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

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=votivesoul;1620670]Dear Sister,

Votive Soul (VS) says:

The problem with this, is Paul eventually did confer with the Apostles in Jerusalem to make certain he hadn't been running in vain (Galatians 2:1-2). And he did so privately, so as to not cause division or confusion. And Paul found out his Gospel was identical to the Gospel preached by the Twelve.

Don has no one with whom he may confer, apparently, besides us few remaining posters here at AFF, and we have all rejected his view, and yet, he insists he hasn't run, and is not running, in vain.

This is the very definition of heresy*, and is the very reason Paul admonishes us to reject such people from leadership (Titus 3:10).

You make an very valuable point saying what you said about the Gospel. Loners may be in a dangerous place.

Yet this is not a contest between two sides: one which is composed of infallible veterans; the other a heresy. Veterans are not the authority. When Paul went to the 12 there was no NT Word-authority to compare to. With the OT Word, the 12 were the authority. The veterans of AFF have not displaced the 12 or the Word. Today we go direct to the source, the Word, to compare. We (the posters in this thread) have equal access to the same scriptures and the same experience: the new birth. The same Spirit is at work in us, having equal access to teach us. We are all in the same family, though differing in experiences, understanding and knowledge. We are more alike than we are unalike, as Apostolics. When seen as equals, the contest is between our understanding of scripture and logic, and not each other, as you erroneously describe.

And how many of all AFF members, have chimed-in on this thread? All 12 "Apostles"? No. Of those few who have, all stood-up for their opinions. Yet some would not even go so far as to say which head-covering view they held! Such was the great extend of their theological counter arguments. They are not seen appealing to the true authority. They thus indicate they should be believed just because they have opined and are the authority to be believed. Hog wash.

Of those few, what are the points they make to defeat the iv? I did compilations of their points, to show this, which any could read for an overview. See posts: 305, 334-5, 342.

That which I say is seen of them (can be shown true or false by reviewing the thread) was mostly 'a standing-tall for their favoured view', instead of efforts to disprove the iv. I was disappointed than none stepped up with theological counter-points to the iv. I was surprised that the best they put forward was weak. I expected better from veterans. When I countered an argument they made, no response was given to rationalize my counter-points as wrong.

I now may get a fat head, thinking I'm actually smart. Me against veterans and seen as winning!

One notable exception was a man I view as an AFF luminary. Esaias. In one post he went to great lengths to present proofs of the 'nature' Paul speaks of. Plz read post 210 and 212, for they have great insight for all. I pointed out that what Esaias had said actually was proof of the iv and not proof against it. He also didn't respond to my counter-points. Am I winning?

Why have so few theological arguments been presented to counter the iv, if it is so frightful as to be described as heresy? Why have those, who for long times are seen as AFF veterans, at a loss to discredit it with either logic or scripture? Why don't they? Why don't you? Why haven't you yet?

Instead, what is said by them is mostly personal opinion and not Bible opinion, which having some value, is not of great value for formulating doctrine or defining heresy. We want to see Scripture and scripture-based logic used, as was weakly attempted by VS in his latest post.

Therefore, what you say above is moot. Paul and the 12 were both deeply involved in the same thing. It is false comparison to compare 'me' to 'AFF veterans', when AFF veterans haven't really entered in by more than just opinon to counter that which is scripturally-based. (One favourite argument against the iv is concisely stated as "Don is wrong". So deep! Such great scriptural insight! With such great arguments against me, I should have thrown away my pen, run home to Mommy, to bury my head in shame.)

Why don't you, yourself, starting today, present some ant-iv arguments, by giving scriptures showing why Paul would say that a man's covered head dishonours God, using the OT, the only scripture Paul had when writing the Corinthians. Use only the OT to prove what you conclude, using that which Paul would have read leading to the conclusion which an Apostolic majority say Paul comes to - long hair on a man is sinful. (It will be very difficult to base conclusions only on the OT Word when decades of thought have always indicated long hair is sinful on a man. Yet rational thought can elevate the Word's conclusions above all, if sufficient effort is made.)

