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

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Natural law is rooted in the idea that there is a God-given order to society, which can be discerned through human reasoning. This concept is closely tied to the notion of "the law of nature and nature's God," as mentioned in the United States Declaration of Independence......

......Humanity has proven that society cannot function without the rule of law which is based on God's commandments, which is why Romans 3:23-25 concludes that all have sinned fall short of God's glory. Mankind apart from God's commandments (the rule of law) follow their instinctual nature and live lives that are "nasty, brutish, and short."

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

Natural law is rooted in the idea that there is a God-given order to society, which can be discerned through human reasoning. This concept is closely tied to the notion of "the law of nature and nature's God," as mentioned in the United States Declaration of Independence.

This natural law concept presented by Esaias and Amanah is a great concept. Kudos to whoever first penned it. But no kudos to whoever thought that it brings us the veil command.

This perspective posits that natural law is based on the inherent design and purpose of human nature, which is oriented towards the common good and the flourishing of individuals and society. Natural law is thus seen as a moral framework that guides human behavior and promotes the well-being of all people. (Romans 1:20)

Maybe. Without the Word of God many societies in the past became idolatrous, driven solely by self-interest and immediate gratification. Ro1.20. Natural law did little to bring them to God. Yet the veil view would have us believe that natural law brought us a veil command, when it had not brought us the most basic righteousness concepts. Rather than say it this way, because it distorts the facts presented by the veil view, I'll say, in their view it supports the idea that Paul commands the veil. It does not actually bring about the idea of the veil command, per se.

In contrast, instinctual behavior is driven solely by self-interest and immediate gratification.

Plz apply what you say here to the mothering instinct, making comments thereto. (Twice, in other posts in this tread, I have pointed out that Amanah uses a different defn of instincts than I do. She again, frustratingly, in this post reverts to using this other defn. What motivates this behaviour is a mystery. We are then unable to have a meaningful discussion if we talk of different things. If I talk about apples and you talk about oranges, how can our comments have any relevance? Points you make using your definition do not then apply to the discussion, when everyone else uses instincts other than you. Your definition of instincts is not wrong. It just doesn't apply to the way I've used it in the instincts view. The instincts seen in Ge3.16 or mothering instincts are not driven solely by self-interest and immediate gratification, nor are they brutish and nasty, are they? You must be aware of this, though it seems you are not. If you aren't, then this is said to bring this awareness to you, again. But when this has previously been pointed out, then it leads to the thinking that you do it purposely for undeclared reason. Reader, your guess is as good as mine why Amanah would do this thing.)

A great example of this concept can be seen in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16, where Paul discusses the issue of head coverings for men and women during worship. When appealing to "nature" (Greek: φύσις, phusis), Paul is referencing the created order, rather than instinctual or brutish behavior.

Agreed, but do head coverings come out of this created order? We see no mention of the veil at the time of the referrred to creation. If this were true then we might see head coverings used by the majority in a majority of times. Has anyone determined that this is indeed fact? If so, then it might be evidence in its favour.

Does Amanah here offer as an alternate defn of phusis, that it also means instinctual or brutish behavior. Which gk lex does she reference for this defn of phusis? If such defn is not found in a lex, then what would compel a comparison of phusis with instinctual or brutish behavior? What illicits placing the word instinctual alongside the phrase brutish behaviour? It is not relevant or apt. [Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages · in·stinc·tu·al /inˈstiNG(k)(t)SHə(wə)l/ adjective relating to or denoting an innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior; based on instinct. "an instinctual survival response"]

In verse 14, Paul asks rhetorically, "Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him?" Here, Paul is appealing to the natural order of creation, which provides a moral framework for understanding what is proper and fitting for human behavior.

And do we seriously think that Paul here refers to brutish behaviour (instinct) compelling a man to wear long hair? Hair quite naturally grows out of the skin without forces of brutishness causing it to do so. Does God command a Nazarite man to have the brutish behaviour of long hair? God does not command men to be brutes, does he? Did Israelis, when under the influence of their most godly king (David), see Absalom as having the most beautiful appearance of a man in Israel because they were influenced by brutish thoughts? What motivates this line of reasoning from you when you must know these things, is unsettling? It seems to me that two varying things are spoken of by the same word, instincts.

