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

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

I think not, honestly. Paul commends the saints at Corinth for following the ordinances as he has delivered them. What would be inconsistent, in my opinion is for him to then say you have NOT followed this ordinance.

1 Corinthians 11:2 KJV
Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.

1 Corinthians 11:17-18 KJV
Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. [18] For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

Paul commends them for following the ordinances (plural), regarding "all things". In "all things" they remembered him (that is, they followed his teachings and example). Yet, a few verses later, he reprimands them for doing the opposite, for not participating in the Lord's Supper properly. So obviously he can commend the church for following him, while at the same time rebuking those in the congregation who for whatever reason haven't gotten in line with the apostolic practice. Therefore, he can commend them, and then correct them, even about head coverings.

What would be inconsistent, is to talk about ordinances, and subsequently refer to an ordinance as a custom, all while speaking on the same subject.

Obviously, there is a difference between ordinances and customs. At least that’s the way I see it currently. And I haven’t seen anything conclusive that would suggest otherwise up to this point.

He does NOT speak of an ordinance, and then later refer to the ordinance as a "custom". Rather, Paul speaks of "ordinances" (literally, "traditions"). Then speaks of a contentious person and "such custom". That is, the contentious person is arguing for a "custom" or habit, rather than for a "tradition" or "ordinance". There is no such practice or habit or "custom" in the churches of God contrary to the ordinance that Paul expounded upon.

Gill's commentary"

we have no such custom, nor the churches of God; meaning, either that men should appear covered, and women uncovered in public service, and which should have some weight with all those that have any regard to churches and their examples; or that men should be indulged in a captious and contentious spirit; a man that is always contending for contention sake, and is continually cavilling and carping at everything that is said and done in churches, and is always quarrelling with one person or another, or on account of one thing or another, and is constantly giving uneasiness, is not fit to be a church member; nor ought he to be suffered to continue in the communion of the church, to the disturbance of the peace of it.

Paul delivered traditions or ordinances to the churches he founded. These ordinances or traditions were congruent with the practice of all the churches of God. Paul taught something about headcovering, and it is obviously in conformity with the practice of the churches of God. Therefore, anyone who would be "contentious", who would argue against what Paul taught and against the practice of the churches of God, would be contending in favor of a custom or habit that was contrary to the churches of God and their practice. Obeying the apostolic instruction is the keeping of an apostolic ordinance. Disobeying an apostolic instruction in favor of some other way of doing things is contending for some "custom" or practice that is lacking among the churches of God.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

I’m going to leave some information in this post. I’m not going to speculate (well maybe a little) about the value of the information to the discussion except to make an observation that it is contrary (or at least it seems to be contrary) to our inclination of what purpose the veil would serve in a culture far removed from ours today, both in time and geographically. (This purpose being for modesty, as is, I think the generally held belief.)

The issue of 1 Cor 11 is not about general modesty nor about "the purpose of the veil in a culture far removed from ours both in time and geography". The issue is about the churches of God and propriety in praying and prophesying. Paul does not refer the Corinthians to local "custom", but to Adam and Eve, to the order of Creation, and to the angels. None of which have anything to do with "a culture far removed from ours in time and geography".

Besides which, the universal practice in all of Christendom for some 2000 years has been to practice what Paul taught. This has only been dropped in Western countries in the last 100 years or so, although the remnants of the practice has remained still in a large number of churches in the West in one form or another. Thus, in most churches, men still remove their hats, and there is nothing thought unseemly about a woman wearing a hat or scarf or something during church.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618853]Part1/2.

Quote: Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Nay, sir. You misrepresent the question and how it was answered. See post 51, 52; points 2,3. Check your facts. You thus twist my words to say something I didn't.

Please. check YOUR facts.

I had. And referenced them for all to see.

You were arguing that if Paul was commanding a veil to be worn in 1 Cor 11, then there should be other places in Scripture where a veil is commanded. Since Paul was referring to the order of Creation in his argument, you said there was no evidence of any veil command given to Eve so THEREFORE 1 Cor 11 cannot be seen to contain a command to veil. You also asked where are the commands in the Law where women are commanded to veil? And so forth.

