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

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Since Don is trying to bring guilt through association I need to answer this trash.
Don, I used the quote. Therefore I needed to mention the individual who made the quote. I agree with the quote, not the author of the quote. Since you could never win a fair fight with anyone you look for garbage. Therefore you proved to me once again, that while you aren’t a Christian, you aren’t a man. I will no longer address you for any reason. You are a coward. Contemplate this on the tree of woe.

This post is about the use of nastiness. Don't waste your time reading this. This is mostly about Dom and Don.

You're right, Dom, I used the guilt by association tactic. You also used this tactic in post 491, by quoting Ro1.18-23 at me, without comment. I have a great teacher and example in your ways.

Dom, are you a disciple of Branham, errr, sorry, I mean Kevin Alfred Strom. (see post 498 and https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.co....php?t=55138Do for clarification.) Do you go to a Branhamite church, errr, sorry again, I mean meetings where the teachings of Kevin Alfred Strom are taught? (Doing something like this is fun when it is you doing it to others, right Dom? But not fun when someone does this to you?)

(see posts 425, 447, 450, 470, 477 for background info, where Dom uses Branham's name)

Thank you for setting the record straight, Dom, about Kevin Alfred Strom. Just by my quoting you quoting Kevin Alfred Strom, can lead to misunderstandings of you. Explanations must be made. Without such explanations you can be seen as favourable to all of Kevin Alfred Strom views. You've done a good thing for yourself and truth.

But why didn't you use a private message, Dom, when I suggested you do so, to clarify this? (Answer: because this is about Dom's public/AFF reputation. And does Dom care about another person's public reputation when he says nasty things of them in public? No, the nasty words flow easily from him then. In Dom's world the nastiness can only flow in one direction. You know which direction, don't you, Reader.)

Reader, Benincasa hasn't provided explanations why he rejects the iv. See a compilation of his comments in post 342, this man with great Biblical and worldly religion knowledge. I don't say this facetiously. Just read his many posts in AFF! You can see from his defence of himself in post 499, how easily a simple explanation can be made. Why he hasn't provided many simple anti-iv comments from reason or scripture, when it is so easy to do so, will remain a mystery for now.

Let's hope that he will yet provide explanations. But don't hold your breath for this. If he had been able to use arguments from reason, as he did with his defence of himself in the quote from Kevin Alfred Strom, then he would already have done so against the iv. When he hasn't, then he wants you to believe the iv is wrong just because he says so. Just because he thinks himself as The Authority, and then indicates this by doing so!

Dom is like a nasty school boy who uses dirty words. He calls me garbage, coward, and an unfair fighter, not a Christian or a man. Your colours are showing, Dom, when you say things like this. He likes to dish out negatives but cries like a baby (sorry babies for making you look bad) when someone gives it back. (Jas3.13 Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show by good conduct that his works are done in the meekness of wisdom. 14 But if you have bitter envy and self-seeking in your hearts, do not boast and lie against the truth. 15 This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual, demonic. 16 For where envy and self-seeking exist, confusion and every evil thing are there. 17 But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy. 18 Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.)

You know what people say: big people talk about ideas and small people talk about other people. Dom is small people kind of person, when he usually only says negative things of me, without discussing the iv or any other head-covering view. Plz see my commentary, over 10,00 words, for an example of me as a big people kind of person. I present arguments from reason, not nasty words.

Reader, you didn't get this far in life by not using your noodle. I'm sure you'll not be swayed by those like Benincasa, who dish out negatives without also giving theological thoughts from reason and scripture. He, this Authority, thinks you'll be persuaded about the iv or me, by nastiness alone.

[donfriesen1]

Post 500 was about komao in v15. This post is about komao in v14. Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair (komao), it is a dishonor to him?

This post is a continuation of the topic in post 500. The topic is: Greek word definitions and their use in Apostolic doctrine. I here present nothing new not previously presented.

Komao is a Greek word, which means long uncut hair.

The definition of long uncut hair used in v15 is not applied equally in v14 by Apostolics. v15 is used by Apostolics to teach that a woman should have uncut hair. If the same definition is used in v14 about men, then the result would be that 'it is a dishonour for a man to have uncut hair'. The way doctrine is practiced in Apostolic life is something different. It is: if you have long uncut hair it is a dishonour. The same definition is not applied equally for both genders.

