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

[donfriesen1]

There you have it ladies and gentlemen. Posters

cast dispersions in the direction of the original poster of this thread. Then

they run off without showing how or why the conclusions of the original

poster are wrong.



From their response we must conclude one of the

following: 1) The posters have nothing to say which would refute the claims

of the iv. In effect, this says it is a solid view. If not, they would take the time

to show it wrong. 2) The posters do not want to

take the time. They aren't too busy to call someone nuts but too busy to

say how and why. After 370 posts it is a lttle late to say this.3) Posters

see the iv as so completely wacko that they think any time spent

refuting it would be like sinning. 4) The posters see the

value of the iv but don't want to change their own long-held views, which

they've always defended, and because of this, do not want to be seen as

changing their mind.



Truth calls for the proper response. A Biblically-based

view must be proved wrong or accepted. Reject views which are not

supported by scripture nor by reason. Truth demands that its claims be the

only ones held.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

There you have it ladies and gentlemen. Posters

cast dispersions in the direction of the original poster of this thread. Then

they run off without showing how or why the conclusions of the original

poster are wrong.



From their response we must conclude one of the

following: 1) The posters have nothing to say which would refute the claims

of the iv. In effect, this says it is a solid view. If not, they would take the time

to show it wrong. 2) The posters do not want to

take the time. They aren't too busy to call someone nuts but too busy to

say how and why. After 370 posts it is a lttle late to say this.3) Posters

see the iv as so completely wacko that they think any time spent

refuting it would be like sinning. 4) The posters see the

value of the iv but don't want to change their own long-held views, which

they've always defended, and because of this, do not want to be seen as

changing their mind.



Truth calls for the proper response. A Biblically-based

view must be proved wrong or accepted. Reject views which are not

supported by scripture nor by reason. Truth demands that its claims be the

only ones held.

Don,

You are all mouth and no ears. That's why no one cares to engage with you on your views any longer. Your hermeneutical methods are flawed, therefore your conclusions and teachings are flawed. But you refuse to acknowledge the flaw, even when it has been abundantly pointed out to you. You're effectively playing the "I'm taking my ball and going home" approach to posting. It's rather odious. You either expect posters to agree outright with your views, or, by your own estimation, they are simply incapable of disproving your views. Nice. No one here agrees with you. That makes you the only common denominator in why no one agrees with you. Ever think of that?

But I digress.

This only I would care to know:

Who in your local church up there in Canada believes what you believe? Does the teaching ministry and pastoral leadership teach what you believe to the congregation?

Which commentator, theologian, expositor, writing minister, or denominational leader from the 1st century till now believes and teachers what you believe and teach? I'll wait.

And finally, in your own words, what proof would you possible accept that would cause you to renounce your views?

[Evang.Benincasa]

I don’t think Don attends a church.

He’s his own congregation.

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

.

This post is to respond to post 372. Votivesoul there asks And

finally, in your own words, what proof would you possible accept that would

cause you to renounce your views?


That's an interesting but unusual question. How would you answer if someone

asks you to provide evidence that would denounce the view you hold? Would

you do it? (You have not yet revealed your cards. You have not yet shown

what stance you take on head-coverings. I may wrongly assume that you

follow Esaias, because you defend him.)



Nevertheless, your unusual question is a question I would like to

respond to.



First, you say You are all mouth and no ears. I would like to point out that I

have responded to the points that most posters have made, perhaps all. This

shows me as opposite to no ears. Either you've forgotten this or you've not

read the posts. Or you, like Evangelist Dom Benincasa only want to denigrade

my character instead of dealing with the points I make. I have multiple times

asked, almost begged, that someone would show the many points I make to

be wrong, by reason or scripture. see post 47. Most of the responses have

been to show what they believe to be right, instead of showing how the iv is

wrong. Also, see posts 334-5, where I compile Esaias' posts. That I

do a compilation shows that I've taken the time to use my ears to hear. If

you're here to discuss Bible views then let's do it, instead of name calling or

character dispersions.


To partially answer your question:

1. Disprove that the Bible does not show God commanding A&E to show

respect to his order of authority by use of symbols. That he doesn't command

them shows it was expected by another means. Instincts are another means.