Correct, sort of. While not seeing Paul as 'commanding a veil' I do think he asks the Co Christian woman to veil. I do believe if God had commanded the Co Christian woman to veil, then he would have had to have commanded others in other places, the OT, to veil. To be consistent, this makes sense, except for yourself who doesn't see this consistency principle. We don't see evidence of such a command in the OT scriptures. Why haven't you refuted what I contend by quoting some command from anywhere from the Beginning up until the time of Paul. This should be eazy-peazy. The reason you haven't yet is because it is not there to quote. Instead of saying 'Don, you're wrong' you should be saying 'I agree and will change my views'. What causes a truth seeker such as yourself to not accept truth when presented? Instead you twist my words, trying to make them say something I clearly haven't said. Truth-seekers do not need to use such tactics.

Yet you acknowledged that God need only say something ONCE for it be obligatory. And, that it may appear anywhere in Scripture. THEREFORE, you have conceded the point (whether you will admit or not is not my problem). You have conceded the point by acknowledging that God can command something once, and it is obligatory. Therefore, God can command something once in 1 Cor 11, and it is obligatory.

Not quite so, sir. I do not concede that which you portray is how I said it. It may be that you have misconstrued my response to so say. I do agree that the Lord may say something but once, for it to be truth, that he has no need to repeat himself in order for it to be seen as truth by Man. I would not concede that, if God has commanded in 1Co11, that if he has only there said so once, that it then is seen as truth as a command retroactively in effect for the Beginning. If you think I believe that if 1Co11 commands something, that it must then also be a command for all other times previous, then I now deny that I believe so. You may misunderstand me, sir. I do not believe that NT-time commands can be applied retroactively to the OT. I do not concede, nor have conceded this point, contrary to your assertion.

But, rather than taking the time to argue this point, why not make some attempts to counter-argue the points presented in post 47. Surely you must have valid things to say which would refute the points made there. But your silence betrays that you do. If you have nought to say against them, then I urge you to embrace them and the instincts view. Silence is not an argument against truth, which should be embraced if not refuted. Why the delay? What holds you back when truth demands a response? Truth knocks at your door, asking admittance.

CASE CLOSED in regards to "where are the other examples of the veil being commanded?" By your own admission, there need not be any other veil-commands in Scripture. 1 Cor 11 is plenty.

The case certainly is not closed. Perhaps it is for you, sir, but most readers will think that if God commands in 1Co11, then to be consistent, that he would also have commanded in other places, particularly the Beginning where man and woman got their start. But this logic which most receive seems to not find a lodging place in your understanding. The case is still open for many.

As for your "instinct theory", that is entirely a supposition and a hypothesis on your part.

True, this is my Biblically derived supposition. But do you then say that instincts of Man are a fabrication? It appears so. We await your denial, that you do believe in instincts.

The Bible does not speak of "instincts",

Reader, Esaias may be denying that Ge3.16 shows instincts. Don't be like Esaias. Embrace Ge3.16 as showing instincts. Notice what Esaias does. He denies the obvious but doesn't present an alternative. Is this how your attempts to explain scripture should be seen doing? Denying the obvious but not giving a explanation of what the truth really is? What is done by Esaias is to avoid facing truth. Don't be an Esaias when denying obvious truth. Don't accept Esaias as an authority of all things 1Co11.

therefore we need not rely on any "instinct" concept in our doctrine. Paul does not base his doctrine on "instincts", therefore neither do we. Paul does not require "instincts" for his doctrine, neither do we. So much for the "instinct" theory.

