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

[donfriesen1]

[QUOTE=Esaias;1618489] Part 2 of 2

You say:

The NT is pretty clear that there was a uniformity of faith and practice among the churches, Paul didn't teach anything the other apostles didn't teach, and vice versa.

Paul is known to say till we all come to the unity of the faith. This is an obvious indication that there wasn't consensus on every point believed, which you and I show by our example continues to this day. Inspite of this they believed in One Lord, One faith, One baptism. As you and I also do. Not having uniformity of belief on co/unco doesn't make anyone unapostolic.

Quoting Jn21.25 proves nothing. It speaks of the Lords actions and doesn't mention his teachings. It seems to me that you insinuate that the Apostles received things from Jesus which others aren't privy to. What happened to his admonition to shout what they have heard in secret from the roof tops?

But explain this about what Paul has said about traditions in v3. It is the following which may lead us to be able to carry on, changing your mind. If you say he had previously taught the Co and established a doctrine which had become a known tradition to them, which some are contending against, then why re-teach what has already been previously established as a tradition? It doesn't make sense to do so with something that you say is an established known tradition. Those who contend would be clearly rebelling against this tradition. Those who walk disorderly are commanded elsewhere by Paul to be avoided. Most Pastors are well able to address established doctrinal traditions issues in the congregation. Does Co not have a Pastor that necessitates an itinerant Apostle to address established tradition issues? Thus, does he knowingly waste his time with these rebels, who he says elsewhere should be avoided, ignoring his own teaching about avoiding those who are disorderly? The disoderly are to be avoided and those who conform to tradition need no re-teaching.

Rather this: Paul, in v2 is praising them for the traditions he knows they are keeping without detailing what they are, and there is something else he now wants them to know which they previously hadn't known. If He6 is to be the list of known doctrines/traditions which all NT preachers adhere to, it hasn't included co/unco. When he says But I want you to know it is implied that they haven't previously known what he will now teach. But is a word used to contrast. He contrasts what they show by obedience they know, traditions, with what they don't yet know. I know that you keep the traditions which I've previously told you of and now I want you to know that which I haven't yet taught on. Paul then teaches a new thing which he wants the Co to be aware of. Remember this: because co/unco wasn't commanded in the OT it never became an OT tradition, though held to as a custom. Proof this wrong and then we'll have something else to talk about.

Picture this potentially realistic hypothetical scenario: Paul either hears of, or is acquainted with by a visit, the cultural revolution taking place in Co citizens and knows of its effect on the church. He then leaves, if present in Co. He makes it a matter of prayer so he may be able to provide protection from its effects on a church he has started. God reveals to him what he now teaches as a new teaching for their protection in answer to his prayer. It is a new thing to him and them, which the absence of Jesus/the 12-mentions testifies to. Where else does the Bible refer to the order of authority but here alone, making it new? This shows a new realistic potentially true scenario. Because it fits it might be the view to hold.

You said

Until a person understands that when an apostle teaches Christians ought to do some thing in some way then Christians are in fact to do that thing in that way, then there really isn't much point going further.

Well, of course all should do what is clearly taught by an Apostle. But what of the times when it isn't clear? Have you inferred that of me? Have I taken the time to write a commentary because I don't want to be seen as wanting to understand? Even among Apostolics there are disagreements of understanding of co/unco. How then is it possible for you to insinuate that any must do exactly what Paul says in 1Co11, when all Apostolics can't agree on what the Apostle meant? To insinuate that there has been clarity on what Paul teaches flies in the face of what is seen. Instead, it should be hoped is that a consensus view can be found which can be agreed upon, instead of saying there really isn't much point going further. Plz consider the instincts view as a view which, if believed, would bring Apostolic camps together in one, when amalgamating main points of their arguments.

I had hoped you wouldn't bow out but would take the time to consider and critique my points. It now appears that won't happen. It happens with you as has happened with other Apostolic preachers I've approached with my commentary. I got the feeling that if it wasn't the same as the established Apostolic doctrine then it wasn't worth taking the time to consider it, which they didn't. It is rejected just because. Even inspite of telling them it is a Biblically-derived doctrine which plugs holes. I had wanted them to take the time to examine the discrepancies seen in the currently-held-by-majority Apostolic doctrine. It would lead, if believed, to an adjustment of the doctrine to do away with the discrepancies. This is detailed in my commentary. The way it is now, Apostolic doctrines are avoided by some mainstream Christians who reject them when seen beside a co/unco doctrine which is full of holes. There is a need, which this Biblical instinct view may fill. Apostolic lack of consideration for something new, results then as being true among Apostolics which is also seen in other groups who call themselves Christians: if it isn't held by majority in my group then it's not kosher gospel. Oh, well. No one has control of another.

