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

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

In this passage, the Apostle Paul emphasizes the importance of having a spiritual understanding of Scripture, rather than relying on human instinct or wisdom:

1 Corinthians 2:12-14
Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.

Jude 1:10 warns against interpreting spiritual truths based on human instinct:

Jude 1:10
But these people blaspheme all that they do not understand, and they are destroyed by all that they, like unreasoning animals, understand instinctively.

1 Corinthians 2:12-14 emphasizes the importance of seeking a spiritual understanding of Scripture, guided by the Holy Spirit, rather than relying on human instinct (Jude 10) or wisdom.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=donfriesen1;1618905]

4000yrs of OT history should not be ignored while 2000yrs of a.d. history are accepted, should it?

Which should carry more weight, 4000 yrs of scriptural history or 2000 yrs of Man's history? The veil view and its supporters seem to weigh the history of Man heavier, while ignoring those who have pointed out that the OT has no commands for the veil. Duh. Something awry is at work here, which needs to be fixed.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Which should carry more weight, 4000 yrs of scriptural history or 2000 yrs of Man's history? The veil view and its supporters seem to weigh the history of Man heavier, while ignoring those who have pointed out that the OT has no commands for the veil. Duh. Something awry is at work here, which needs to be fixed.

You got that right.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618884]Should there be any confusion of what an instinct is as I use it, said because the word is sometimes used other than how I mean it, I will attempt to define. Some birds have an instinct which motivates them to migrate twice a year. It is not apart of their thought processes, or a hunch but something within their nature. Humans may have a hunch which they may act on because of their thought processes but the instinct humans have are also inner motivations like the birds have, which causes all to want to behave in a certain way. Instincts are part of the nature God gives Man, and not part of thought processes. For example, the mothering instinct which women have motivates them to want a baby and also to give them proper care when they arrive.

Seriously? YOU brought up your "instinct view". It is up to YOU to prove it.

Au contraire, I have already presented my proofs. Have you seen my commentary? See post1.

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".

Many people read between the lines, yourself included. Instincts are there, though not the words themself, or as you've put it. Esaias attempts to make me contradict myself by saying things I have never said. Plz Esaias, quote the place where I say that people have instincts to veil or not to veil. Why not use your smarts to give rational explanations instead of contriving tricks like this.

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

In spite of this assertion, I'd say that instincts are commonly believed by society to exist. Do you now say your views are out of sync with society, denying their knowledge that instincts exist? Does the Bible always define the words it uses or does the Lord allow language, which is an invention of Man, to define?

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)

For clarification in response to your statement above: Perhaps you've misunderstood the concept of instincts to be directing (teaching) the use of veils, while I believe instincts to be directing (teaching) a woman to have long hair as a covering. Your statement above is out of sync with what I've said I believe. I do see Paul asking the Co Christian woman to continue to hold to their custom of the veil, which history shows us some women in Co society were forsaking. This history is in agreement, and not disagreeing, with what is seen in 1Co11. But Paul is not asking them to do so as a command. But not only for times of church. Instinct's domains are in all times of life. Paul, in my view, also asks Co Christian men not to veil, which history also shows us was being done by some men in Co society. So, history also agreeing and not disagreeing. For a man to veil himself is in agreement with God-given instincts, when seeing men in places of shame covering themselves. Shamed men do not give glory to their God, do they? This is seen by many, many OT examples of men responding to their instincts and covering when shamed, where it is not seen done as a response to a command of God to do so. If there is no command, then they are shown to respond to instincts, not commands, when we read between the lines. Paul doesn't want Co Christian men to habitually wear veils, because veils on men are symbols of shame-events and these veiled shamed-looking men don't bring glory to God.

then YOU need to affirm your own position by acknowledging that women do indeed need to be veiled when praying or prophesying.

I would only affirm that Paul would like for Co Christian women to follow the rules of their culture. Veiling would be part of this.

Since, after all, according to you, that is a supposed "God-given instinct".

Nay sir, I do not see instincts compelling women to don veils. I do see instincts compelling a woman to want long hair as an adornment which pleases her husband, which shows her yielding to God's order of authority. Slowing down some would help when reading. I would suggest this to you, to prevent misunderstandings of what others write.

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.