Oh my! The depth of explanation you've shown in your reasoning abilities! Doing so in this way shows you thinking of yourself as an authority of 1Co11. While presenting my views I ask for a critiquing of them, hoping for confirmation, or denial of them by sound proofs. I do not present myself as an authority but as a truth-seeker with an opinion. Embracing the instincts view will do away with many holes seen in other views, including the view that Esais holds - the veil view. Would you rather hold a view with holes or rather have one which faces the facts and offers an explanation which covers the bases, doing so both in scripture and in life? As of yet, Esaias does not take much effort to show how, with proofs, that the instincts view is wrong. He may post mocking emojis instead, wasting his time and ours. He stands on his box at the corner shouting 'Its wrong, Its wrong', but says no more to refute the claims of post 47. The reason for the lack of counter-proofs is simple - they don't exist. Had they existed Esaias would long ago have stated them. It would be difficult to find proofs against a view which is itself truth. This is what we see with Esaias's non-responses and only shouting 'its wrong'. Reluctance to accept any new view as truth is totally acceptable for a short season, and wise to accept the new slowly. But denial of a truth-view without counter-proof is foolish. All know this to be true. It is also dangerous.

What else is there? What have you presented that is not just repeats and rehashing of your claims about instincts and "gee, we don't see Eve being commanded to wear a veil"?

That is a cop-out. Truths are presented by me, and repeated in hopes that repeats will spur their acceptance. The question really isn't 'why are the same arguments repeatedly given?' but 'why haven't my sound arguments been agreed with and accepted when they haven't been convincingly refuted?' Why haven't things I contend for been clearly shown wrong by you. You are a giant here in AFF, having great experience and knowledge.

Part 2/2 to follow.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618853]

Part2/2.

Paul said if a woman will not be covered when praying or prophesying, then she ought to be shorn. It is uncomely and a shame for a woman to pray or prophesy uncovered, and for a man to do so. And, further, we can clearly see the "covering" that is being discussed is what is commonly referred to as a veil or "headcovering".

Have I not repeatedly said that I agree that Paul's statements should be heeded? And I've also shown a reason why Paul speaks as he does, which reason agrees with the fact that the OT hasn't commanded co/unco or the veil from the Beginning. What is said that Paul is saying, should be seen agreeing with what is seen in the Beginning. What is wrongly said of 1Co11 doesn't agree. Commands for co/unco, or the veil of Esaias's view, should be seen in the OT scriptures, but they aren't. This demands an explanation, which the instincts view gives and the veil view doesn't. All should have a view of 1Co11 which is in agreement with all of scripture. The veil view doesn't, but the instincts view does. It takes the words of Paul you reference, and places them in a light which shows agreement between it and the OT scripture. Believe, receive it and hold to a scriptural view you can be at peace with. But don't repeatedly shout from the sidelines 'it's wrong' without having something to counter it with.

Oh, that's right, you had another point, that since God didn't specify the make and model of headcovering, it cannot be a headcovering that is commanded.

And you now do that which you don't want me to do - repeat arguments.

This was thoroughly refuted

and counter-refuted by myself, showing it as irrational.

when I pointed out that God also commands us to sing, but says nothing about what melodies to use or how to sing, or even which songs to sing, what time to sing, how many, etc. I also pointed out the command regarding the fringe on the border of the garment, that the only specification is that it be a fringe, on the border, and contain a ribband of blue. Nothing was said about the material, the design, how big, how long, what other colors, or even whether it was to be on A garment or ALL garments, or only on 4-cornered garments, etc etc etc. There are numerous things God commands, without specifying every single detail. THEREFORE your claim about the lack of specifications for the headcovering somehow implies or requires Paul cannot be commanding a headcovering falls flat.

Your reasoning/logic of this singing point is sound, but Reader, plz see post 104 for my logical response.

I don't expect you to actually acknowledge these things, and that's perfectly okay.

Any reader of these posts knows that I have acknowledged these things. You now do this as a smear tactic, wanting others to see me in poor light. Truth-seekers need not take such ill-conceived tactics because it is deceitful. A man of your capabilities should not need to stoop to such tactics.

I mostly post for whoever may be reading. You have shown that when one of your points are dealt with, you persist AS IF it hadn't even been addressed (let alone refuted). I have been here for years, unfortunately, and I have seen this behaviour time and time again.

Readers are well aware of the responses I make to your points. They also are aware of the questions unanswered by you and the lack of counter-responses to my valid points. If you now must resort to such tactics as in these accusations, then you have options: A) Take the time to respond to my valid points to prove them wrong for the audience. Or B) embrace the instincts view; which is the desired and best option. Doing so does not ignore Paul's words in v5,6. It sees them in another light, a scripturally derived view.

