imperfect as I. I deserve no more respect than he, but also no less. God loves us equally and we should love one another equally.

As a minister of the Gospel he deserves the honour given to those who sacrifice much to do so. I give that honour. Those who rule/minister well receive greater honour than those who don't rule/minister as well. Dom misrepresents the God of love, who uses great grace, great patience, great restraint in efforts to dissuade people from their sinful ways. God does not disrespect the image he has placed in each. If God had used Dom's methods then all would run from God, not to him. God cannot be wrong with methods or attitudes. But Dom can.

This is a discussion forum. Ideas should be shot down, ground into the dust, spat upon metaphorically using diplomatic means respecting the character of the one presenting them. When seen wrong, bad ideas should be shown how they use bad logic and misrepresentation of scripture, but not with attacks on character. Needless divisions result, making camps who lob truth bombs at each other which none receive for pertinent examinations. Bad feelings prevent interactions of truth. The gaps between them widen, leading to great rifts in Christians, preventing dialogue. Capt Dom leads the charge causing division.



Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
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. I'm here as a guest. I've paid nothing monetarily to be a part of this forum. I have no rights here but what has been given to me. I do not wish to be thought of as abusing these rights. If I have failed, then let me know if amends are possible.

But what I don't want is to have less rights than any other member who, like me, also hasn't paid monetarily to be a member. If you as an admin wish to show greater rights to someone that has 'credit', then please indicate these individuals with a symbol, so I can dance around them with imitation respect if necessary.

The way the forum is portrayed is that all members are equals, with admins having special necessary oversight rights. God bless you for doing so. If Dom has rights I am not aware of because he is a longer-time credited member, then plz, show respect to my ignorance of this when he has no symbol indicating special rights. With this symbol I could then have avoided him or given him the deference you seem to indicate I should have given to him without me knowing I was supposed to be giving it. Good grief!

Your words, here and below, sound threatening to me. Had I been aware at the start of my journey in AFF, that unspoken rules were enforced by threats, then I could have taken alternate actions. But I came thinking this was an open forum, that any Bible discussion could be had without restriction, open for dissection, debunking, denuding, acceptance, propagation, as necessary.

Seemingly, Dom has greater rights as a member than another. Your words here have indicated this. I then have lesser rights. But I had first thought all members were equal. Now, after over a year I now know that I am not an equal member and Dom has undeclared rights because he is a founding member, a friend of an admin. Has favouritism been shown to him because? He is so nasty. I think a blind eye is turned to this because of a long term friendship with an admin. But, I'm only guessing by severely limited knowledge.

Can we start fresh? Can I re-new my membership with the knowledge that the forum has members with special privileges which I should be aware of? Or, is there no hope for me as an AFF member?

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, cute name exchange you made there 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). I'll not point out that you've taken liberties with calling me Don. No offense taken.

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

Get it? Point clearly made.

Part 2 of 2 to follow.

[donfriesen1]

Part 2/2
Don answers votivesoul post 119, Discrepancy in Church Practice.

Originally Posted by votivesoul

.

"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). I'll not point out that you've taken liberties with calling me Don. No offense taken.

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

Get it? Point clearly made.

You want everyone to receive you as an Apostolic? Yes. Receive me as I describe myself to be. But do not necessarily receive my thoughts. And yet you continually teach contrary to the most fundamental Apostolic hermeneutic available to you. Toe the party line whether or not it disagrees with the Bible? Your point is clearly made. When asked if you are a current member of an Apostolic Church, you play coy. You've created this ridiculous Pray tell, how does providing an example for clarity portray something as ridiculous? It doesn't. Does your use of such a word then demonstrate a bias against the one saying it? Perhaps. 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 This is indeed true, with my having stated so other times. I have not denied this. , thereby showing you're the BS of your own hypothetical. You've asked me to be honest, votivesoul. Plz be honest with me. Was the closing of the 1Co11 thread motivated by the personal revulsion your Apostolic hermeneutics felt? Yet when challenged to just admit it, you temper tantrum around the question. I'd deny any temper tantrum. Surely there are other phrases which would have been more apt to use. But what's the big deal about whether or not it is so? Why is it worth highlighting here? My arguments/views wouldn't be affected by this one way or another. It is moot for you to mention it.

