Quote:
Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa
.
|
PART 2 of 2
Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
Therefore, in those situations where the Word does not lead to only one
conclusion, Paul would say 'don't say that it does'. If not this, then Paul
condones false doctrine when telling those with opposing views they are all
OK. Something else must be concluded because it is unacceptable to think
that Paul would condone false doctrine. Saying God does not write clearly,
leading to various conclusions, is a softer way to say that he accepts
multiple views, therefore not calling them false doctrine. Seeing Paul as
giving this 'softer' explanation is more acceptable, in my opinion.
What? Exactly, more acceptable in YOUR opinion.
Dom here pretends, wrongly, that all Apostolics, except me, have exactly the same interpretation of scripture. Yet even all Apostolics don't have the same opinion of scripture on head-covering doctrine. Right, Dom? So, why pretend that everyone has the same opinion on every other scripture, on lesser subjects, Dom? Dom? Don, you have the wildest
cognitive dissonance. You plainly post that your view cannot make a bit of Biblical
sense. You posted that above, but yet you refuse to let go of your inclusionist
doctrine. You really need head hunters in the Amazon to be saved, who never heard
the Gospel but were just nice head hunters. You can't see what the scripture says,
because you have an agenda.
Let's ask Dom to define inclusionist doctrine,
so we know for sure what this means. It's not likely that I believe what he says, when he is too busy not getting the point of what I've written.
Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
What is not clearly indicated in the Word should not (necessarily) be said to
be clearly indicated. This is the principle shown in Ro14. Pastor J Doe's
actions against B Smith have violated Ro14, when head covering doctrine is
one example of doctrine with lack of clarity.
Yet, just reading through your own thoughts on
Romans 14, you are violating
Romans 14.
Stop thinking! You don't have my permission to actually think about the things I'm writing about. And you won't get the gist of what I've just said anyway, because you're too busy not getting what I write about. Because you are making an issue of Pastor Doe's beliefs concerning
head coverings. You being the "strong believer" and he being the "weaker brethren?" Who are you to judge another man's servant? To his own master he will stand or
fall? Come on Don, your own false teaching has done you in.
Dom, do you have permission to preach my doctrine and reject it at the same time? Did you fall on your head? You can't seriously reject and accept my doctrine at the same time, can you?
I do not misjudge Pastor Doe by misapplication of scripture, as you indicate I do. It is impossible for anyone to read Ro14 and not say that Paul doesn't say it is ok for saints to believe contradictory things about the same scriptures. Those who do, have failed Bible Reading 101. If it is ok by Paul for saints to believe different things about holy days and foods, then it will also be true for other subjects; ie, 1Co11 and headcoverings. No one would say everyone agrees on what it says, except the bigoted and biased with narrowed vision.
Therefore, what you say above, about my misuse and misapplication of Ro14, shouldn't have been said. You have misapplied Paul's teaching because you've misinterpreted it. I'd suggest prayer for revelation. Pastor Doe is wrong about his judgment of B Smith, because he has failed to practice what Paul teaches in Ro14. He should and so should all Christians.
But do keep trying in your efforts to discredit what I've said, about how some Apostolics do not follow the practices of Ro14. Your further efforts may yet succeed in erasing Paul and Ro14 from scripture, making scripture to align with your views and not the normal way, the other way around. But until then, faithful Apostolics should practice what it teaches. Do not reject or judge those who do not believe as you do but accept and receive them, as Paul instructs there. You do wish to obey the truth, don't you Dom? Come on, say yes. It's the Apostolic mantra, and maybe someday it will also be the practice of all Apostolics, including yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
What flies in the face of the principle just stated, is knowing that Paul
demonstrates at least twice, that what he teaches as fact and doctrine
(God's order of authority, and, types & shadows) are things he learned by
deductive reasoning. But Ro14 testifies against the thought that reading
between the lines should always be said to lead to doctrine taught as fact
every time.
When Ro14, 15.1-7 occupies such a large space in the NT, the principles it
portrays should take a large place in the Apostolic preacher/Christian's
understandings. That it doesn't may be proved wrong, but it is my opinion,
coming without statistics, that it does not. Many times preachers have
preached with great surety when the scriptures they refer to do not present
this clarity. This should not be so, and preachers have ways to not do so,
still getting their points across.
Don, you are very confused and contradictory.
Right back at you Dom. You are very confused and contradictory. Reader, when someone makes an accusatory statement it should be followed by the facts showing how so. When Dom has provided the facts of my wrongs I will then do likewise. There is no way an Apostolic Jesus
Name pastor would ever let you behind their pulpit. No, no way. You are so mixed
up. I would normally feel sorry for someone like you, but you are too full of yourself.
If Pastor Doe taught that women should wear Mouseketeer ears you should be cool
with it. But, even if he did, he still wouldn't and shouldn't let you in a mile radius of
his platform.
Quote:
Originally Posted by donfriesen1
What Dom will not now do, his past responses indicating this, is to show the
reasoning used above as wrong. Instead, he will revile the person giving it, make distracting comments only loosely associated, but he will not show the
reasoning wrong. He will portray himself as the authority all should
unquestionably believe, even without presenting lines of reason why. I hope
this time Dom will take efforts to prove my reasoning wrong. He has the
ability to do so. But I'll not be holding my breath waiting. I wish to stay
alive.
Don, I did both, I made fun of you, and I proved you wrong as an extra bonus. You
are an Ecclesiastical Pterodactyl who is more in love with being a bud nipper than
being a faith strengthener
My repetition now, of what was said before by me: Dom will discredit my views of Ro14 by making M.A.D. comments (which are: Mostly About Don) and not about scripture. But he did do quite a lot about scripture in this post. Kudos to you Dom, and do keep trying to find ways to logically, scripturally to disprove my views wrong. You may actually do so some day, but not yet today.
Threaded Mode