They are somewhat similar to the conscience which guided Man for 2500

years when there was no Law. If a conscience, non-Word method was good

enough for God to use for 2500 yrs, this may show a similar method is

additionally used along with the Word, throughout Man's Word-history. For

example, Apostolics tithe, but do not say it is a command. It is only a good

principle to follow.


2. Disprove that God would not have expected, when not commanding, that

A&E (or any OT human) should still show respect for his order of authority by

symbols. It is not logical that God would command only some (the NT saint)

to show respect to his order of authority by symbols when the expectation of

respect exists

outside of covenant. That God expected A&E to show respect without a

command thereto, shows it exists outside of covenant. If God did not

command it, then he expects it from all. It is an uncommanded principle. God

would like us to live by both principle and law. Is refusing to live by

principle sin when it is not commanded? No. It is not a sin not to tithe when

God does not command it. A fool may decide not to tithe but it is not a sin.


3. Disprove that the time from A&E up to 1Co11 does not show God

commanding anything like what many Apostolics say the OT saint believed

- that OT saints were commanded a doctrine like covering/uncovering for

women/men.


4. Show how Paul, who bases his values on the OT (the only scripture he

has), would use it to show what he is said to teach the Co's. If you believe in

the vv,

then show how the OT shows the vv. If you believe in the ulv, then show how

the ulv is seen in the OT. This would then prove the OT people believed in

either the vv or the ulv and not the iv. When it is believed that the OT saint

showed respect to God's order of authority, doing so without a command

thereto, then it is logical that a non-command method, ie instincts, may be

the means to achieve it. If not so, plz provide an alternate to a command

method, if you would plz. If not able, perhaps you would accept the

possibility that it is instincts.



I have other points but this will suffice for this post.



See post 1 for a link to my commentary.



You also say Your hermeneutical methods are flawed, therefore

your

conclusions and teachings are flawed. But you refuse to acknowledge the

flaw, even when it has been abundantly pointed out to you.

I deny this is a fact. Plz quote the post where the opposite is shown. Provide

only one instance. Anything other than a quote will show you as just flapping

your gums.



I accepted your challenge and respectfully ask you to accept mine.

[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.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"]This post is to respond to post 372. Votivesoul there asks And

finally, in your own words, what proof would you possible accept that would

cause you to renounce your views?


That's an interesting but unusual question. How would you answer if someone

asks you to provide evidence that would denounce the view you hold? Would

you do it? (You have not yet revealed your cards. You have not yet shown

what stance you take on head-coverings. I may wrongly assume that you

follow Esaias, because you defend him.)



Nevertheless, your unusual question is a question I would like to

respond to.



First, you say You are all mouth and no ears. I would like to point out that I

have responded to the points that most posters have made, perhaps all. This

shows me as opposite to no ears. Either you've forgotten this or you've not

read the posts. Or you, like Evangelist Dom Benincasa only want to denigrade

my character instead of dealing with the points I make. I have multiple times

asked, almost begged, that someone would show the many points I make to

be wrong, by reason or scripture. see post 47. Most of the responses have

been to show what they believe to be right, instead of showing how the iv is

wrong. Also, see posts 334-5, where I compile Esaias' posts. That I

do a compilation shows that I've taken the time to use my ears to hear. If

you're here to discuss Bible views then let's do it, instead of name calling or

character dispersions.


To partially answer your question:

1. Disprove that the Bible does not show God commanding A&E to show

respect to his order of authority by use of symbols. That he doesn't command

them shows it was expected by another means. Instincts are another means.

They are somewhat similar to the conscience which guided Man for 2500

years when there was no Law. If a conscience, non-Word method was good

enough for God to use for 2500 yrs, this may show a similar method is

additionally used along with the Word, throughout Man's Word-history. For

example, Apostolics tithe, but do not say it is a command. It is only a good

principle to follow.


2. Disprove that God would not have expected, when not commanding, that

A&E (or any OT human) should still show respect for his order of authority by

symbols. It is not logical that God would command only some (the NT saint)

to show respect to his order of authority by symbols when the expectation of

respect exists

outside of covenant. That God expected A&E to show respect without a

command thereto, shows it exists outside of covenant. If God did not

command it, then he expects it from all. It is an uncommanded principle. God

would like us to live by both principle and law. Is refusing to live by

principle sin when it is not commanded? No. It is not a sin not to tithe when

God does not command it. A fool may decide not to tithe but it is not a sin.


