1Co11.2-16. Instincts. The Cover of Shame.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So from this we see that Don does not in fact believe that God can command something anywhere in Scripture. Instead, Don believes God can only command something anywhere in Scripture IF it was commanded in the Beginning with Adam and Eve. Therefore, any command in Scripture not found being given to Adam and Eve is no command at all.

And so Don overthrows everything in the Bible after Genesis 3. According to Don's theology, man shall live by every word of God in Genesis 1-3 and not by anything else.

He will of course protest that this is a mischaracterisation of his position and belief, but it is the logical conclusion of his statements. Hear him above, as he says "there can be no command for a veil or uncut hair for a woman in 1 Cor 11 because no such command is seen to be given to Adam and Eve." Ergo, there can be no command in Scripture unless it was first given to Adam and Eve. Since we have no record of commands for Adam and Eve except to not eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, that is all that can be commanded mankind, for all time. So, one may do as they will, there are no commands past Genesis 3 that anyone needs to worry about.

That having been established, I do not find any point in continuing this discussion, because I certainly do not accept the idea that any command in Scripture must be seen to have been given to Adam and Eve in order for it to be a valid command. I actually believe the whole Bible is the Word of God, and constitutes "every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" by which we are to live. So, it seems Don and I follow two very different religions. As such, there is no point in debating with him what apostolic Christians should or should not be doing, anymore than I would be debating a Hindu about how often the Lord's Supper should be taken.

Excellent!

[diakonos]

Well, all this time I could have been killin-N-stillin.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by diakonos

Well, all this time I could have been killin-N-stillin.

'Cause mutiny on the Bounty's what we're all about..

[donfriesen1]

The veil view contends this: Christian women are to don a veil (a special action) to symbolize respect to God's order of authority, when in church. They are to indicate by specific actions to show God this respect.

Let's see in our mind, a Christian Co woman as she leaves her house to go to church. As Co culture dictates, she puts on a veil in public - she is veiled. She gets to church and must now somehow show symbolically that she respects God's ways by using a special action.

Does she do this by removing her public veil (contrary to her custom) and then re-places it? Is that which is an everyday symbol of respect to a custom then also a symbol of respect to God, doing double duty? How does she differentiate showing respect for God from respect for the custom by using the same symbol? How is it indicated when a woman displays a symbol for church or for the custom? To make this work properly, the veil for church must be distinct from the veil for public. Or can one symbol symbolize two much different things at the same time? Which veil has God commanded for church, in order for it to be distinct? Is there any scriptural command to indicate a distinct veil? Does history show a Co Christian taking off her public veil and place another veil to indicate by her specific actions respect for God?

[Amanah]

The biblical teaching on head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11 does not ground the practice of head coverings in cultural norms or traditions. Instead, it bases the practice in the created order and the relationship between men and women. Furthermore, the passage does not distinguish between different types of veils or occasions for veiling, such as a distinct veil for church or worship services. Rather, it presents head coverings as a principle for women, rooted in the biblical account of creation.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Amanah

The biblical teaching on head coverings in 1 Corinthians 11 does not ground the practice of head coverings in cultural norms or traditions. Instead, it bases the practice in the created order and the relationship between men and women. Furthermore, the passage does not distinguish between different types of veils or occasions for veiling, such as a distinct veil for church or worship services. Rather, it presents head coverings as a principle for women, rooted in the biblical account of creation.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

This poster can’t be replied to by donfriesen1, because the poster’s responses make too much sense. He has stated in another post that his role is to mock me, for good reason. Imagine that, an evangelist sees his role is to mock an enemy of God.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

I want to point something out about this particular subject. A lot of people are under the impression that there is A "cultural practice" in view here. That Paul is affirming the Corinthians to maintain the social norms of the day so as not to be viewed as rebellious or antisocial or anarchistic.

But this is entirely wrong, and unhistorical.

In 1st century Greco-Roman culture, a variety of religious customs prevailed concerning head covering. In some cults, men and women both uncovered their heads in worship. In other cults, both men and women covered their heads. In yet other cults, men covered and women uncovered. And in yet other cults, men uncovered and women covered. To put it bluntly, there was no standard cultural norm regarding head covering in worship in Corinth or the rest of the Roman Empire.