If you're as Apostolic as you say, how about "Let your yea be yea and your nay be nay"? My yea and nay are just that.

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, or get lost.

Ouch! get lost sets the stage for my expulsion.

No one needs to dance to my tune. The tune I play can be silenced easily, by showing the error of the reasoning I've used to present it or showing my scriptural interpretations with fault. Dom has adequately presented much evidence to a view I agree with. But Dom's doing this has not destroyed the foundations I've shown for my views. Dom misses the mark he should target. (And so also in my other threads.)

Labels mean little. Whether I am called an Apostolic or a Christian, it changes nothing of the thoughts I present. I'm surprised you would make demands of any one particular member to provide such proofs.

As someone in AFF pointed out, about using pseudonyms in AFF and not real names, anyone can make any claims in AFF they want and no one would be the wiser. Fake 'real-names' would not be really exposed until the givers of them reveal themselves. So also with any titles of believers, or responses in answers to the questions you've asked of me. AFF operates on trust.

My real name is Don Friesen. I'm known here in AFF, and a Youtube replier, as donfriesen1. User10859 in Stack Exchange.

I'll not answer your questions unless all members are required to do so to be a poster/member. Why do I get special treatment?

I'm an Apostolic. Apostolics are so because of Jn3 and Ac2. Those who comply with its requirements are Apostolic. I am Apostolic. It matters little if some do not call me one. Nothing changes. But even that much is not needed to be known for Bible discussion forum membership.

But plz, what motivates the asking of such questions? Perhaps your explanation for asking them will provide a reason suitable to convince me to answer them. Come clean and answer. Are all members required to answer these or just certain ones?

Your highlighting of the initials of B Smith is humorous. I assure you before the Lord Jesus that the choosing of the name had nothing to do with the initials. It is entirely unintentional. B Smith is a fictitious saint. But what of the truth of the arguments I've made changes if B Smith and I are the same one. Nothing changes and it is sensless to ask. Those reaching for gossip material by asking gain what in what is a Bible discussion forum. Give me a break from nonsense, plz. Focus on the topic at hand, Ro14.

But now plz, be specific. You have said in a general way, that I continually teach contrary to the most fundamental Apostolic hermeneutic available to you. Instead of leaving it like this, a general statement, provide some detail, some specifics. You have an opinion of me, making a value judgment of me based on it, and I'm left dangling by the noose, not allowed to have defended myself against this judgment. The courts do not convene for charges of 'they're a criminal'. Specifics like 'on Feb3 they were found in a residence holding a bag with items the owner of the residence paid for, going out a window and arrested'. If you can't provide the specifics then withdraw the statement. I've not made statements here in AFF without providing lines of reasoning and scriptural references. Have I. Have I? Detail the accusations so I can provide a defence. That is the American way the mostly-Christian founders used to build the USA.

As I've stated to others, show the error of the reasoning I've used in the threads I've started. Show them wrong. Show the interpretation of scripture I've used, to be a bad interpretation. If not able to, then accept them in the same way all truth should be accepted by all Men. If you show them wrong then you'll be able to say with an honest-to-yourself face, that I continually teach contrary to the most fundamental Apostolic hermeneutic available. I'm fully keenly aware they do not agree with standard Apostolic interpretation. But are my thoughts seen wrong compared to scripture or compared to a long-held interpretation of scripture? I think those of AFF see me as wrong only as compared to long-held interpretation of scripture. Those who think them wrong do not compare them to scripture.