More to follow.

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=votivesoul;1620670]

Thx for many thoughts, votivesoul (vs). Blue text quotes 'vs' from Post 519

vs points to Post 375. I hope those who haven't yet read it, will. Of the many points shown there, vs has only extracted 2 small quotes to reply to, while ignoring meat. Such are the ways when having nothing of substance to reply. Strains at mint and cummin while ignoring substantial. I'll now be condemned for inaccuracies, when not including anise

Quote 1: I cannot deny what I've been shown. Don claims he was shown this understanding, that is, his Instinct View of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. And, we might wonder, who showed Don this view? Quote 2: Yet I trust in the Lord Jesus Christ who has given me the iv understanding...The Lord Jesus personally gave Don the IV understanding of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. Don claims to have received personal and private revelation from the Lord Jesus

Well, well, well, well, well. You insinuate what I haven't, in a way which I wouldn't. Some might understand you to say that I said I received a personal visit from the Lord to verbally share a revelation. Doing so, your careful wording distort mine, to represent what I have never did

To be explicit: I've never had a personal visit from the Lord, who hasn't verbally shared a revelation with me. Apostolics (I am one) believe the Spirit speaks to hearts. I have not written to exaggerate this 'speaking to the heart' like you exaggerate my words to be something they are not. Why do you use methods which truth itself does not use? You have not learnt truth's ways. Doing so may reveal weaknesses you attempt to accommodate by exaggerations. If you do so purposely, shame on you

(he makes it clear that he is the only person he knows of who believes this view in the post shared in the link above). What you say is factual. To my knowledge, I am the only one to believe in the iv. You make a pertinent point. While true that any who alone believes in something is in danger of believing wrongly, it may be too early in the game to say the iv is false. This is just the 1st inning. The top of the first. Score: 7-0. The opposition hasn't yet come to the plate to knock one out of the park for the score board. So, let's wait a while

Friends said similarly to Luther. He replied "if the whole world is against me, I am against the whole world". He stood sure on the Word, waiting for others to catch up. How did that turn out? (they'll now say I claim to be both an apostle and a Luther.)

What hasn't been done yet in this thread is showing error, disproving the claims of the iv by evidence. The opposition has yet to come to bat to hit a run. Those in AFF who haven't accepted the iv, haven't shown it wrong.

What does it speak to, in those veterans who don't accept newly-revealed scriptural interpretations? Stubbornness? Sectarianism? I've noticed, for the most part, any counter-efforts are mostly opinions

Effectively, Don is claiming Apostolic Authority on par with Paul, who received the Gospel by revelation of Jesus Christ, according to Galatians 1:11-12. Errr...I'm an Apostle??? I'm flattered. Thx for a chuckle!

Readers have seen me many times claiming to be human, capable of errors. I've begged to be shown how I'm wrong. This hasn't happened. Effectively then, I'm not be human? In the real world no, but in AFF, effectively yes? But what if God actually did give me Apostolic authority? (which he didn't) God can do things any way he wants, with or without vs's approval

I recently shared the following. They are opinions. Apostolics say 'the Lord showed me' when they Bible-discover something new, or when a new-to-them thought comes. Can the difference between 'God-given deductive reasoning abilities' and 'the voice of the Spirit' be known? It may not be possible to determine. And so, what we ascribe to the Spirit by 'the Lord showed me', may just be the use of the mind the way God designed it. Thus, what I call a 'revelation' may be deductive reasoning. I thereby give precision to sayings previously used with inprecision

And have you read 1Co14:26 Whenever you come together, each of you has a...revelation... You seemingly usurp the role of an Apostle to do what an actual apostle does not do - discourage the sharing of a revelation. A usurping false apostle? Or a human, who may make errors? If you are human, then I would hope graciousness would be extended to those others capable of error. Instead of an explanation showing any errors, the extreme: label one a heretic and a false Apostle! What judgment you use you will be...