That doesn't make sense. If I think that the reason Paul writes is because he has seen instincts active in life/Man's nature, then why would I say that Paul should be seen as asking to do opposite to the instinct. What God places within Man as an instinct was a spiritual act of God. Man may have a will to yield to cultural norms. This yielding to cultural customs is also being spiritual, for yielding to the uncommanded rules of society are part of what God designed for Man, when God first thought of society and human nature. It was always his desire that Man dwell within a society. Thus, it is spiritual to conform to the rules of a society because God has willed it to be so in Man's nature. Everything within a God-fearing life is spiritual, as in a life lived for God.

There are no "holes" in what Paul clearly teaches.

Paul should not be seen to be presenting holes. He's too smart for that. But interpretations of what Paul is thought to say, presents holes. If this isn't so, then all who interpret Paul would be in agreement. Because there are disagreements in interpretative views, then some must be having holes which others don't present. The veil view does. It presents a view which shows disagreement with Paul's words in v5 with Paul's words in v15. One says the veil is the cover. The other says a womans long uncut hair is given for the veil. Why hasn't your view, or you, filled this hole? Reader, this isn't the first time in this thread that this question has been presented and those who hold to the veil view, Esaias included, haven't stitched up this hole. The only way to do so, is to discard the veil view and find one without this hole. Esaias presents many good, logical evidences supporting his veil view. But not yet closing the holes, such as this and also others, seen in the veil view, because he can't. The veil view doesn't allow it. Why would such a knowledgeable God-fearer as yourself persist to hold a view with such unclosable holes? You're too smart for this. What motivates such a response? Leave the veil view behind and find a view without such holes.

A woman praying or prophesying uncovered is shameful and dishonourable, and such a woman ought to be shorn if she will not be covered.

I will agree with you on your quotes of Paul, but I won't agree with you on your conclusions. To make sense with the macroview of the Bible, Paul must not be seen as commanding, nor commanding the veil.

A man praying or prophesying while covered is also a shame and dishonourable. The reasons are rooted in the order of Creation,

Plz expand the thought that the reasons a covered shamed man finds roots in God's order of Creation. How so?

and also involve the angels (not at all having anything to do with any make believe "instincts").

The little we know of angels shows them interacting with Man's life, which would include Man's instincts.

Anybody contending for some other practice is out of step with the apostle and the churches of God.

To which I respond that anyone contending that the OT commands the veil hasn't read the OT. It is illogical to believe contrary to what Paul knows the OT doesn't show. Where are the commands (for the veil) from the OT, which OT is the base for Paul's thoughts in 1Co11. Waiting for a logical reply, Esaias. Your audience is waiting.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618885] Part 1/2


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.

Esaias should here be seen interjecting veil view concepts into instinct view concepts. It is wrong to do so. Keep things separate. The instincts view does not see the instinct teaching a woman should cover only for worship times.


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.

Women have an instinct, shown in Ge3.16, of a desire to please her husband. Admittedly, the word which Esaias says should be there to give credibility to the idea of an instinct view, it isn't there. But reading between the lines, which Esaias will not do with Ge3.16 for some reason, though he does it elsewhere in scripture, reading between the lines shows the concept of the instinct for both man and woman. Esaias can not allow this to be thought so, because the instinct view messes up the veil view. But anyone, besides Esaias, reading Ge3.16 can see that instincts are revealed there.

Esaias misunderstands the concept of the instincts view. He thinks that the indistinct instinct within human nature will communicate with a woman's mind the need to cover the head during a worship service. His ideas, (the veil for worship times) long held, do not let go easily. Instincts don't have that kind of power, such as to communicate with the mind. But the mind can recognize that which God has put within the nature of Man by instincts. The mind can recognize the characteristics of instincts. What should be thought by the mind is that the instinct will lead a woman to do that which will bring her into conformity with the will of God shown in God's order of authority by: her attempts to satisfy the desire to please the man she was created for. She can do this by yielding to the God-given instinct shown in Ge3.16. One way, of many, to do this is through the use of the hair God has given her for adornment, placed on the head - the center of attention. (Adornment is the sole biological purpose of God-given hair) Men love the looks of long hair on a woman because they have a nature, an instinctual drive, which causes them to like pretty. If a woman would want to diss her man because she is angry with him, she may cut the hair he likes. If a woman wants to please her man, she may grow her hair long to please his desires for a pretty woman. Thus, symbolically, her long hair shows she gives respect to her man. The location of the symbol is at the center of attention. If she does so, then she shows prominently she is giving regard to God's order of authority. This has happened because she has yielded to the forces of an instinct - Your desire shall be for your husband. Does God speak just of Eve or all women? Doesn't God here indicate that this desire will be part of women's nature, by instincts? Of course. Eazy-peazy, unless you misinterpret 1Co11.5,6 to says God commands or to say God commands the veil. Because if you did, then what is seen here at the Beginning, and in the Age of Conscience, and in the time of the Law, would be explained by a woman's response to her instinctive use of hair, not by command which isn't there. And if you don't want to see hair as a cover, but a veil, then you deny the foundation scriptures which indicates your view has weaknesses which can't be explained away. Doing so makes you are out of sync with the only portion of scripture Paul holds, the OT. It has never commanded the veil. (I keep repeating this because Esaias won't tackle the objections shown in post47.)