You might see some twisting of thought to make a doctrine work, in the way definitions are used by Apostolics. To be consistent, the same definition should be applied equally to both men and women in both verses. I'm sure you'll see my point. If the same definition applied to a woman is used with a man, then it would only be dishonourable for a man to have long hair if it was uncut. The way Apostolic doctrine is practiced is, it is if a man has long hair, not uncut hair.

Why is such a double standard used in the application of a word definition for doctrine? It is because the misinterpreted scriptural doctrine will only work if a double standard is used. Defenders of the doctrine will be sputtering out excuses why it has to be as currently taught, but the logic that I present can't be denied.

Instead of presenting rational arguments to explain why it must be so, fingers will be pointed at any who would stand for the use of one definition for both genders. Things like: trouble-maker, a divisive pesonality, Apostolic-hater. None of these apply to the author of this thread, in his own estimation. I love the Apostolic faith but see a hair-doctrine which is a misinterpretation. I wish only for a better interpretation, without inconsistencies, from those who I consider family.

The truth is, it is presented so Apostolics can walk in truth and not walk with misinterpreted scripture. I love Apostolic doctrine when correctly interpreted. The Oneness and Jesus name baptism are firm foundation stones of my Apostolic Faith.

The iv has no issues with the use of the word definition of komao. It is applied equally in the iv to both genders. There is no need to employ a double standard as is done in current majority held Apostolic doctrine. Equal application would be expected in any doctrine which springs out of the truth of God. Misinterpretations of scripture lead to similar inconsistencies, such as are seen in other head covering views, like the ulv and the vv.

[donfriesen1]

Check out the internet for multiple examples of pagan people groups before Paul's time, whose women practiced uncut long hair and men short hair. That they did so without the Word of God is telling of something.

If it is said they do so by an inner voice of the Spirit, then why do pagans not listen to this Voice when it speaks of righteousness, perhaps only doing so for hair? It should rather be said they listen to the inner voice of instincts.

What the source of their practice is, these pagans far from Israel and the Word of God, who may have had the same hair practices, should tell all that what Paul speaks of has its source in something within the God-given nature of Man. Let's call it instincts, for that is what is described.

Should what is sourced in instincts be taught as if it is the Word of God? No.

That its source is that which God himself placed in Man by instincts, shouldn't lead anyone to say that it should not be practiced, but should also not lead anyone to say that it is a command of God. Paul may be referring to just this fact when he says, "we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God." 1Co11.16. He may be saying 'the church has not developed this custom as a commanded practice for all Christians to follow'.

It should be said that Paul, in 1Co11, writes about what he has seen in Man's practices, coming by instincts.

The OT he is willing to die for, contains no commands or references to that which he is wrongly said to teach. Those who teach that Paul is commanding from God (that manly long hair is sinful or sinful for a woman to cut her hair) do so by misinterpretation. If it is said Paul commands so, then these fail to demonstrate that it comes from the OT he loves. It contains commands contrary to that which he is said to NT teach.

Paul would not command that which is contrary to the OT. In it, some men are commanded to have long hair and some women are commanded to cut their hair. This should prevent the idea that Paul thinks they are considered sinful. Majority-held Apostolic doctrine of 1Co11 is a misinterpretation. The OT does not support this interpretation, when it should be thought to.

Paul bases his 1Co11 thought of the order of God's authority on what is seen in the OT, in the Beginning, but Paul does not NT teach on hair contrary to OT commands of hair. He thinks the OT is the Word of God. He would not NT command contrary to the OT.

A view of 1Co11 should be found which does not show Paul contradicting the OT. Is the iv that view?

[jediwill83]

You speak of "instincts" and what popped into my head was the mother ox the Philestines put the Ark on...it went against natural "instinct" when under the influence of the Spirit that was leading it because they penned up her calves and it carried the Ark lowing...

The Spirit will cause you to go against "instinct " of man...the natural tendencies...

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

You speak of "instincts" and what popped into my head was the mother ox the Philestines put the Ark on...it went against natural "instinct" when under the influence of the Spirit that was leading it because they penned up her calves and it carried the Ark lowing...

The Spirit will cause you to go against "instinct " of man...the natural tendencies...

Good observation.

Jediwill83 makes a theological critique of the iv. It is one of the few that have been offered in AFF. Thank you for it.