Changing your view is great fun. I know, because I used to embrace the uncut long hair view, leaving it for the instincts view. I now enjoy the light of its discovery, being more and more convinced as time goes by. I'm very comforted by its presence in my life.

This is why I generally do not get into actual DEBATES unless it is a FORMAL debate, with a structured format (you make your points, I refute your points, I make my points, you refute my points, we conclude, and move on to something else).

Does Esaias now say this to lay the ground-work for his exit, giving it as a reason for leaving while not having convincingly countered many, many of my points?

Because what usually happens (as here) it just goes on endlessly with nothing new actually being added to the discussion.

What has been apparent in this thread has been Esaias's refusal to broach refutation of all 11 points made by me in post47, which may have prevented circling of both him and I around our points. Also not answered is 'why is Paul seen as commanding that which is seen as a custom of many peoples and times?' Also not refuted is the methodology I say the Lord uses to set up respect for the order of authority. Not also refuted is my claim that Paul copies this methodology, using it in 1Co11, by not commanding but suggesting. Reader decide, if our beloved scholar and brother, Esaias, has countered these points/questions or not.

Besides which debates are not really for the purpose of convincing the other party, but the audience.

Really? If so, then you fail to achieve for your audience when not counter-addressing my points in post 47. And also questions I ask, such as 'Why does Paul seemingly command that which is seen held as a custom by many nations of various times?' You thus fail to achieve your aims to do it for your audience.

Either we follow Paul and do what he said, in which case we have apostolic faith and practice, or we make excuses and theories and hypotheses about why we don't have to actually do what he said to do, in which case we have heretical faith and practice.

The instincts view is not heretical, as Esaias would now have you believe. It is a scripturally derived doctrine which more clearly sees the facts as they are, offering a view which does away with discrepancies seen in the veil view and in the uncut long view. He would like it to be heretical because it doesn't agree with his view. But is he the authority or is scripture? Who decides which view of scripture is to be the only one to hold. I'd say it isn't Esaias, as good as a scholar as he is, because he fails to attempt to counter many, many of the points I make. If he is the authority to be believed then his depth of knowledge and understanding are not deep enough to respond to all points I contend for. Why not?

Everybody will make their own decision, and it is the Word by which we will be judged.

Indeed. All who love the Lord Jesus Christ agree that the Word, rightly interpreted, is alone our rule of faith by which we will be judged by. Many will also agree, some having said so in this thread, that any conclusions of 1Co11 are based in large part on conjecture, regardless of the view. The instincts view is one of these. The way 1Co11 is written leads to many varying opinions, which all appear right in the context of their view, which may be contradicted by the opinions/facts of another view. Thus, we all look for a view which has the least objections and which faces all the facts in one view without contradictions/holes. It is my opinion that the opinions of the instincts view does so best. Like all other views of 1Co11 it can not be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt. But because it makes the most sense in light of all facts, it should be the one held by all who want to have faith in God's word and not in tradition of Man. You, Esaias, should do so.

Esaias, its time to man up. Either prove the claims of the instinct view wrong or embrace it. Leave behind the veil view, with its holes.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Esaias, its time to man up. Either prove the claims of the instinct view wrong or embrace it. Leave behind the veil view, with its holes.

Seriously?

YOU brought up your "instinct view". It is up to YOU to prove it. Which you cannot. Because you

1. cannot find any verse in the Bible that speaks of people having an "instinct to veil or not to veil".

2. cannot actually define "instinct" in any authoritative way, since the Bible doesn't use the term at all.

Besides, if Paul is teaching people to follow a God-given instinct to practice what he instructed them to practice (women being covered and men being uncovered while praying or prophesying) then YOU need to affirm your own position by acknowledging that women do indeed need to be veiled when praying or prophesying. Since, after all, according to you, that is a supposed "God-given instinct". And if the "instinct" is to do the opposite of what Paul said to do, then we need to oppose said "instinct", we need to be spiritual and not natural, and obey the apostle.