Paul however establishes a very specific practice - the man is to be uncovered and the woman is to be covered when praying or prophesying. This is a specific practice, which he affirms to be the preferred practice for the Corinthian church, as preferred by him and his apostolic ministry team. He also asserts the uniformity of his practice with that of the rest of the churches of God, wherever they may be, whether in Judea, or Greece, or Asia, or Rome, or wherever. It is therefore undeniable that Paul is asserting a particular practice common to all the churches of God, irrespective of the "social norms" and common practices of any other particular cultures.

In other words, 1 Cor 11 presents a particular CHRISTIAN practice, regardless of what any other culture may or may not do or think. Therefore, the practice is universal for the churches of God, regardless of time or place or "local custom".

*******************

Paul does not state as the condition or basis of his doctrine any supposed "customs" or "instincts" or "traditions of the pagan Greek culture".

True, he does not directly refer by using those words. Does this absense dictate that "customs" or "instincts" can't be known to Paul, nor used as a base for his thoughts though not specifically mentioned? Because he hasn't referred to a tree in1Co11 doesn't mean a tree doesn't exist or isn't relevant. Without the wood of a tree for the Cross, Paul wouldn't be writing the words of 1Co11, so trees are pertinent to the subject at hand, though not stated specifically. The Cross is the unseen and unmentioned basis for everything Paul does.

Any opinions expressed of 1Co11 are based on conjecture to a degree, reading between the lines, and referring to things which aren't directly referenced. The way Paul has written is brief. When Paul's words are few and the conclusions made of 1Co11 are of examining 1Co11 alone, by microscopic examination, it leads to views with holes. This then necessitates broadening the search area, to include anything related. Instincts and customs are related, as are trees.

Rather, the basis for his doctrine is the assertion in verse 3 concerning a divinely ordained hierarchy of headship. Since a God-ordained hierarchy of headship is not dependent on any social culture, but instead flows from the will of God Himself True for His people, then Paul's teaching is not to be viewed as him simply affirming a continuation of a pagan Greek cultural practice,...

Yet still, this affirmation could be correctly concluded as true, being apparently/seemingly true from the facts, when what is seen in v4,5 are not seen as commands. Not seeing Paul's words as a command does not negate their presence, just changes how what Paul requires is achieved. Seeing that Paul refers to the custom fits well in the context of life in Co of that time. Seeing Paul/God changing an existing custom into a command would be seen as unusual. It would be easier to just add a command. Does not viewing the veil as a command, instead viewing it as a custom, detract any from what Paul has said about God's order? No, nothing at all.

I want to point something out about this particular subject. A lot of people are under the impression that there is A "cultural practice" in view here. That Paul is affirming the Corinthians to maintain the social norms of the day so as not to be viewed as rebellious or antisocial or anarchistic.

What is known by historical knowldege, and by reading between the lines of 1Co11, can correctly lead to such a conclusion. Sometimes, when a conclusion is seen to fit the facts well, then it is the conclusion for all to hold. This is especially true when other conclusions have gaping holes.

The writer, Esaias, will contend that what is seen in 1Co11 can't be concluded to be that Co Christians should keep the veil as a custom but as a command (though known true historically that Co held it as a custom. Thus the veil view ignores a pertinent fact when formulating doctrine.) But then Esaias will take the few words of v16, and conclude that Paul is saying that the church has no such custom of contentiousness. Thus he does in one place which he refuses in another. What is a custom in v4,5 (shown historically true) he denies, while in v16 with its contentious word (contentions aren't usually thought to be customs) he says is a custom. He flips facts, all to force proofs that his view is correct. Some facts are magnified and some are minimized. Oh, well.

But this is entirely wrong, and unhistorical.

Esaias's paragraph following this sentence does not support this allegation, though historical.

This is a specific practice, which he affirms to be the preferred

preferred or commanded?

It is therefore undeniable

Challenge accepted. I deny that he does. I have denied it and your undeniable-claim is refuted. Cute, huh?

that Paul is asserting a particular practice common to all the churches of God, irrespective of the "social norms" and common practices of any other particular cultures.

. Yet, saying this does not determine precisely what that practise is, nor yet that this is what Paul aims at. To say that Paul's aim is to reject all head covering practises or non-covering practises with the one he now presents is conjecture. Saying what you've said does not prove that this is what Paul's aim actually is. It then can also be asked if it is relevant, because it cannot be said to be unequivocally true that Paul commands the veil for Christians as a standard to replace all other religion's practices.

If you would write something in an unclear way and I make assumptions about what you write, who takes the blame of your lack of clarity? The writer. God has chosen to write 1Co11 unclearly for a purpose. Our response then is to find that purpose. Ro14 is that purpose. By using conjecture with the facts, doctrine makers should form a view which best describes the facts with the least amount of holes.