I agree with your ox cart observation. It is good reasoning. It describes supernatural intervention in a natural situation. But if anything, it is an exception to the rule. The following explains why.

Jediwill83, you say You speak of "instincts", referring to the iv. Rather this: the Bible, not me, speaks of instincts. I just refer in the iv, to that which the Bible speaks of indirectly, rightly dividing the word of truth in doing so. I only share what has been given to me.

1. Ge3.16 Your desire shall be for your husband is found in the Beginning. Paul references the Beginning in 1Co11. This instinct/desire was God-given. It will lead a woman, among many things, to have the long hair a man desires/finds attractive. Doing so, she shows regard to God's order of authority. Doing so, she is using a symbol to show she regards her man's likes. Woman, in all her many ways, was made for man. Purposely disregarding his likes can show a woman as outside of God's order of authority. Paul, in 1Co11, can be seen indirectly referring to this instinctive response when he refers to the Beginning. Even so, Eve was not commanded by God to display this symbol, or even to obey Adam. God also made no such symbol command in the 4000 years before Paul. What resulted in long hair came from a natural response to how God had made woman (and man). If not from natural response then the Bible would show God commanding Eve. He did not. Paul might have referenced OT verses on the subject, in 1Co11, if they were there to reference. But when there are none to reference, he should not be seen as commanding that which God had not. Paul thus shows he wants Man to live by their God-given instincts. The social rebellion active in Corinth around hair/veils was instigated by Satan to disrupt the God-given natural order.

Ponder this: where had God commanded A&E to obey the order of authority? Nowhere? Even so, it existed. It is an uncommanded principle to live by, revealed by no Bible writer but Paul. 1Co11 may be the only direct reference to it. Fools may not practice good principles, but is it a sin if not commanded? Certainly, one would fall far short of what one should be if not doing so, but is it a sin? And what of v5? But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head. Was this a sin for Eve when God has not commanded either the keeping of the order of authority or the need to cover her head? Apostolics have superseded the Lord and made a sin-issue of that which he has not, by commanding as from God about hair, that which he has not.

2. See also many OT verses which speak of men covering themselves when shamed or embarrassed. Most often it was done with a mantle. People today have this same covering response. In the absence of the mantle, they may cover their face with their hands. This shows us that God places an instinct leading Man to cover when shamed. Shamed Man does not glorify their God. Thus, Paul can be seen by these many OT verses to refer indirectly to instincts in 1Co11.4, Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.

I put 'embarrassed' in the browser search to check its spelling, and it gave me pictures of people with covered faces. Natural life agrees with the Word/the-Spirit's-leading in both genders by those examples above, and with the iv. This reflects scripture showing instincts are at play in 1Co11. Does God think 'not living by their instinct' is sin? Ch and v, plz, if thought so. Or some line of reasoning demonstrating it.

God has placed instincts within the nature of Man. As such, they are his "will". As the will of God they are the Spirit's leading. Would any deny that Man has instincts which have been placed by God? Of course not. But Esaias has (posts 114, 135-6) which view I hope he would today say he abandons. (I point out in another post that he uses an antiquated definition and not the modern definition.)

Jediwill83 says, The Spirit will cause you to go against "instinct " of man...the natural tendencies... True, in the situation noted. Perhaps Jediwill83 confuses the matter at hand (the iv and 1Co11) by unconsciously referring to carnal instincts of Man's sinful nature, while the iv refers to God-given instincts which he wants people to live by. Whether or not Jediwill83 does this, a woman's regard to follow the natural instinct to have children shows regard to the Lord's "command" to go forth and multiply. She does the intent of the Spirit's will when responding to her instincts. Does she sin if she does not multiply? Has anyone ever shown YES is the right answer?

It makes no sense to believe that the Spirit gives Man instincts and then the Spirit always leads to not live by them. So, what you say, by saying The Spirit will cause you to go against "instinct " of man, is only shown true in that situation. Yet, doing so there opens the possibility that it may be true in other times. If for a man to want short hair is instinctual, then God commands the long-time-vowed male Nazarite to act contrary to his instincts, by long hair. If it is instinctual for a woman to have long hair, then God commands the pagan woman (taken captive by an Israeli who wants her for a wife) to cut her hair contrary to instincts he himself has placed. God shows himself commanding contrary to instincts. Thus, not to live by instincts is not sinful, though they are given by God.

