[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618545] Part2/3.

2. The apostles all taught the same faith and practice.

You again conclude without showing what is concluded. He6 is the scriptural list of commonly held NT beliefs. Co/unco is not on it. If no one considered co/unco as a command then it would explain its absence.

3. The churches of God were united in faith and practice. Therefore,

Agreed, to a point. They did have differences of opinion on some things. Shown by Paul saying till we all come to unity of faith in the same passage he says One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. See also Ro14;15a.

4. The churches of God practiced men being uncovered and women being covered when praying or prophesying.

Saying so does not give explanation of how it was so. 1Co11 has many views expressed of it, by godly people who love him and the Word. It is easy to say that all should believe as God does on any subject but harder to state what this is, to everyone's satisfaction.

5. Anyone contending for some other custom or practice was not conformed to first century apostolic Christian practice.

What's happening with this comment? Are we now drifting to a position which shows that history shows how scripture should be interpreted? Did I get it right? If by saying 1st century you mean Biblical then who would disagree? The dilemma all face is finding that which you say is Apostolic practice. As of yet, no consensus has been agreed upon for all to follow. Many opinions exist all built on scripture and logical reasonings. But these contradict one another, having holes. If the instinct view has holes then they need to be exposed. I'm biassed for my own opinion and may have trouble seeing them. Plz critique the instinct view.

6. Anyone contending for some other custom or practice was not conformed to the apostle Paul's teaching and example.

OK. I'll buy into that (said facetiously) and say that anyone who doesn't conform to my interpretation of what Paul says is failing to conform to Paul. You want me to buy into your view of scriptural interpretation, don't you? I want you to buy into mine. My view may be as scripturally-derived as another's and should then be able to fit into this. It must be conformed to as much as any other view must be conformed to. I believe it to be a view which doesn't contradict most established theology, being Biblically derived.

I also showed (proved by reasoning, by logic) that:

Reader, take note of the extensive (said facetiously) reasonings to back his claims that I am in error by logic.

1. You do err in concluding Paul taught that if anyone disagreed with what he taught it was okay.

What you've stated is a conclusion and is not showing a line of reasoning showing my errors. Naw. What I say fits the facts quite well and should be held to, from a custom point of view. Customs aren't commands, so if someone decides not to follow a custom they only contradict society. Saying otherwise shows contradicting him. He says we have no such custom. The view you express results in Paul saying we have such custom and we all follow it. It takes the 'no' out of scripture, which is incorrect to do. Don't tamper with scripture, even if it seems logically correct to do so. What I show in my views is logically correct. It doesn't logically result in the apparent removal of a word Paul/God purposely uses.

2. You do err in concluding that Paul wanted Christians to do the opposite of what he taught if they didn't agree with what he taught.

You would be right to conclude so. Paul is smart and doesn't throw words on paper without reason. He wants people to follow his teaching and example. But saying so doesn't explain what it is that Paul clearly teaches. Spirit filled Apostolics disagree on what Paul teaches here, throwing barbs and accusations at others who have similar motives as they: they want to walk scripturally compliant. What is needed is a scriptural view of 1Co11 which Apostolics can unite around, in a view which honours all main points. I believe the instinct view to do so.

3. You do err in stating the reasons for men being uncovered and women being covered while praying or prophesying is "instinctual" (whatever that means).

According to Ge3.16 Eve and all women are born with a desire (instinct) that she will want to plz her man. Among many other things, she will want to try to satisfy her man's desire (coming from his nature/instincts) for pretty things. Long hair vs cut short or shaved hair, helps achieve it and is a cover on her head. If she cuts her hair short she disses her man's desires. She steps out of order by dissing, showing she doesn't comply with God's design (instilled by instincts) and doesn't respect the order of authority. But it is not a command. God never commanded respect for his order of authority in the Beginning and it should not be said that he changed his mind for the NT. Co/unco exists outside of Covenants, even when it is practised by Covenantal people. Would we not believe that all God-fearers previous to Paul would have shown due regard to God's order of authority? Yes. But if by Covenant then we have no evidence thereto. If not so, then show the command for the OT, for Adam, for Noah, for Abraham to prove this wrong. They all showed regard for God's order of authority, it should be assumed, and doing so without having a command thereto. If they had followed their instincts they would have shown this regard by the keeping of symbols. Instincts, not commands, is a common factor all had.

A man's instincts about shame are to cover the head when embarrassed. Thus, his words in v4. Something hang down the head is the meaning of the greek word here for cover. They are not man's instincts alone but also woman's. A shamed man does not glorify his creator, who would want all his creation to be proud, not ashamed of who they are. If a man habitually wears the cover symbolic of embarrassment he indicates a habitual state of embarrassment, who doesn't bring God glory. The cover on the head then would symbolise this lack of getting God glory. The symbol should not be present habitually for this reason. Men, because they have the instinct telling them to do so, have a feeling that when they are covered that they are in a shameful position. As men, they are more aware of these feelings, because they also have an instinct which calls them to rule their woman, Ge3.16. Rulers call for respect from those they rule. It is part and parcel of being a ruler. Because they are aware of this rulership instinct it makes them more aware of needing to show respect, than a woman would be aware of. She wasn't given a rulership instinct. Whether with long hair or a material cover men feel they are in a state of shame when covered. Their instincts, not commands tell them this. This is what has led men in most societies in most ages to have short hair. Long hair feels wrong because it is similar to wearing the cover which people want when embarrassed. Their instincts tell them this. And instincts aren't commands. But these feelings are easily overpowered by social pressures, resulting in times when most men had long hair. Short hair is instinctual and instincts aren't commands. The OT has no commands for men to be short haired, having commands for some men to be long-haired. Paul should be seen to have views coinciding with the OT he loves. What is seen in the OT is certain holy men are commanded by God to have long hair, contrary to what is said to be Apostolic doctrine from 1Co11. For Paul to command men to have short hair would show a rule contrary to what the OT shows by command.

Does 1Co11 clearly show that Paul speaks of instincts. Probably not. It would be unlikely to prove empirically that Paul speaks of instincts in 1Co11. It is a conclusion, which if embraced, leads to a view which doesn't have holes like the other views have. If it fits the facts well, then it may be the view to hold. It does not contradict theology other than 1Co11 theology. 1Co11 was written in an unclear manner. Therefore, most views on it rely on assumption to an extent; a mixture of logical reasonings, history and Biblical facts. It may not be right to then say any particular view is wrong. Obviously all will be partially right at minimum, because they have come from sincere people who desire to know truth to incorporate into practice, building on the Biblical facts. Whichever view one holds will then be the view which is the most logical to them to hold. No one should be judged by another if holding another view. See https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing for a short commentary on Ro14;15a. Instincts and their effects are seen in the Bible. To say I err when speaking about instincts is to say that the God who placed instincts erred in placing them. He placed them as guides which should be followed but doesn't make them commands which results in punishment those who do not follow them.

continued in 3 of 3