And the holes in their views I point out in my views, which holes my critics do not plug. Thus, continued retention of bad interpretation is compounded by rejection of truth exposing the error of views. And this from those whose mantra is 'we've got the truth'. Apostolics are just as human as Trinitarians in ways just described.

I'm not a novice and fully realise before I post, that I'm up against years of entrenched traditional Apostolic Biblical interpretation, which then sees me with heretical ideas. Even so, I post.

Trinitarians have a view caused by misinterpretation, seen when all the scriptural facts are considered without bias. But it is scriptural interpretation nonetheless. It may be so with long held Apostolic interpretation.

And yet, I here in AFF put up with the abuse which people who wish to see me leave, heap on me. Why should I stay? Why should I put up with this from those who are spiritual kin by the standards of the New Birth. But I do. I have something of truth to share. I share it and suffer the abuse which comes with it.

All could have been cut short in the first posts with the exposing of the error of reason I used or showing how the Bible I used was misinterpreted. Novice readers wait for a reply to be sent by mature AFF pioneers. And wait. And wait. Instead, abuse of my character. This characterization is not Bible discussion. It is the malignment of a soul, using it to discredit a scripturally-derived view. Those who defend those who do so end up being seen in the same club.

I came to post on AFF, thinking that people I know by reading their posts, have great insight and knowledge of scripture. If any of them know the errors of my reasoning as wrong, they have failed to show it. I've even provided a path for them to follow, to use to prove me wrong. And so I stand as one who has been convinced by scripture to stand firm. The path I used to present my views in these threads has not been shown wrong.

Would Jesus have been accepted in AFF had AFF existed in 30ad? He had so many new ideas they killed him for it.

You insinuate that my calling Dom, short for Dominic, as being disrespectful. James meant no disrespect calling Peter, Simon. Respect does not suddenly appear when a certain name is used. It does not disappear when a certain name is used. James had great respect for Simon, and meant no disrespect when calling him Simon, even though Simon had been renamed by Jesus as Peter. Respect is given or not given, usually in response to what is earned. And you have said nothing of the disrespect Dom has shown me, only of mine to him. Does this show your favouritism/partiality? Oh, right. I forgot. He is a founding member with rights to disrespect other lesser members. Silly of me to forget.

Whether or not Dom is a founding member of AFF should not have any bearing on any Bible discussion made, nor of your relations with me. I hope that the favoritism you would naturally have, to a long-time founding friend with credit, would not cloud judgment of any new member who has new ideas. Instead, I would hope you would show them wrong if they are wrong. Line upon line, precept upon precept. Blanket statements like Dom has made, saying 'you're wrong', are only opinions and not lines of reason. They don't contribute to healthy discussion of Bible topics or to acceptance of truth long hidden from eyes.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Let's all say 'God bless Evang. Benincasa'.

All as in who? Who are the all who you are enlisting to bless me? Are they the people standing around you while you type on your computer?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

He's a strong,

I have a decent deadlift, a lousy bench, and a pretty good overhead press. Strong? I'm doing OK for a 65 year old.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

faithful warrior of the Apostolic Faith.

What's with the passive aggressive behavior? You don't believe that, you just posted that people wouldn't be converted to Christ if they had to deal with me.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Let's not forget that those who do so should be honoured, having dedicated their lives to the Lord's work.

Anyone reading you and I here in this thread wouldn't believe you to be serious. They would take it as you being sarcastic, and passive agressive.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Good grief, Dom! You can't even take a compliment and thank someone for it.

I can take a compliment when it is from a sincere heart. But you haven't proven yourself to me that you were ever interested in fellowship. You are pretty pompous, and condescending. So, save your good grief for someone else.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

This is Dom's wish, that I be portrayed as one who thinks that Paul's theology is anything goes.

Hey, you can take it all the way back to your discussion on head coverings and your IV teaching. Also your views concerning Romans 2:14-16. You had also mentioned there was no correlation between Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 10:20, saying that the Apostle was evolving in his understanding. You said "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." That would call the Pauline epistles into question. You not only portray Paul as anything goes to keep the peace, but that Paul was learning as he goes. Calling into question how clearly he understood anything.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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?