If what Esaias conjectures, rejecting all other cultural veil practices and replacing it with the Christian veil command, actually came to pass magically, what followed then would suddeny see all other opposing cultural practices to cease to exist overnight as they had been practised. Then, if magic was real, the veil practise would disappear from all but Christians. Why would the Lord want a harmless, sinless custom to disappear from Greeks/Romans? According to the veil view he wants to replace a Co veil custom, with a church-time only veil command. If he wants it for Co's, then it must also apply to all Greeks and Romans. Does not compute to remove a sinless custom.

In other words, 1 Cor 11 presents a particular CHRISTIAN practice, regardless of what any other culture may or may not do or think.

The opinions expressed here are only the opinions of the presenter, Esaias. Holes may be encountered, ankles twisted, if you walk in this way. Viewer caution is advised.

Therefore, the practice is universal for the churches of God, regardless of time or place or "local custom".

Just saying so does not make it so definitively. It may be a good opinion but it is still just an opinion, as is the instincts view. We may have to wait till we get to heaven to find out for sure, because of how 1Co11 is written.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

The veil view contends this: Christian women are to don a veil (a special action) to symbolize respect to God's order of authority, when in church. They are to indicate by specific actions to show God this respect.

Let's see in our mind, a Christian Co woman as she leaves her house to go to church. As Co culture dictates, she puts on a veil in public - she is veiled. She gets to church and must now somehow show symbolically that she respects God's ways by using a special action.

Does she do this by removing her public veil (contrary to her custom) and then re-places it? Is that which is an everyday symbol of respect to a custom then also a symbol of respect to God, doing double duty? How does she differentiate showing respect for God from respect for the custom by using the same symbol? How is it indicated when a woman displays a symbol for church or for the custom? To make this work properly, the veil for church must be distinct from the veil for public. Or can one symbol symbolize two much different things at the same time? Which veil has God commanded for church, in order for it to be distinct? Is there any scriptural command to indicate a distinct veil? Does history show a Co Christian taking off her public veil and place another veil to indicate by her specific actions respect for God?

*******************

The following slightly revises the above for a little more clarity.


[COLOR="Black"]The veil view contends this: Christian women are to don a veil (a special action, with no specific kind of veil) to symbolize respect to God's order of authority, when in church. They are to indicate by specific actions to show God this respect.

Let's see in our mind, a Christian Co woman as she leaves her house to go to church. As Co culture dictates, she puts on a veil in public - she is veiled. She gets to church and must now somehow show symbolically that she respects God's ways by using a special action.

Does she do this by removing her public veil (contrary to her custom) and then re-places it to her head as the symbol for God? If not by this action, then how does she show by a special action that she respects God, when she is already veiled? Is that which is the everyday symbol of respect to a public custom then also a symbol of respect to God, doing double duty? How can she differentiate showing respect for God from showing respect for the public custom by using the same symbol? How would others know if and when she respects God, when she uses the same symbol? How is it indicated in a veiling society when a woman displays a symbol for church or when for the public custom?

To make this work properly, the veil for church must be distinct from the veil for public. Or can one symbol symbolize two much different things at the same time, and without doing a special action? Which veil has God commanded for church, in order for it to be distinct? Is there any scriptural command to indicate a distinct veil? Does history show a Co Christian taking off her public veil and place another veil to indicate by her specific actions respect for God?

[Amanah]

Don, you're proposing an unorthodox interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11 based on "instinct." However, I'm concerned that this approach undermines the authority of Scripture. What is your perspective on the role of Scripture in informing our understanding of this passage?

The topics you argue for include:

*Salvation via right Living
*No ability to interpret scripture due to doubtful disputations
*Interpretation of scripture passages via instincts

All present scripture as indeterminate, subjective, and non authoritative. God says "if you love me, keep my commandments," to which you seem to be saying "sorry, your commandments are unfathomable."

I fear that it maybe dangerous to be continuously in a position of undermining scripture:

Titus 3
9 But avoid foolish and ill-informed and stupid controversies and genealogies and dissensions and quarrels about the Law, for they are unprofitable and useless. 10 After a first and second warning reject a divisive man [who promotes heresy and causes dissension—ban him from your fellowship and have nothing more to do with him], 11 well aware that such a person is twisted and is sinning; he is convicted and self-condemned [and is gratified by causing confusion among believers].