I would change my doctrine if proved wrong. No bothers to take the time to show my line of reasoning wrong. They just say it is wrong but don't provide evidence thereto.

One example of an Apostolic co/unco doctrine hole is: Paul says a man who has something down his head brings less glory to God because it covers the image of God. If true for a man then it would also be true for a woman, when they are equals as the image of God. The cover she is supposed to maintain at all times would then also lessen the glory of God. Is Paul trying to say that women don't bring God glory when having the cover they are supposed to have? No. The instincts view does away with this discrepancy, making it not appear. The view which the majority of Apostolics hold, uncut long, is a misinterpretation of the Biblical facts, which results in this discrepancy.

Thx so very much for taking the time to read the commentary. I sincerely appreciate your doing so and hope we can carry on a discussion.

[Amanah]

Don

Look at this thread on the subject, it's remarkable, it starts with the Nazirite vow but then goes deeply into head covering. Various people argue the topic from different viewpoints.

https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.co...ar#post1533609

**

[donfriesen1]

Originally Posted by Amanah

Don

Look at this thread on the subject, it's remarkable, it starts with the Nazirite vow but then goes deeply into head covering. Various people argue the topic from different viewpoints.

https://www.apostolicfriendsforum.co...ar#post1533609

**

Thx for providing this link. Unfortunately you are too late to give me this as something new. I've read it; all 81 pages - twice. Costeon was a great inspiration for me. If you talk to him plz let him know of my thread.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

You've used a lot of ink showing that the Apostles had uniformity of doctrine. While this isn't totalling irrelevant to our discussion I question why no evidence was presented about the topic - your assertion that co/unco was an Apostolic tradition.

Don, this is why Americans have to "choose" between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump.

And, it's why America is pretty much done for. I'm looking for the next phase in the big Scheme of Things.

I know you may not understand what I am talking about, and that's okay. If you know, you know. If you don't, well then this post wasn't really meant for you.

I wish you the best.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Don, this is why Americans have to "choose" between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump.

And, it's why America is pretty much done for. I'm looking for the next phase in the big Scheme of Things.

I know you may not understand what I am talking about, and that's okay. If you know, you know. If you don't, well then this post wasn't really meant for you.

I wish you the best.

How’s it going with Don?

[donfriesen1]

Plz reader, consider critiquing the points I have made in my commentary, one at a time. One point, actually a question, is, 'why does the OT show no command for co/unco, similar to that which is said to be commanded by Paul?' Surely, if Paul bases what he says in 1Co11 on what is seen in the OT at the Beginning, thus establishing that what he says is from the OT, then we should see commands similar to co/unco there. Explain why we don't. Not seeing commands for co/unco in the OT should raise a red flag for everyone to take note and take heed.

Esaias has written me off, not responding further, saying 'if we can't agree that Apostolic authority should be heeded, then we have nothing further to discuss'. I have whole heartedly agreed that Apostolic authority should be heeded by all, yet Esaias still cuts me off. ??? Should anyone not want to enter into what might be a detailed discussion, then this would be understandable. But Esaias makes a false accusation and then runs off, intolerant of a view which doesn't coincide with his. And what of the Apostolic authority of Peter, who for a period of 10-12 years demonstrates that Gentiles shouldn't be considered to receive the Gospel? Do we follow his authoritative example because he is an Apostle, who even continued it after the Ac10 event? Apostolic authority must be clung to when clearly God's view. 1Co11 isn't clear.

If what I say in my commentary about the instinct view is truth, then all who reject truth, do so at their own peril, as He3,4,6 demonstrates. But what is not yet shown is that it is truth, demonstrated as truth by critical revue of many. Hence the request to critique it. If it doesn't stand up to a critique then it dies as it should - proved wrong. What is done by Esaias is - no revue. It is hoped it will die. Oh, well. He owes me nothing, not even a critique. But what of false accusations?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I would change my doctrine if proved wrong. No bothers to take the time to show my line of reasoning wrong. They just say it is wrong but don't provide evidence thereto.