The problem with this, is Paul eventually did confer with the Apostles in Jerusalem to make certain he hadn't been running in vain (Galatians 2:1-2). And he did so privately, so as to not cause division or confusion. And Paul found out his Gospel was identical to the Gospel preached by the Twelve. You refer to a very important concept

Don has no one with whom he may confer, apparently, besides us few remaining posters here at AFF, and we have all rejected his view, and yet, he insists he hasn't run, and is not running, in vain. Not quite true, but...Using similar methods results in seeing Apostolics as what? Wrong like me as a minority? Correctness is not determined by majority. Where are any counter-to-the-iv proofs from this authoritative AFF majority -- where? Why are they not revealed if existing?

This is the very definition of heresy*, and is the very reason Paul admonishes us to reject such people from leadership (Titus 3:10). What we see in the Spirit-filled who are never ever said to hear imperfectly from God, is 2 views: 1. vv. 2. ulv. Apostolic leaders/orgs show 2 views as acceptable. Either one of these must also be heresy, by vs's methods, when not agreeing, though both acceptable to Apostolic leadership. Either this OR the Bible presents 2 simultaneous correct views? Apostolics strive to be 100% scriptural but apparently fail when it comes to head-coverings, because their leaders deem 2-contrary to be OK, and neither of them heretical? Do you reject authority of leadership like you say I reject the authority of AFF veterans? Which of these is heretical, vs, so all will know your contrary-to-leaders view?

If 2 views are acceptable then how about accepting a third? vs has said any holding the iv is a heretic. And what then of those who hold 2 as acceptable? Does vs only have heresy-eyes for 1 of 3, and not 2 of 3? Yes? Is vs demonstrating bias? Maybe

[Include your name, so as not to hide behind anonymity. Be a man when making serious accusations. Own up, using your name. The accused has a right to face the accuser. READERS: vs will not do so. Instead he'll run off, anonymously screaming 'heretic!' Anyone can scream obscenities while they run away because they don't want to own up by personal presence

It's easy to anonymously slander someone as a liberal, but not so likely to be done publicly, when someone can look you up to throw a rock through your window]

By the use of your methods, vs, many Apostolics are heretics by holding one of the 2 head-covering views. But don't define a heretic like Paul doesn't do in Ro14, ok? He allows people to hold differences of interpretation on (some) doctrines, doesn't he? Doesn't he? Yes, not calling them heretics. Paul gets his schooling in a different place than vs, who may not be a pal of Ro14. Who of these 2 should be believed? I'd allow that 2 interpretations are allowed on 1Co11, like Apostolics leaders already do, adding a third, and not like vs, who seems to usurp the authority of church leadership, to label as a heretic those they have not

False Apostle, usurper, rejecting leadership. Your labels are adding up, vs!

And Titus 3:10? Would vs describe as heretics those who divided the early 20th century Pentecostals when insisting baptism be in Jesus name? No? Did Trinitarians not have a scriptural doctrine? Yes, poorly-made misinterpretation. This shows that interpretive method is of highest importance when determining heresy. Also so in head-coverings. Yet, vs ignores right method by rejecting the teaching of an apostle, Ro14, when he determines heresy

Any interpretation represents opinions they hold the only right interpretation using right methods. I've presented the inconsistencies of the ulv and the vv, detailing the wrongs of both. The AFF veterans ignore, and don't respond. Cat got your tongue?

"We've got (all) the truth" is the Apostolic mantra. Apparently, we don't, when accepting multiple head-covering doctrine. But rather this: some things in the Bible are written in a way that some doctrines cannot be determined with surety. Ro14 shows this to be OK. Yet, when it comes to the iv and vs, it is not acceptable while among 2 others. Do you see vs wrong on only accepting 2? Seemingly, only 2 views can be held of 1Co11, not 3. The iv is rejected, effectively deleting Ro14. A 'respect of doctrine' similar to 'respect of persons' is demonstrated. Will we see an 'Amen' from vs?