Don, like I said above, you can take it all the way back to your discussion on head coverings and your IV teaching. Your views concerning Romans 2:14-16? Where you mentioned there was no correlation between Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 10:20, because the Apostle Paul wes evolving in his understanding. You said Paul was maturing "going from weak saint to strong saint?" While he was writing the letters to the churches? That's an Apostle faking it until he was making it? I'm just calling them as I see them. Sorry buddy, but no one has to help you look foolish. I wish I could take all the credit in pointing you out as religious buffoon. But my boy, you can't be outdone, you do it all yourself. You supply gasoline and match for your own ecclesiastical self-immolation.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

What is the motivation of someone who wants another to appear as being different than they portray themselves to be. Dom again shows his infatuation with a man by focusing on a man instead of Bible discussion.

Again, Don, you are what you teach. If you post information concerning your views, those views represent you. We have all taken our turn at the wheel. We have all taken our lumps, I've been the first partaker of the fruit more times than I can count. But, the difference is that I don't snivel. Or take pages and pages of a thread with me sniveling. Roll with the punches, and disprove what I posted concerning the topic of Pastor J.D. refusing to let B. Smith have a snow shovel ministry.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

After much reminding that this is a discussion forum for Bible topics its good to see that Dom has taken my advice.

More condescending patronizing? You see, this is what keeps it hot. But, you know that. God bless blah blah blah Apostolic warrior blah blah blah. Dom is so spiritually strong, yawn. Don, this is how you get portrayed because you give me the preaching material. One of my brothers in the church says this, "you never have to fire anyone. They always fire themselves." Don, you supply the gas, and the matches. Keep up the good work. You are like the prophets of Baal, who just escalate everything until they are a tired bleeding mess.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

He has dramatically increased his amounts of actual Bible quoting and actual putting forward of scriptural-based thought. Keep it up Dom!

Here we go, he opens the post whispering sweet words of blessings and then hits with insults. But, then I'm supposed to be the bad guy? Keep'em coming.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

Don, you exhibit typical narcissistic behavior. No word serving position for you.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

What motivates the focus of a man to post about a brother's character, instead of focussing on Bible discussions?

What motivates? You motivate because you are a smack talker. just like all narcissistic religious individuals, they maintain passive aggressive behavior. Then when called out on it, they play the victim. You lost the argument in every single thread. Here is your last attempt to sooth your mental turmoil. Because you can't be wrong. Pastor J. D. deserves a raise.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I would much rather not need to defend myself against Dom, but I feel I am forced to do so.

Another tactic of narcissism. They do what they do because "other" people "force" them? Right on!

Why did you beat your wife! Because she made me do it? Why did you commit adultery? Because she made me do it! Weak, really weak.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

Own your own behavior, don't blame anyone else for your sorry hermeneutics. Your character? You mean someone besmirched your character? Don, go back and reread all the threads you posted in. My boy, you take the chainsaw to you character all by yourself. I really would like to take credit, but you got me beat.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

If they are indeed good Bible thoughts, then what the Lord wants to say through me will be minimized.

What the Lord wants to say through you? The Lord is speaking through you but others can shut down the Lord speaking through you? Jesus spoke with power and authority. Where pray tell have you spoken with power and authority? Mind pointing that out?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

The church will then not be what the Lord wants the church to be.

Because the Lord is speaking through you and you are the restorer of the church? Don, seriously?

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

The teaching of Ro14 and the truths it contains must be practiced by Apostolics to be fully functional NT believers.

If B. Smith believes like you, and am very sure, that Pastor J. D. would most certainly call him an Uber.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.".

Again, this is would be funny, but you are too dishonest. Everything I answered and refuted. You also posted that you hadn't read all my posts! Therefore if that is the case, then how do you know what I answered or hadn't answered? You are just a sore head, who doesn't like being corrected by anyone. Because after all, the Lord speaks through you.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

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.