There are no "holes" in what Paul clearly teaches. A woman praying or prophesying uncovered is shameful and dishonourable, and such a woman ought to be shorn if she will not be covered. A man praying or prophesying while covered is also a shame and dishonourable. The reasons are rooted in the order of Creation, and also involve the angels (not at all having anything to do with any make believe "instincts"). Anybody contending for some other practice is out of step with the apostle and the churches of God.

[Esaias]

About these "instincts" that Don is trying so hard to prop up:

INSTINCT', adjective [Latin instinctus. See the Noun.]

Moved; animated; excited; as instinct with spirit.

Betulia--instinct with life.

IN'STINCT, noun [Latin instinctus, inwardly moved; in and stinguo.]

A certain power or disposition of mind by which, independent of all instruction or experience, without deliberation and without having any end in view, animals are unerringly directed to do spontaneously whatever is necessary for the preservation of the individual, or the continuation of the kind. Such, in the human species, is the instinct of sucking exerted immediately after birth, and that of insects in depositing their eggs in situations most favorable for hatching.

INSTINCT may be defined, the operation of the principle of organized life by the exercise of certain natural powers directed to the present or future good of the individual.

INSTINCT is the general property of the living principle, or the law of organized life in a state of action.

And reason raise o'er instinct as you can,

In this 'tis God directs, in that 'tis man.

(from Webster's dictionary)

From this we can see the following:

1. Instincts are defined as a certain power of mind by which animals are unerringly directed to do spontaneously that which is necessary for the preservation of the species. For example, the reproductive instinct, the appetite for food (generally speaking), the nursing instinct of infants, etc.

The idea that there is a genuine INSTINCT that requires a woman to be covered when praying or prophesying is thus absurd. Praying and prophesying are acts of worship, led by the Spirit of God, taught by the Spirit of God. While it may be that humans have an instinct to worship, generally speaking, as all life has at some level the recognition of the Creator, and the need to recognise the Creator among rational beings, the idea that being covered or uncovered during prayer or prophesying is somehow taught by INSTINCT is nowhere to be found in the definition of instinct, nor can it be reasonably extrapolated from the definition.

Man requires REVELATION to know how to properly worship God. To suggest that the acceptable worship of God can be discovered by NATURAL means, via "instincts" or "innate reasoning" apart from Divine Revelation, is practical atheism. The Bible is pretty clear, that man requires REVELATION from God to know how to properly worship Him. Thus, man requires TEACHING, not "instinct". And therefore, God gives teaching to the new covenant church, in the form of ordinances or "traditions" respecting the functional worship of the church towards God. This includes the teaching found in 1 Cor 11 regarding the issue of head covering. Furthermore, Paul's words affirm that what he taught was the universal accepted practice of the churches of God. So anybody doing or teaching otherwise than as Paul taught was doing and teaching otherwise than as the entire new covenant church of Jesus Christ did and taught.

Don points to Genesis 3:16. But notice, it is does not say "instinct" there. It is a command from God. It is a declaration from God concerning the woman experiencing sorrow in having children, and that she would be under the authority of her husband. Did this create an instinct in all women afterwards? Well, truth be told, quite a few women seem to be missing this supposed instinct. Not only are there some women who do NOT in fact experience sorrow in bringing forth children, but there are quite a few women who have no "desire towards" their husbands, and whose husbands do not in fact "rule over" them.

Remember, the definition of instinct is that it gives an "unerring direction to do spontaneously" certain things. Instinct therefore falls under the category of "natural law", which is the law of necessity, obedience to which is INVOLUNTARY and NOT SUBJECT TO THE WILL OF MAN. Being covered or not, while praying or prophesying, is not at all an involuntary action of necessity, but a MORAL act of the will, a CHOICE. As such, it requires TEACHING (specifically DIVINE teaching from the Holy Ghost through His apostles, recorded in Holy Scripture).

And so much for the supposed "instinct" view.

[Esaias]

Don says "I do agree that the Lord may say something but once, for it to be truth, that he has no need to repeat himself in order for it to be seen as truth by Man. I would not concede that, if God has commanded in 1Co11, that if he has only there said so once, that it then is seen as truth as a command retroactively in effect for the Beginning. If you think I believe that if 1Co11 commands something, that it must then also be a command for all other times previous, then I now deny that I believe so. You may misunderstand me, sir. I do not believe that NT-time commands can be applied retroactively to the OT. I do not concede, nor have conceded this point, contrary to your assertion."

