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

[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.