Man requires REVELATION to know how to properly worship God.

Agreed.

To suggest that the acceptable worship of God...

To suggest that all of Man's correct social relations are demonstrating acceptable worship is not correct. It does not demonstrate acceptable worship when a couple love one another. Though desired by God to be so, correct social relationships do not demonstrate acceptable worship in the way you would have us believe a woman's veil does. You say: She dons a veil for church to demonstrate to God that she wants to maintain respect for God's order of authority. God wants a woman/man to have a correct social relationship with her husband/wife but doing so doesn't show direct acceptable worship of God, like you would have us believe a woman's veil does. These are dissimilar, not alike. When children are taught to honour their parents, they do so to demonstrate a correct social relationship but don't do so to demonstrate acceptable worship of God in the same way you would want us to believe a woman's veil does. It is a false comparison.

...can be discovered by NATURAL means, via "instincts" or "innate reasoning" apart from Divine Revelation, is practical atheism.

Yet Paul says in Ro1 that gentile idol worshippers are without excuse before God when not recognizing God's power and godhead from what God had created. Paul says they should have intuited by innate reasoning this knowledge of God from the natural world. Paul is not an atheist. Man demonstrates a knowledge of God of sorts, when forming a religion for example, though this religion may be far from revealing the true worship of God. All Men are born with an innate knowledge of God of sorts, in my opinion and yours also. That the majority of Men do so, demonstrates this as true. It appears to contradict what you say.

The Bible is pretty clear, that man requires REVELATION from God to know how to properly worship Him.

True.

Thus, man requires TEACHING, not "instinct".

Sure, said facetiously, because it explains why Enoch pleased God and was taken up, because he read the Bible for its teachings on God. And Noah too. He found grace because he spent hours a day reading the Bible's teaching, though it didn't yet exist. Without the Bible in hand they knew how to live to plz God. Did they have writings? Yes. The writings they held were opinions of Man, not God. They got these opinions from innate reasoning abilities, along with what was experienced with God, and by the few words God spoke occasionally. Yet we have not a record of God speaking of things related to the order of God's authority or of symbols, do we? These things gentile idol worshippers ignore/rejected, and this was not gained by God-fearers from teaching from God's Word which didn't exist in their hands. What could be known to them about symbols and covering and the order of authority was not known from God's Word by teaching. They got the knowledge of the order of authority the same way Paul did. He intuited it from the facts known of the Beginning. We must believe that Noah and Enoch should be seen to regard the order of God authority, as righteous people do. It was by expectation from rational thought alone, not teaching from God's Word about it. If it is said that God taught but it was never recorded, then we must ask why other important things were recorded but this important thing was not. If thought said, but not recorded, then it is only an assumption and assumptions are poor stones to place in doctrinal foundations.

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.

Indeed, Paul does tell them to veil, but not for reasons of a command of God. He wants them to walk in agreement with the customs of the society they live in.

Furthermore, Paul's words affirm that what he taught was the universal accepted practice of the churches of God.

You place the cart before the horse. You should have said the universal accepted practice affirms Paul's words. But seeing universal historically accepted practices may indicate a universal misinterpretation of Paul's difficult-words-to-interpret. Do these historical universally accepted practises change the Word of God, changing the lack of seeing a command (for the veil) in the OT? What do we usually do when the action of society is out of sync with the Word of God? Do we say the Word is right or that society is right? Paul's words make more sense when seen in the light of the instincts views. The veil view is out of sync with the OT, the only Book Paul has for a foundation for his thoughts. If what is believed of Paul's words doesn't sync with the macro view of the OT, then it should be adjusted till it does. The OT is the foundation for all of Paul's thoughts and what we say Paul is thinking should agree with what is seen in the OT. The veil view fails here.

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.

Many attempt to hold a view of this difficult passage, doing so while not presenting conflicts of logic or clashes with anothers views. Perhaps the instincts view does so with the least amounts. But it yet to be thoroughly reviewed/critiqued for defects in reason or conflicts with scriptural principles. Hence, its presentation here at AFF.