Characterizations were all supplied by you dear boy. You are as Apostolic as Swami Vivekananda.

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Wasted, just wasted. Most readers aren't fooled by 'no arguments' presented as 'arguments', Dom.

They aren't fooled by you. You do a lot of complaining when you run out of road. No word serving position for you. Another thing, who needs for someone to "give" them a 'word serving position?" Go sit in a coffee shop, open your Bible and start reading. If someone is interested they will ask if they can sit down. Then they are all yours. Now you can start your word serving position. Because Jesus opened the door. Give it a try Don, let's see how it goes for you.

[Amanah]

Amen to this Elder Benincasa!

"Another thing, who needs for someone to "give" them a 'word serving position?" Go sit in a coffee shop, open your Bible and start reading. If someone is interested they will ask if they can sit down. Then they are all yours. Now you can start your word serving position. Because Jesus opened the door."

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Amen to this Elder Benincasa!

"Another thing, who needs for someone to "give" them a 'word serving position?" Go sit in a coffee shop, open your Bible and start reading. If someone is interested they will ask if they can sit down. Then they are all yours. Now you can start your word serving position. Because Jesus opened the door."

But isn't that where some people see it? They are waiting for someone to hand over the keys to the cell group, to head the Wednesday Bible study, or just the pulpit and platform. We can all be bringing in the sheaves, they are all over our city, in our parks, in our coffee houses, in our diners, out on the park bench, open the Bible and just wait, wait until someone says "hey, are you reading a Bible? I have a Bible, may I join you?" Why certainly, you may. Then the adventure begins. Word Serving Position here we come.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Would Jesus have been accepted in AFF had AFF existed in 30ad? He had so many new ideas they killed him for it.

Now you are Jesus?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

The use of inflammatory words such as nonsense puts up defensive barriers in those they are addressed to. Words that aren't inflammatory, there are many, which convey displeasure in less offensive means, better create openness. Barriers popping up needlessly prevent openness and the trust needed for convos.

In spite of negative feelings that I have toward Dom because of the nastiness he has shown to me, I realise that God loves him as much as God loves me. I wrestle down those bad feelings with that knowledge. God does not have favourites. As a child of God Dom deserves to be respected and loved. If I disrespect him, then I place myself at odds with the One who loves him as he is - as imperfect as I. I deserve no more respect than he, but also no less. God loves us equally and we should love one another equally.

As a minister of the Gospel he deserves the honour given to those who sacrifice much to do so. I give that honour. Those who rule/minister well receive greater honour than those who don't rule/minister as well. Dom misrepresents the God of love, who uses great grace, great patience, great restraint in efforts to dissuade people from their sinful ways. God does not disrespect the image he has placed in each. If God had used Dom's methods then all would run from God, not to him. God cannot be wrong with methods or attitudes. But Dom can.

Don, all this is moral posturing. It is meaningless. Just because the sentiment “God loves Evangelist Benincasa” is true, that is merely in a technical sense. Calling your comments “weird, passive aggressive nonsense” speaks to the dubious nature of your motives. If you need to remind yourself that God loves people in order to keep you from running your mouth off, why do you post it? It smacks of grandstanding and insincerity.

James 2:19 tells us evil spirits believe. But is their faith the same as the faith of a believer? Is it accounted to them as righteousness? Certainly not!

Christ was regularly identified by the evil spirits he exorcized from people. Their confession of His identity was technically accurate: the Holy One from God (Mark 1:24 and Luke 4:34), the Son of God (Mark 3:11 and Luke 4:41), and Son of the Highest God (Mark 5:7 and Luke 8:28).

But that doesn’t make their confession of His identity sincere or motivated by righteous intentions. So, you announcing to yourself and to AFF and anyone lurking that God loves Evangelist Benincasa doesn’t automatically mean you mean it with sincere, pure motives. You could be projecting onto Evangelist Benincasa an attempt to try to remind him that God loves you, and so, he ought to treat you better.

