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.