So, the Spirit may go against natural instincts. Definitely not always. It is natural for Man to live by God-given instincts and not to ignore them. See post 210 for an excellent explanation Esaias gives on 'natural'. He there sets out to disprove the iv. What he says about 'natural' is actually also about instincts, and thus is a proof of the iv. But Esaias is silent when I point out he proves the iv. And still he rejects the iv, though unwittingly defending it.

I contend that no head-covering/respect-for-God's-order-of-authority view of 1Co11 can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt - not even the iv. All views are based on personal conjecture to some extent. (God writes many things in such a way that he allows for multiple varying doctrines from it. If this insults your Apostolic sensibilities, then see Ro14; 15.1-7 for Paul's revealing on this principle. Apostolics at times do a great job at ignoring it. Many are adamant that God only speaks in such a way that it can only be interpreted one way. This also insults my own sensibilities on it, but who am I to argue with scripture?) In spite of this fact, I contend that the iv makes the best explanation of that which the whole Bible shows on the subject. Both the ulv and the vv have serious discrepancies which should cause their rejection.

Plz try again, Jediwill83, to show discrepancies in the iv. You have failed with this last attempt.

If the iv is disprovable by scripture and/or reason, then seasoned, knowledgeable AFF posters would long ago have shown it in error. That they have not done so - yet - shows the iv as sound by reason and Bible. Because of this, it is the view all Apostolics should hold.

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

Good observation.

Jediwill83 makes a theological critique of the iv. It is one of the few that have been offered in AFF. Thank you for it.

I agree with your ox cart observation. It is good reasoning. It describes supernatural intervention in a natural situation. But if anything, it is an exception to the rule. The following explains why.

Jediwill83, you say You speak of "instincts", referring to the iv. Rather this: the Bible, not me, speaks of instincts. I just refer in the iv, to that which the Bible speaks of indirectly, rightly dividing the word of truth in doing so. I only share what has been given to me.

1. Ge3.16 Your desire shall be for your husband is found in the Beginning. Paul references the Beginning in 1Co11. This instinct/desire was God-given. It will lead a woman, among many things, to have the long hair a man desires/finds attractive. Doing so, she shows regard to God's order of authority. Doing so, she is using a symbol to show she regards her man's likes. Woman, in all her many ways, was made for man. Purposely disregarding his likes can show a woman as outside of God's order of authority. Paul, in 1Co11, can be seen indirectly referring to this instinctive response when he refers to the Beginning. Even so, Eve was not commanded by God to display this symbol, or even to obey Adam. God also made no such symbol command in the 4000 years before Paul. What resulted in long hair came from a natural response to how God had made woman (and man). If not from natural response then the Bible would show God commanding Eve. He did not. Paul might have referenced OT verses on the subject, in 1Co11, if they were there to reference. But when there are none to reference, he should not be seen as commanding that which God had not. Paul thus shows he wants Man to live by their God-given instincts. The social rebellion active in Corinth around hair/veils was instigated by Satan to disrupt the God-given natural order.

Ponder this: where had God commanded A&E to obey the order of authority? Nowhere? Even so, it existed. It is an uncommanded principle to live by, revealed by no Bible writer but Paul. 1Co11 may be the only direct reference to it. Fools may not practice good principles, but is it a sin if not commanded? Certainly, one would fall far short of what one should be if not doing so, but is it a sin? And what of v5? But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head. Was this a sin for Eve when God has not commanded either the keeping of the order of authority or the need to cover her head? Apostolics have superseded the Lord and made a sin-issue of that which he has not, by commanding as from God about hair, that which he has not.

2. See also many OT verses which speak of men covering themselves when shamed or embarrassed. Most often it was done with a mantle. People today have this same covering response. In the absence of the mantle, they may cover their face with their hands. This shows us that God places an instinct leading Man to cover when shamed. Shamed Man does not glorify their God. Thus, Paul can be seen by these many OT verses to refer indirectly to instincts in 1Co11.4, Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head.

I put 'embarrassed' in the browser search to check its spelling, and it gave me pictures of people with covered faces. Natural life agrees with the Word/the-Spirit's-leading in both genders by those examples above, and with the iv. This reflects scripture showing instincts are at play in 1Co11. Does God think 'not living by their instinct' is sin? Ch and v, plz, if thought so. Or some line of reasoning demonstrating it.