Furthermore, look at how well your reminder to yourself is working: you routinely slander and make fun of, and sarcastically jab at Evangelist Benincasa. Top dog, AFF cop, Capt. Dom, Dom misrepresents the God of love, you starting a thread to personally call Evangelist Benincasa to the floor for a dressing down, and any number of other comments and digs made out of spite simply because Evangelist Benincasa shared his sincerely held opinion that you are an ecclesiastical narcissist, and so, he doesn’t trust, respect, or believe you to be a sincere, fellow believer and brother. Hey, maybe he is wrong on all accounts, and he didn’t rightly peg you to the wall? Won’t he answer to the Lord Jesus Christ for that? And you needn’t do anything but love him as your enemy, bless him for cursing you, and pray for him for treating you spitefully? Instead, your passive aggressive snipes of retaliation aren’t helping to prove him wrong, either, ergo, you aren’t helping your own case.

This is a discussion forum. Ideas should be shot down, ground into the dust, spat upon metaphorically using diplomatic means respecting the character of the one presenting them. When seen wrong, bad ideas should be shown how they use bad logic and misrepresentation of scripture, but not with attacks on character. Needless divisions result, making camps who lob truth bombs at each other which none receive for pertinent examinations. Bad feelings prevent interactions of truth. The gaps between them widen, leading to great rifts in Christians, preventing dialogue. Capt Dom leads the charge causing division.

Don, this isn’t merely a forum, though it is certainly that. It is a forum made up of Apostolic believers in the Lord Jesus Christ. In Christianity, we cannot separate the ideas and messages we share here, from the people and messengers that share them. The Holy Scriptures of the New Covenant instruct us to put spirits to the test, i.e. try those men and women who would come to us to share a message allegedly from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ (See 1 John 4:1).

How do we do this? We listen to, read, or otherwise ingest their message. Then we examine the messenger. It is not enough that the message itself is accurate. The messenger must also be tried. Paul is a prime example, routinely referring his audience to his manner of life, how he lived with and behaved himself while ministering the Good News (See, e.g. Acts 20:18-19, 1 Thessalonians 2:7-8, and 2 Timothy 3:10-11).

Futher, in Revelation 2:2, Jesus commends the Ephesian Church for putting those who claimed apostleship to the test, and found them to be lying. How did they administer such a test? By investigation and examination. It wasn’t enough to just receive the message. The messenger was tried by the members of the Body of Christ. This is how we prove all things, and hold fast to that which is good (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

Don, you’ve been examined and put to the test, and multiple members of this forum have found you wanting. Not just your teachings on whatever subject, but also you, the man. So, maybe we’re all sons of Belial persecuting you like Naboth (1 Kings 21:-16)? Or maybe it might help you to examine yourself, put your own self to the test, and judge yourself (see, e.g. 1 Corinthians 11:31-32), without crying foul every time someone brandishes the Sword of the Word to resist you. If you were to do that, you might see that we have seen something you in that isn’t right.

But so far, you seem unwilling, or unable in some capacity to do that. And that speaks well to Evangelist Benincasa’s origin accusation and label: that you’re a narcissist.

I'm here as a guest. I've paid nothing monetarily to be a part of this forum. I have no rights here but what has been given to me. I do not wish to be thought of as abusing these rights. If I have failed, then let me know if amends are possible.

But what I don't want is to have less rights than any other member who, like me, also hasn't paid monetarily to be a member. If you as an admin wish to show greater rights to someone that has 'credit', then please indicate these individuals with a symbol, so I can dance around them with imitation respect if necessary.

The way the forum is portrayed is that all members are equals, with admins having special necessary oversight rights. God bless you for doing so. If Dom has rights I am not aware of because he is a longer-time credited member, then plz, show respect to my ignorance of this when he has no symbol indicating special rights. With this symbol I could then have avoided him or given him the deference you seem to indicate I should have given to him without me knowing I was supposed to be giving it. Good grief!