What is done in vs's reply has been done many times in not wanting to accept something new. When examining and not able to refute claims, it is vilified. Ranting against it without evidence, provides nothing of value. Such don't accept new scriptural revelation because they already got all the truth that can be got, effectively determining limits on what shines more and more unto that perfect day.

Whatever is within them reacts using opinions and slander when they don't have the arguments or facts to disprove the new. Not being able to disprove the iv with evidence because they can't, attacks are then made on the messenger's character instead: they are a heretic. Oh, well. Such is life

Yet, I applaud these theological efforts to refute the iv, but failing. It's been great fun to reply. Do come again real soon

[donfriesen1]

After long delay since the last post, Readers hoping that solid arguments from logic and scripture in counter-points to the iv would be provided by AFF veterans, are again disappointed.

Those who are veterans of AFF, having great knowledge of the Bible and the world and religious thought, do not attempt to provide sufficient counter points to convincingly refute the iv.

If any would seriously attempt to refute that 1+1=2, they would have great difficulty doing so. It is hard to refute truth. Attempts can be made but not using truth to disprove truth. Untruth methods must be used. This may be the reason the AFF veterans do not step forward. There are no truth methods to disprove it. As such, it may be that the iv is truth which is hard to refute, and may be the head covering doctrine all Apostolics should hold.

Those veterans of AFF, some who have styled themselves as the AFF-authoritative source for Biblical interpretation, do not make serious attempts to disprove the iv. (Except for Esaias. To his credit, he has, partially.) Doing so may be like attempting to disprove 1+1=2. They would then be seen as fools. Yet, the AFF veterans are wise when not making these attempts, not wanting to be seen as fools.

Better to be silent and thought a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Yet, the wise ones do not seem to be wise enough to say they accept the iv. Are they smart, but not smart enough?

But any chastizing should be reserved. It is never wise to quickly accept anything new. The wise delay, but don't delay forever. That would be foolish.

[diakonos]

Better to be silent and thought a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Yet, you keep bumping this thread.

[Monterrey]

So really, what exactly is this thread about? Can you be more specific in 20 words or less? Are we talking about awnings on mobile homes?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Monterrey

So really, what exactly is this thread about? Can you be more specific in 20 words or less? Are we talking about awnings on mobile homes?

Thanks a lot

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by diakonos

Yet, you keep bumping this thread.

Don doesn’t take his own advice.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by diakonos

Yet, you keep bumping this thread.

diakonos quotes me saying, "Better to be silent and thought a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt." and then "Yet, you keep bumping this thread", thus insinuating I've made a fool of myself. Thank you for your opinions.

Opinions expressed are read, noted, and categorized by myself. Very few opinions stated by veterans of AFF are more than characterizations of myself, not being opinions against the iv or the points its made. When I die, those characterizations will likely fade into history with me.

The few opinions against the iv thus far have been of little theological value. As such, they will also fade.

If I were a prognasticator, I'd say that eventually the iv will be accepted. New things take a while to be accepted but they eventually prevail when from solid reasoning. Those who failed to get in on the ground floor may then begrudgingly tag along with the majority.

I continually beg for efforts to disprove the iv. This can yet be done.

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

Readers, you'll notice that I mock the veterans of AFF. I do so in hopes that these prods will produce some apt theological responses. My efforts have failed for the most part. That no arguments are forthcoming is telling. That nothing has been presented may indicate that nothing can be presented.

Yet, the non-efforts are not themselves without value. The absence of counter-arguments is a testimony to the verity of the iv.

Plz, diakonos, be the one to dismantle the arguments presented by the iv, which I logically/scripturally present as truth for all to hold. Yet, Readers of diakonos's comments so far in this thread will realize it will not be so. diakonos will again disappoint.