I reply,

I never suggested that 1 Cor 11 is a command for anybody BUT the new covenant church of God. It was never suggested (at least not by me) that the instruction in 1 Cor 11 applied to people under the Sinaitic covenant, or before that. In fact, I already showed the CONTRAST between the new covenant head covering instruction and the old covenant head covering instruction (given to the priests).

Furthermore, I never said YOU believed that if 1 Cor 11 is a command, it must be retroactive to prior times. I have no idea what cavil this is, but a cavil it surely is.

YOU SAID that on the one hand, if God says something once, it is true, and obligatory. But you also said on the other hand, that if God commanded the veil in 1 Cor 11 then it needs to be seen as having been also commanded previously. The two positions are flatly contradictory. If you assent to the first statement, you concede (give up) the second. If you adhere to the second, you deny the first. They cannot both be correct at the same time.

And so much for the issue of "the veil in the old testament".

[Esaias]

Don says "This is what we see with Esaias's non-responses and only shouting 'its wrong'"

This is just a snippet from a whole paragraph of ad hominem porridge Don is trying to serve up. It's rather funny, Don cries when mocked by others but has no problem himself mocking others. Brother Benincasa remarked about Dudley Do-Don's penchant for passive aggressive behaviour. We have seen it here a plenty in this thread, and we saw it in the other thread as well.

Sorry, Don, you blew your chances at reasonable discourse awhile back. I'm sure you will spin this into yet another passive aggressive ad hominem but such is life. And no, I'm not "offended" that you tried slinging some mud, believe me. I have no problem with people using whatever rhetorical devices they choose. Unless they are being intellectually dishonest and demonstrate a total lack of self awareness, which you have. I am typing this while recovering from tonight's sparring. I sparred a pro boxer who currently has no losses, 2/3rds of his wins were by knockout. He went easy on me but I got worked over for sure. So TRUST ME, your words on the internet don't phase me one bit. That's not why I'm dropping the conversation. I'm dropping it because you are like a typical kung fool "master" braying at an actual fighter about how tough you are, and when the fighter smiles and walks off you shout "See? I knew you was afraid to face me!"

So, enjoy the rest of your thread and your "obvious victory". Just keep it on the internet, because in the real world there are plenty of people who aren't nearly as nice as me and whose "instinct" would be to punch you in the face.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Amanah;1618874]Scripture references:

- 2 Timothy 3:16, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:"

I strive to honour all scripture and the principles shown therein. The instincts view does not disregard 1Co11.5,6.

- 2 Peter 1:20, "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."

What I have written in my commentary I received bit by bit over a long period of time, just like Isa 28.9, 10, 13 describes. I believe what I received to be inspired by God, it being his interpretation. I did not read about this view in another source or attempt to conjure it up by reasoning abilities. It came to me. Anyone can say words like I have just said. Words are easy to say and put together on paper, but are they truth? So, I presented it to the world/AFF for critical examination. It may be proved wrong by showing errors of reasoning, or shown contrary to scripture, but also proved right by these same things.

By acknowledging the divine inspiration and authority of Scripture, we should take Paul's admonition regarding head covering in 1 Corinthians 11 seriously,

Of course. While many disagree and say 1Co11 can be ignored, many do agree, including myself. It's God's Word. I took the time to write my commentary because I believe it is important. The instincts view ignores nothing.

even if it may not be explicitly supported by other scripture passages.

But logic speaks to us, when scripture passages we expect to be there aren't. To be consistent, if God commands in one place then it is expected he will command the same in another place, if all the details are equal. The details (God, man, woman, and their wills) are equal comparing the times of the Beginning or the Age of Conscience or the Law with the time of 1Co11. Strangely, only during 1Co11 (according to some interpretations), do we see a command. For God to be consistent he would command the same in all places. He hasn't. The Beginning or the Age of Conscience or the Law have no command which is similar to that which 1Co11 is said to have. You haven't yet accepted as truth this line of reasoning, and I don't know why not. The logic is inescapable. Plz explain why no command is found in the OT scriptures, which would be similar to that believed by some to be in 1Co11. Plz explain, if God is only seen in the Beginning expecting that Man will show due regard to his order of authority, why he would change his method and now command this regard in 1Co11? This question has been posed repeatedly. Perhaps this time you will give it a shot.