Don, you cannot possibly be this dense as to not grasp the import of my words. Evangelist Benincasa’s “full line of credit” simply means he has been here a lot longer than all of us who currently post here, and in that time, every member who currently posts here finds his words, his wisdom, his experience, his teaching and stories, his insights into life and the world to be of immense benefit. Said another way, he is a blessing to the forum, and having been found as such, he is appreciated as an elder and minister of the Gospel, because HE HAS EARNED IT.

You haven’t earned it. So, this isn’t about rights. You can start a thread, post a reply, share an emoji, and do everything within the limits of the forum’s HTML as Evangelist Benincasa can. So, get over yourself already. Enough with the virtue signaling.

Your words, here and below, sound threatening to me. Had I been aware at the start of my journey in AFF, that unspoken rules were enforced by threats, then I could have taken alternate actions.

Don, are you a woman, that you fret and wring your hands so? I’ve taken you to be a man, and yet you do not acquit yourself like a man (1 Corinthians 16:3). A threat, Don, would be me saying, “Come clean, or I’m going to ban you”. The sentiments “Come clean or get lost” are simply an invitation to spend your time elsewhere, because your time here hasn’t been well received. And your unwillingness to answer some questions about yourself does not help.

(Continued...)

[votivesoul]

(Continued...)

But I came thinking this was an open forum, that any Bible discussion could be had without restriction, open for dissection, debunking, denuding, acceptance, propagation, as necessary.

Seemingly, Dom has greater rights as a member than another. Your words here have indicated this. I then have lesser rights. But I had first thought all members were equal. Now, after over a year I now know that I am not an equal member and Dom has undeclared rights because he is a founding member, a friend of an admin. Has favouritism been shown to him because? He is so nasty. I think a blind eye is turned to this because of a long term friendship with an admin. But, I'm only guessing by severely limited knowledge.

Blather, rinse, repeat. Why are you so soft? Where is the thickness of your skin? If you cannot run with the footmen, how will you ever run with the calvary (Jeremiah 12:5)? If being on an online message board and forum with a small handful of internet strangers victimizes you so, how will you ever endure hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ (2 Timothy 2:3)?

Can we start fresh? Can I re-new my membership with the knowledge that the forum has members with special privileges which I should be aware of? Or, is there no hope for me as an AFF member?

Stop it already. You ridicule yourself posting like this.

I'll not point out that you've taken liberties with calling me Don. No offense taken.

Really? This is where you want to go? Really, are you sure?

DON, your screenname is “donfriesen1”. How else should you be addressed but by the way you have introduced yourself? You gave us the name “Don” to use. But Evangelist Benincasa gave us the name Evang.Benincasa to use. And even though his first name is indeed Dominic, and Dom is a truncated form of Dominic, show me where he introduced himself to you in this way? Show me an example of him writing to you, “Please, call me Dom”. It is usually an accepted practice, even a manner of etiquette, to address people the way they want to be called. It is also an accepted practice, even a manner of etiquette, to address elders and ministers of the Gospel with epithets that befit the commensurate respect one has for that elder and minister. Is it Biblically necessary or required that one must use ecclesiastical titles? No, of course not. But we are to look upon elder women as mothers and entreat elder men as fathers (1 Timothy 5:1-2). And I for one, don’t go around calling my dad, whose name is Steven, Stevie.

Point clearly made.

So, if you get it, what’s so hard about understanding it? You’re not unwelcome here. You haven’t broken any rules. But you don’t seem able or are unwilling to realize how the world works. People build relationships. Those relationships develop over time, when mutual trust and respect are earned as people show themselves to be trustworthy and deserving of respect. Evangelist Benincasa has put in the time to do that. You haven’t yet. This is the norm everywhere in the world, and yet you bristle?

So, what gives?

(Continued…)