Part 2/2 to follow.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618885]PART 2/2.

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.

Reader, double check to see what Esaias purposely leaves out. What motivates one such as Esaias to leave out a portion of the scripture? Desperation?

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.

. Indeed. And you imply that God-given instincts should have control over all the actions of a Man with free will to sin. Obviously this level of control doesn't ever exist in a Man with a sinful nature. Instincts are easily over-powered by social forces, which may have been instigated by Satan's desire to destroy anything to do with God's influences. Not all women yield to the mothering instinct, when prods from other directions tell them not to have children, contrary to the Lord's universal command to go forth and multiply. Saying that all do not follow their instincts says nothing scripturally worthwhile to this discussion. It is belly-button-hole lint.

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.

As pointed out in a previous post, many people believe that the natural way for men/women is to have short hair/long hair, respectively. If this is held to as a universal truth, (it is by some, including the likes of the current leader of the apostolic UPC, D.K. Bernard) then God commands the Nazirite to act in a way which is contrary to universally believed truths. If God does not view instincts as commands, then instincts are suggestions. God does not judge the woman who acts contray to her mothering instincts/his-command-to-go-forth-and-multiply, as a sinner. Therefore, God can command the Nazirite contrary to a suggestion and not be seen to contradict himself or universally held not-scriptural beliefs.

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.

Indeed. God places created Man on the earth with free will, giving one command about a tree's fruit. He has an expectation that Man will figure how to live right but doesn't do a lot of commanding about it. It is all by expectation, which included the expectation that Man will give respect to God's order of authority. He does not command this expectation, nor yet command the symbols which show it is regarded. The principle of free will and expectation are active and real, though not ever detailed by statements. From the Beginning a woman's long hair symbolically was understood without command to show regard to her man and God. It was expected there, not commanded and because the players in the game are the same in 1Co11, then God need not command there which he never commanded in the Beginning. Those unwritten expectations aren't now changed mid-history to being written. Saying Paul now commands in 1Co11 shows God changing the principles applied in creation. If he changes principles then does he also change principles of free will? What else has changed, if eternal principles used at creation, only revealed by how God does things, are changed?

As such, it requires TEACHING (specifically DIVINE teaching from the Holy Ghost through His apostles, recorded in Holy Scripture).

But not by a misinterpretation of scripture, said by my biased opinion. What also is required to be taught is the instincts view. It does away with the holes shown by both the uncut long hair view and the veil view. It does away with the violations of the principles shown in post 47, which you have yet to address. A man of your knowledge and intellect and spiritual insight should have tackled them long ago. For some reason, reader, Esaias has not. Could it be because he has nothing to answer them with? It would be hard to show objections to truth using truth to object with. I believe that is the reason post 47 isn't addressed.

And so much for the supposed "instinct" view.

Wow, all that down the tubes without showing why the objections shown in post 47 are wrong. Why the rush to flush. The need to use toilet paper yet exists. Major avoidance and blinders shown here now by my brother in Jesus, who doesn't want to face facts. Oh, well. Dear reader, haven't I shown counter-points to the counter-points of others, showing them as wrong? I believe I have done so. I have answered others objections, yet many of my points are not countered. Why not? Answer: It is very difficult to argue with truth. It is hard to find facts and logic to use to battle with truth. This may be the reason why.

[Tithesmeister]

I’m not trying to disrupt the flow of debate, but your (Don’s) comment about women trying to diss men by cutting off their hair brings to mind a video I saw that had what evidently was a liberal woman who was having a meltdown over men voting for Trump. Evidently she didn’t approve. So she was ranting about men and misogyny and so forth.

And she was doing something else as well. She was cutting her own hair off while she was absolutely melting down and obviously being angry at all who dared identify as “men”. I knew she was very upset with men.

But why was she cutting her hair? And in such a crude and ugly fashion?

Because it was part of the package. It’s called the 4b movement. The women are vowing to basically not have relationships with men for four years. Cutting their hair is as you said. To diss men.

Interesting.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

The women are vowing to basically not have relationships with men for four years. Cutting their hair is as you said. To diss men.

Interesting.

These women would have been celibate even if Trump lost anyway, so there's that.

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by Esaias

These women would have been celibate even if Trump lost anyway, so there's that.

You’re probably right. It may be that they are taking the only option available, and pretending it was their idea.

[diakonos]

Originally Posted by Esaias

These women would have been celibate even if Trump lost anyway, so there's that.

And not even by choice.