[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Don

Thank you for your respectful reply.


You've said:

You either expect posters to agree outright

with your views, or, by your own estimation, they are simply

incapable of disproving your views.

You've left

something out. I would hope, as all posters do, that all would want

others to agree when correctly interpreting scripture, using

rational means to do so. Just disagreeing with my view fails to

explain how it is wrong. Of course some disagree and have taken

efforts to show how so. When I've shown how their efforts are

flawed, this doesn't mean that I'm pig-headly stubborn. My retort

to a rebuttal should be countered by their explanation why the

retort is wrong. This hasn't been done. Apparently, when their

rebuttal is offered, it is offered with their understanding that I will

kowtow to it without opposition. This I will not do unless it is

known to me to be true. I will bow to truth and rational reason. If

everyone bowed whenever someone countered a point of their's,

then the Apostolic church would not exist. Truth demands that

lovers of truth continue to hold truth in face of disagreement.



Whether anyone here in Canada or in history agrees with me or

not is not a theological point of proof. Yet this is not a totally

irrelevant counterpoint. People that know and recognise truth will

all agree when truth is presented. A consensus of truth-opinion

may then be shown. This is what you refer to. But you as an Apostolic must

know the scripture

that says the way of God is the narrow way and few that be that

find it. Some religious people who profess to know God reject

gospel truth, in spite of their claims. If you are not aware, this iv is

a new-to-me view. If I am the first to hold it then two possibilities

exist. It will either be proved wrong or it will be accepted by some

to continue. As of yet in my estimation, those Apostolics who have

read it are a poor example of good efforts shown to prove the iv

claims wrong. Instead of taking good theological efforts, most

have only proffered negative untheological comments. Some have

given counter-arguments which actually showed support. I'm

waiting for those, such as yourself and others in AFF, to show how

the points I've made are wrong, using theological arguments which

all readers can examine for acceptance or rejection. Those readers

who are awake are waiting for some strong theological counter-

points to the iv. Are you the one to give them?



As an Apostolic you must be aware of the slow acceptance of Jesus

name baptism after its initial accidental revelation in that camp

meeting long ago. That it wasn't embraced by all gung-ho is not

surprising. It is human nature to resist change. But time and love

for the Word has prevailed but only in a minority who love truth

more than anything. It is not surprising that no one rushes to

accept the iv. As it was with baptism, so shall it be with the iv. I

would contend that it may be truth which seemingly was long lost

had been re-discovered. As with baptism so it may be with head-

covering. But the iv may yet be proved wrong.



I am one with a new view of head-coverings. I may yet be proved

wrong. I've asked sincerely for a critical review of it. No one ever

wants to be a lone sheep in the middle of the pasture. No one, not

me. But it takes the one to take the first step which others may

then follow. I cannot deny what I've been shown. I must share or I

fear I would sin. That I'm alone and the only one to now hold the

iv is an unfortunate but irrelevant truth-wise reality which I must

now bear in hope that this will change. Truth will prevail in those

who love truth more than tradition.



Answer this question for yourself or in print for all here in AFF.

Whether you hold to the vv or the ulv, why is it that only 1Co11

shows support for it? We are constantly told by scholars not to

build our doctrines on only one scripture. Read the whole Book

they say. If it is God's view then the whole Book will show support

for it and not only one passage. Does the whole Book show

support for your scriptural view? Or does another view better

represent the whole Bible?



Answer this question for yourself or in print for all here in AFF.

Whether you believe in the vv or the ulv, it appears that Paul is

telling the Co to do that which their culture is already practising!

Co culture believed that a woman should have both long hair and

the veil. Yet those who hold to the vv or the ulv say that Paul now

commands them to keep as from God. Am I the only one that sees

something awry in this?



Answer this question for yourself or in print for all here in AFF. How

is it that God does not tell A&E about co/unco if he expects them

to show respect to God's order of authority by symbols? Does it

make sense to you that A&E were not expected to show respect by

symbols? If they are expected to, then how can they ever learn of

it when God is silent? It must be that it is learned other ways. I

suggest instincts.


Answer this question for yourself or in print for all here in AFF. If

Paul shows us in 1Co11 that the Beginning is the source for what

he believes, then why, when we read the same scriptures he does

in Ge2,3, why do we see nothing of words from God having to do

with the subject? We must conclude either that he speaks from

revelation or that he makes it up (deductive reasoning). If he

speaks from revelation then he has no need to refer to the

Beginning scriptures. If is not revelation, then he has then made it up.

If he makes it up, then it is not a command of God. Paul has

discovered a principle by deductive reasoning. Principles, which are

good and should be followed, are not commands. Thus, Paul does

not command the keeping of respect for God's order of authority

by symbols. He reveals a principle. (Alas, Apostolics, who love the

idea that God is always commanding, have turned a principle into

a command. This in spite of knowing that God does not command

tithing and then practice it as by principle.) Even if my church or

no one from history has shown they believe this, it does not

detract that it is truth. Can you show it is not truth? Can you show

that Paul does not use deductive reasoning by refering to words of

God at the Beginning? Good luck with that.



Reader, Votivesoul and Esaias and Evang Benincasa think I'm nuts

and have stated they think so. Ask yourself about the above

paragraphs: are they the words of someone who is nuts? Are these

not the words of reason of someone who has read the Word of God

but offers an alternate interpretation than the traditional?



Lets not hold our breath, for these are experienced saints with

great knowledge who may yet dash the iv to the floor and crush it

underfeet with their great abilities. (I do not mock. I sincerely

believe these have much greater understanding and knowledge

than mine.) Yet I trust in the Lord Jesus Christ who has given me

the iv understanding and boast that his knowledge and wisdom

surpasses theirs.