God has placed instincts within the nature of Man. As such, they are his "will". As the will of God they are the Spirit's leading. Would any deny that Man has instincts which have been placed by God? Of course not. But Esaias has (posts 114, 135-6) which view I hope he would today say he abandons. (I point out in another post that he uses an antiquated definition and not the modern definition.)

Jediwill83 says, The Spirit will cause you to go against "instinct " of man...the natural tendencies... True, in the situation noted. Perhaps Jediwill83 confuses the matter at hand (the iv and 1Co11) by unconsciously referring to carnal instincts of Man's sinful nature, while the iv refers to God-given instincts which he wants people to live by. Whether or not Jediwill83 does this, a woman's regard to follow the natural instinct to have children shows regard to the Lord's "command" to go forth and multiply. She does the intent of the Spirit's will when responding to her instincts. Does she sin if she does not multiply? Has anyone ever shown YES is the right answer?

It makes no sense to believe that the Spirit gives Man instincts and then the Spirit always leads to not live by them. So, what you say, by saying The Spirit will cause you to go against "instinct " of man, is only shown true in that situation. Yet, doing so there opens the possibility that it may be true in other times. If for a man to want short hair is instinctual, then God commands the long-time-vowed male Nazarite to act contrary to his instincts, by long hair. If it is instinctual for a woman to have long hair, then God commands the pagan woman (taken captive by an Israeli who wants her for a wife) to cut her hair contrary to instincts he himself has placed. God shows himself commanding contrary to instincts. Thus, not to live by instincts is not sinful, though they are given by God.

So, the Spirit may go against natural instincts. Definitely not always. It is natural for Man to live by God-given instincts and not to ignore them. See post 210 for an excellent explanation Esaias gives on 'natural'. He there sets out to disprove the iv. What he says about 'natural' is actually also about instincts, and thus is a proof of the iv. But Esaias is silent when I point out he proves the iv. And still he rejects the iv, though unwittingly defending it.

I contend that no head-covering/respect-for-God's-order-of-authority view of 1Co11 can be proved beyond a shadow of a doubt - not even the iv. All views are based on personal conjecture to some extent. (God writes many things in such a way that he allows for multiple varying doctrines from it. If this insults your Apostolic sensibilities, then see Ro14; 15.1-7 for Paul's revealing on this principle. Apostolics at times do a great job at ignoring it. Many are adamant that God only speaks in such a way that it can only be interpreted one way. This also insults my own sensibilities on it, but who am I to argue with scripture?) In spite of this fact, I contend that the iv makes the best explanation of that which the whole Bible shows on the subject. Both the ulv and the vv have serious discrepancies which should cause their rejection.

Plz try again, Jediwill83, to show discrepancies in the iv. You have failed with this last attempt.

If the iv is disprovable by scripture and/or reason, then seasoned, knowledgeable AFF posters would long ago have shown it in error. That they have not done so - yet - shows the iv as sound by reason and Bible. Because of this, it is the view all Apostolics should hold.

I wasnt attempting to disprove anything or prove anything really. I was simply making an observation on the nature of creation vs the will of the Spirit which seems to lead man into behaving as if he has a different nature...and apparently with other things He created as well.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

I wasnt attempting to disprove anything or prove anything really. I was simply making an observation on the nature of creation vs the will of the Spirit which seems to lead man into behaving as if he has a different nature...and apparently with other things He created as well.

Is it possible that the "nature of creation" is actually in line with the will of the Spirit, but the problem is people are not actually operating according to their created nature, but rather a corrupted version of it? So that regeneration isn't so much about getting a new nature that is "better" than the one God originally created a person with, but instead is about getting a new nature that is actually what the original nature was supposed to be?

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Is it possible that the "nature of creation" is actually in line with the will of the Spirit, but the problem is people are not actually operating according to their created nature, but rather a corrupted version of it? So that regeneration isn't so much about getting a new nature that is "better" than the one God originally created a person with, but instead is about getting a new nature that is actually what the original nature was supposed to be?

Paul mentions 'nature' in 1Co11, so nature is somewhat related to this thread. Paul also refers to creation, and so a discussion on creation would also be related. But a detailed discussion on creation, the nature of Man, and the will of the Spirit, would have a better home in its own thread, rather than within a '1Co11' thread, don't you agree?