There once was a head-covering thread in AFF which lasted for 81 pages, "Uncut Hair and the Nazirite Vow for Women". The author, Costeon, was the inspiration motivating me. God bless him is my heart-felt thought. I read all 81 pages, twice. He sparred much with rdp (Roger Perkins). Perhaps these brethern can be persuaded to weigh in to disprove the iv. It should be great enlightening fun to hear from them.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Monterrey

So really, what exactly is this thread about? Can you be more specific in 20 words or less? Are we talking about awnings on mobile homes?

TWENTY WORDS.

The Bible shows those following their God-given instincts will be showing respect for God's order of authority using symbols. TWENTY WORDS. In a nutshell, this is the iv.

If laziness is the reason for asking for '20 word condensing', then respectfully, you are in the wrong thread. Continue elsewhere with laziness and misinterpreted 1Co11. If not laziness, then read on.

Alternatively, for those wanting to take the time, see the link in post 1, for detailed specifics. It takes many words to show the errors of reason used in any misinterpretation and many additional words to show the reasons of another interpretation, in presenting scripture in a way without discrepancies.

What has been generations in the making and long practiced as doctrine, resulting in that which is daily brought to mind just by looking in the mirror, will be hard to condense to 20 words. Yet, I foolishly do so (Dominic Benincasa will chime in with an Amen to my being a fool, exhibiting thereby the full extent of any theological criticisms he has of the iv. He who had said long ago that he is finished with me as a fool and won't chime into this thread any longer, shows inconsistencies thereby. Perhaps he will further demonstrate inconsistency by accepting the iv?), doing so without showing here the evidence from reason and scripture normally shown to enquirers. Reader be aware, when rejecting the conclusion shown here doing so, without also looking elsewhere at the evidence leading to these conclusions.

God had not given commands of those in the OT ages to: show respect to the Order of Authority, nor to have head-covering symbols. Prove this wrong, if you can. Why had God not commanded such of those? The commands actually should have been seen. There must be an explanation of why not, or it results in a huge 4000 year gap in doctrine. The iv gives that explanation. The ulv and vv do not.

It is illogical to assume any OT-ages God-fearers did not show respect to God's Order of Authority, using symbols. Yet this is the point Esaias has long made. They achieved it in ways other than commands. It is logical to assume the instincts shown in the OT were the means.

Also: Paul, a lover of the OT, would have concluded the above by reading the OT. He would not command what the OT had not shown, when the OT is the only Word he reads. It is logical to assume this.

What is said by the ulv and the vv (as a conclusion of what Paul says in 1Co11), is a misinterpretation, when it is seen they have no support in the only Word Paul reads - the OT. Any interpretation drawn from Paul's words should be in agreement with what is seen in the OT. Both the ulv and vv do not agree with the OT. The iv is in agreement with both the OT and NT, though contradicting the long held views of the ulv and vv. And the authoritative veterans of AFF reject the logic and scriptural interpretation of the iv. They persist in the irrationality which has been shown to exist in these views. The Apostolic mantra - We've got the Truth - is thus touted but not consistently applied in every doctrine Apostolics hold, by those who style themselves as an authority who always hold truth.

I love Apostolic Bible doctrine: the Oneness of God; the New Birth; baptism in Jesus name as the only baptism shown in the Bible; people will speak in tongues when they receive the Spirit; Ac2.38 was good enough to get those in Jerusalem saved and nothing but this, should be seen as the gospel in a nutshell.

What I don't love is misinterpretation of scripture, resulting in holding head covering doctrines which are only known with interpretative methods focussing on only one chapter and not also by scriptural example. Any correct interpretation should have scriptural examples modelling the interpretation. The Bible models the iv concept but not the ulv or vv.

It is now no longer necessary to hold head covering doctrine which contains discrepencies. An interpretation is available which doesn't contradict the Bible - the iv. Yet, it is only an interpretation, of that which God hasn't clearly shown by commands to be his will. In my opinion, it should be taught as the best interpretation of 3 to hold. Two others, the ulv and the vv, have discrepancies in logic and use of scripture.

Read the commentary in the link for details of these descrepancies, or ask me a question.

[Whoop Harted]

My brother owned a vw once. I got it now! We are talking about vintage German cars.