I don't see scripture supporting a viewpoint of deciding whether or not to obey based on our gut feelings.

Of course. All should agree. What should not be done is describe instincts as gut feelings. Instincts are traits of human nature. It is correct to say instincts are human nature and not just a part of human nature. Human nature is given by the Creator and the nature he gives defines who humans will be and why we act like we do. This is far from being a gut feeling. By describing it as a gut feeling, are you attempting to side-step facing the facts of the instinct view head-on? What motivates a Christian, and teacher of others, to want to side-step Biblical truths? Face them head-on, prove or disprove them, and respond accordingly. With you being a woman, I might assume correctly that you have mothering instincts, because that is the nature of women. Do people describe mothering instincts as 'gut feelings'? Maybe not, though they are deeply seated within and motivate women's actions. Shouldn't gut feelings be described as part of our thinking processes? Shouldn't instincts be described as part of our nature? Are these varying definitions why we butt heads? (Cursed by lack of definitions again!?) Do people live with and use the gut feelings given by God? Yes, of course. Gut feelings are real. Instincts are real. But they are different from one another, though sometimes gut feelings are wrongly described as instincts, and also vice versa, perhaps leading you to say what you have said about gut feelings. An instinct is more than just a hunch, more than a gut feeling. It leads birds to migrate. It is a God-given motivator which is part of their being and not just as a part of their thinking processes, which is how I would describe gut feelings.

In 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, Paul teaches that a woman's long hair is a glory to her, and that she should cover her head as a sign of respect for her husband and for the Lord.

True. And Paul writes in such a way that his words in 1Co11 leads to many varying conclusions, of which you are well aware of. You must wish that a view could be found which covers all the bases and ignores none of the facts. What does it for me is the instincts view. It shows men and women both, giving respect to God's order of authority by regarding symbols. All should do so. Paul teaches but does not command this, in my opinion. The only Bible Paul reads, the OT, does not command the keeping of co/unco - and neither does he.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The issue of 1 Cor 11 is not about general modesty nor about "the purpose of the veil in a culture far removed from ours both in time and geography". The issue is about the churches of God and propriety in praying and prophesying. Paul does not refer the Corinthians to local "custom", but to Adam and Eve, to the order of Creation, and to the angels. None of which have anything to do with "a culture far removed from ours in time and geography".

Besides which, the universal practice in all of Christendom for some 2000 years has been to practice what Paul taught. This has only been dropped in Western countries in the last 100 years or so, although the remnants of the practice has remained still in a large number of churches in the West in one form or another. Thus, in most churches, men still remove their hats, and there is nothing thought unseemly about a woman wearing a hat or scarf or something during church.

Sorry Esaias. I didn’t realize y’all were isolating 1Corinthians 11 from the Old Testament examples of veil use. I still think it’s interesting even if it’s not necessarily relevant to the story.

I’m not trying to take a side in the discussion, I’m just trying to learn. I think that the position that Esaias takes makes the most sense to me. I wish it were articulated more clearly by Paul, but I have an idea that in his time, and to the audience he was writing to, it probably made perfect sense.

I have also thought about the custom of removing our hats to pray as men. It does seem uncouth for a man to pray with a hat on.

Just another note to Dan? Just to keep it real, it really shouldn’t be on Esaias to prove you wrong. I think that would be an unrealistic precedent to follow. Typically, when we address doctrine, it is incumbent on us individually to prove doctrine by supporting it with scripture. After all there is only one doctrine that is true and correct. There are many opinions. And of course, as is usually the case in vetting doctrine, it is only possible for one view to be true. On the other hand it is possible for both to be wrong.

Or all three. I do think it’s important to pursue truth though. That is the beauty of the AFF forum in my opinion.