3. Disprove that the time from A&E up to 1Co11 does not show God

commanding anything like what many Apostolics say the OT saint believed

- that OT saints were commanded a doctrine like covering/uncovering for

women/men.


4. Show how Paul, who bases his values on the OT (the only scripture he

has), would use it to show what he is said to teach the Co's. If you believe in

the vv,

then show how the OT shows the vv. If you believe in the ulv, then show how

the ulv is seen in the OT. This would then prove the OT people believed in

either the vv or the ulv and not the iv. When it is believed that the OT saint

showed respect to God's order of authority, doing so without a command

thereto, then it is logical that a non-command method, ie instincts, may be

the means to achieve it. If not so, plz provide an alternate to a command

method, if you would plz. If not able, perhaps you would accept the

possibility that it is instincts.



I have other points but this will suffice for this post.



See post 1 for a link to my commentary.



You also say Your hermeneutical methods are flawed, therefore

your

conclusions and teachings are flawed. But you refuse to acknowledge the

flaw, even when it has been abundantly pointed out to you. [COLOR="black"]

I deny this is a fact. Plz quote the post where the opposite is shown. Provide

only one instance. Anything other than a quote will show you as just flapping

your gums.



I accepted your challenge and respectfully ask you to accept mine.

Don, anyone reading this thread has viewed ample enough information to see that you have been refuted. What you believe is that the Bible is a collection of suggestions. That the Apostles merely winged it, and made up a lot of what they had written down. Your understanding of Christianity is merely just be a good civilian. You clearly had a rough go of it being a Pentecostal. Therefore formed a theology where you have everyone from Baptists to the Hindu Elephant boy being saved due to their niceness. Sorry pal, but that isn't Apostolic. It sure isn't Christianity that is outlined by Jesus or the Apostle Paul. You honestly believe that you have some special insight. That you are on a mission of God, which you are sent to enlighten and frighten. Yet, may I remind you that this forum is down to a bare few. Which have unanimously agreed that you are WRONG. So, how about you start a thread on how Canadians are super liberals and can't play hockey.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Don, anyone reading this thread has viewed ample enough information to see that you have been refuted. What you believe is that the Bible is a collection of suggestions. That the Apostles merely winged it, and made up a lot of what they had written down. Your understanding of Christianity is merely just be a good civilian. You clearly had a rough go of it being a Pentecostal. Therefore formed a theology where you have everyone from Baptists to the Hindu Elephant boy being saved due to their niceness. Sorry pal, but that isn't Apostolic. It sure isn't Christianity that is outlined by Jesus or the Apostle Paul. You honestly believe that you have some special insight. That you are on a mission of God, which you are sent to enlighten and frighten. Yet, may I remind you that this forum is down to a bare few. Which have unanimously agreed that you are WRONG. So, how about you start a thread on how Canadians are super liberals and can't play hockey.

A new thread would be good

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Amanah

A new thread would be good

Yes

[donfriesen1]

Are the facts of the iv irrefutable? By

appearances it is so. I've challenged readers to show them wrong. Some

efforts have been made to show them wrong, but when my refutation of their

efforts are not responded to, not rebuffed, it leads to the conclusion that the

facts/conclusions of the iv are irrefutable.



What is done, instead of presenting logical arguments or scriptural evidence

showing them wrong, are the insinuations that the author is mentally instable

- nuts, is the colloquial term used. Doing so proves nothing exegetically,

other than the failure of being able to do so.



I had even compiled the responses of some readers, notably Esaias, listing

the pros and cons of their views. see post 339,340. see also 305,342 for a

compilation of Amanah and Evang. Benincasa.



Yet,

inspite of these efforts, I'm wrongly labeled as one who hasn't read/hasn't

responded to other's points. Obviously, those who do so, appear to feel a

need to smear the iv-writer in efforts to discredit the iv, instead of doing the

suitable thing -- show the points of the iv wrong. Such methods are not

practicing exegesis, but slander.



Lovers of truth will accept the iv or show how it is wrong.

Truth demands the acceptance of truth.



I invite someone to make a compilation of previous posts

which shows how the iv has been refuted, and that the

refutations have not been countered by sound reason.

[Amanah]

Dear Don. This thread is dead. Pls provide us with a new thread to discuss if you are interested in continued interaction.