By referencing "nature," Paul is drawing on the idea that the created order reflects God's design and intentions for human life. This approach assumes that there is a moral and spiritual dimension to the natural world, which can inform and guide human behavior.

Sounds suspiciously like an instinct, like I have used this word.

In contrast, brutish instincts or mere naturalism would suggest that human behavior is solely determined by instinct, desire, or self-interest, without reference to a higher moral or spiritual order.

This describes how animals act. They show no regard to the things of God. Man does regard because it is in their nature to.

Paul's appeal to "nature" in this context reflects his broader theological framework, which sees the natural world as reflecting God's character and purposes.

You say that the natural world reflects the character of God, yet you would not intend to suggest that the natural world of brutish beasts reflects God's nature, would you? And so we see even Amanah using two varying definitions of nature. Could it then be possible that the word instincts can also have varying connotations? Of course.

This approach provides a moral and spiritual foundation for understanding human behavior and relationships, including issues like head coverings in worship.

But not yet describing what that head covering is.

Natural law provides a moral foundation for human society,...

What about the Word of God? Most would say that it alone provides the moral foundation for a godly society. It had been given some 2500 yrs after Natural Law was given, because what natural law, some times described as the conscience by some people, had failed to be responded to by Man, necessitated that God provide written Law to supplement what the natural law/conscience wasn't strong enough to do alone. (see a related thread: John3 and Romans2: Part1)

...one that is grounded in the God-given order of creation and accessible through human reasoning and confirms 1 Corinthians 11 as a command rather than a suggestion.

Anyone can say it like that, but is it true? As you've just described it, long hair on a woman can also be seen to come from her God given nature; and man's short hair from his God given nature. This same thing is what I've been saying all along as coming out of instincts. We thus talk about the same process and you call it nature and I call it instincts - and I get called down for it. Oh, well, such is life when some misunderstand facts or want them to be ignored. The veil view does not want to understand that the OT has not commanded the veil, and ignores this fact when compiling a doctrine on 1Co11. Phooey on this methodology.

Mankind apart from God's commandments (the rule of law) follow their instinctual nature and live lives that are "nasty, brutish, and short."

And again you use a different defn of instincts than I. Why do you comment on this thread when we talk about different things, especially after I long ago asked for your defn of your use, and have pointed out that we use varying defns? What motivates this behaviour?

[diakonos]

E,

What of trimming?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by diakonos

E,

What of trimming?

As a man you should definitely be trimming your hair.

[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.

[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!

[donfriesen1]

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.

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

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.

See my reply to this, in post 250.

He will of course protest that this is a mischaracterisation of his position and belief, but it is the logical conclusion of his statements.

And here I had thought that my Game analogy, post161 would have been sufficient to explain what I had said, when I said "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." Is there anyone else who would chime in to say they follow and use Esaias' reasoning method on this?

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.

Now that I can agree with. Apples must be compared with apples, and not apples with oranges. The Lord has purposely given us 1Co11 unclearly, as a test of who we are. As shown by Ro14;15:1-7, God allows varying views on some topics of the Bible, telling those who have opposing views to receive, not judge but accept those who have opposing views when the facts can logically lead in different directions. This happens with 1Co11. To say someone isn't apostolic because they view 1Co11 other than they do, is not showing the spirit of Ro14,15. It is judging. It is not receiving. It is not accepting. Apostolics are defined, with Ro14,15 in mind, by the Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as the I AM, and by the new birth experience as shown by Jn3.5 and Ac2.38. They are not defined by 1Co11 . If 1Co11 were the defining point of what an apostolic is, then which of the two major apostolic camps (the veil view or the uncut long view) are the true apostolics? Will you answer this question for us plz Esaias? Having pointed this out, I hope you now realize how silly your assertion of what is an apostolic, using 1Co11, really is. 1Co11 has little to do with it.

[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..

[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.