[donfriesen1]

Though seemingly not directly related to 1Co11, yet at its root the following is.

Eph4 shows Paul writing 'Till we all come in the unity of the faith'. Saying so, he shows that the early church was not united on every point.

But in the same chapter he also says 'One Lord, one faith, one baptism'. They were united in the essentials but not peripherals. Knowing Eph4 belies that which many say about the early Church being totally united in doctrine.

Paul elsewhere unwittingly, perhaps knowingly, describes a God who provides words of instruction (doctrine) which can be interpreted differently by different people. Read on, both here and in Ro14 + 15.

Does God do so purposely? Apparently, YES, as the Author of the Book can make no mistakes. Some Apostolics like to think of God as always, emphasis on always, clearly providing every doctrine. God is a God of Light and not murkiness, it is said, always providing perfect light for perfect doctrine. But Paul, through Ro14; 15.1-7 shows us this just is not so in every area.

But people/Apostolics prefer a world without the uncertainty of murkiness. Preachers sometimes teach using methods that demonstrate that God is absolutely clear on every docrine, while Paul shows contrary - that he is not. Some Pastors present all doctrines as perfect, coming from perfect light. Any contradicting these doctrines are set aside, both in mind and in practical social ways, showing their rejection of what Ro14 teaches takes place. (Eph4 shows Paul writing 'Till we all come in the unity of the faith'. Saying so, he admits that the early church was not united on every point. But in the same chapter he also says 'One Lord, one faith, one baptism'. There are no alternate possibilities when a doctrine is described as 'one'. These 'one' doctrines stand incontrovertibly as pure light.)

Pastors may set aside those in their congregation/team who would teach an area of Ro14-kind-of-doctrine different than they do. These then are not provided as many opportunities to minister or perhaps denied leadership roles. This is contrary to Paul's Ro14 instruction. Paul says 'to receive, judge not, etc'. Paul's teaching/attitude is: if you don't believe the same as me on peripherals you can still be on my ministry team.

Not many Biblical topics receive great amounts of words on one page. This topic has. It is over a chapter in length. In spite of this, it is not part of some Pastors' governance methodology. Changes need to be made. The governance methodology of Paul needs to be incorporated in order to be a NT church fully functioning by NT rules. There are Leaders who tolerate no variance of unity with them and they are applauded as strong leaders who should be emulated, while they contravene Paul's Ro14 instruction for church governance.

One particular area of scripture which could be described as a Ro14-kind-of-doctrine is 1Co11. It has been described countless times by many scholars as the single most-difficult Biblical passage to get a clear understanding of. Yet some Apostolic leaders get to teaching, and their presentation of it is as if pure light through and through - undeniable Truth. Do not dare to question their view, for you will be labelled as anti-Biblical and anti-God.

Those who take this approach should be reminded of Ro14; 15.1-7. Heb6 does not show the topic of 1Co11 as one of the first principles of the doctrine of Christ. Not making the cut for Heb6 shows it as making the making the cut for Ro14. Those Pastors/leaders, who may set aside in mind and practice those others for believing differently than they, by doing so have shown they believe it should be in Heb6 as a first principle.

God and the writers of the NT do not. Their opinion on the matter is shown questioned by the actions/attitudes of those who do. By practice, the Word is shown questioned.

Righteous zeal for the practice of all the Word of God (including 1Co11) has led to an oversight in the practice of other areas (Ro14). Corrections must be made for today's church to correctly reflect the NT which Apostolics passionately want to reflect.

[donfriesen1]

A similarity between Apostolic and Trinitarian people exists:

The following happens all the time: Apostolics share Jesus-name baptism scriptures with a Trinitarian. The Trinitarian walks away, never to be heard from again. They could be thinking: 'I already have a scriptural baptism, from Mt28.19.' The Jesus name baptism verses shared, showing the inconsistency of their views, are ignored.

A similar thing happens in the sharing of the iv. Apostlics think to themselves, 'we already have a scripturally-based head covering doctrine.' All the arguments put forward in the iv which show the inconsistencies in the ulv or vv are ignored, as is done by Trinitarians who reject Jesus-name baptism.

It the nature of humans to reject the new, even in the face of Biblical evidence. Go and figure it out.