I don't think you understand what "evidence" is, nor what "providing evidence" means. Just because you choose to maintain the opinion you started with, doesn't mean no evidence was provided to you. I provided plenty of evidence to show:

1. Paul taught men ought to be uncovered and women covered when praying or prophesying.

2. The apostles all taught the same faith and practice.

3. The churches of God were united in faith and practice. Therefore,

4. The churches of God practiced men being uncovered and women being covered when praying or prophesying.

5. Anyone contending for some other custom or practice was not conformed to first century apostolic Christian practice.

6. Anyone contending for some other custom or practice was not conformed to the apostle Paul's teaching and example.

I also showed (proved by reasoning, by logic) that:

1. You do err in concluding Paul taught that if anyone disagreed with what he taught it was okay.

2. You do err in concluding that Paul wanted Christians to do the opposite of what he taught if they didn't agree with what he taught.

3. You do err in stating the reasons for men being uncovered and women being covered while praying or prophesying is "instinctual" (whatever that means).

4. The reasons Paul gave for women being covered and men being uncovered while praying or prophesying were based upon the Genesis account of Creation and the hierarchy established by God.

5. The long and short hair issue raised by Paul was clearly stated to be a lesson from nature meant to illustrate the propriety of his teaching concerning the head covering.

The fact you "remain unconvinced" is quite simply not my problem. You have offered only your own opinions, which in this thread and on this topic seem to mirror the opinions you expressed on other topics you have raised on the forum. Basically you seem intent on "proving" that the apostles, especially Paul, don't have to be believed and/or obeyed. For example, previously you were arguing that people can be saved by "right living" in spite of Paul's clear statement that EVERYBODY was classed as "under sin" and in need of salvation and forgiveness, and that forgiveness and salvation come ONLY through faith in Jesus Christ.

I'm going to be honest, you really do seem to me to be trying to justify reasons not to simply believe and obey the Bible. I do not know why. I do not understand the felt need to contradict so much of plain Scripture. And then, when others list reasons, address your statements, and provide evidence for conclusions OTHER than and contrary to your own, you ALWAYS assert "nobody answers questions, nobody addresses my points, nobody provides evidence, they just say I'm wrong but never even try to prove it."

Which makes having discussions with you rather uninteresting. I have debated every kind of person, both here online and in person, on just about every subject imaginable. I know how to discuss opposing viewpoints. And yes, I was on my high school debate team. I have no problem discussing things with people who believe differently. I DO have a problem trying to discuss things with people who for whatever reason assert absurdities and plain untruths about the discussion being had.

As I said previously, if YOU want to believe whatever you want to believe, that's fine by me. You don't and won't answer to me in the end, that will all be between you and the Lord Jesus Christ. I can't control what you believe. But I CAN control whether I will voluntarily subject myself to gaslighting.

Which I won't.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Having a discussion with Don is like using bands and chains when you bench.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So, you understand Paul to be saying essentially "if any contend against what I have just taught, don't worry about it because neither we nor the churches of God command what I just taught"?

Esaias, this is how Don views the whole of scripture.

Don sees Jesus and the Apostles as holding to a set of opinions. If you follow them, ok. If not, then that is cool as well.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by donfriesen1

I would change my doctrine if proved wrong. No bothers to take the time to show my line of reasoning wrong. They just say it is wrong but don't provide evidence thereto.

Everyone says this, but is it actually true? The Bible isn’t Rocket Science. There are thousands of verses that are as clear as crystal. Yet, people in different religions, cults, and denominations can’t see top, side, or bottom of the truth contained in one simple verse. We become ecclesiastical politicians developing Pentecostal word salads to defend a position which is not defendable. Connecting verses together which clearly are taken out of context. Yet, we use “I would change my doctrine if proven wrong” as a mantra of religious piety. Hey, don’t get me wrong there are those who are sincere, and will change if corrected on a view. Yet, they don’t fly the flag of “if I’m proven wrong I’ll change my belief!” It’s like someone telling me over and over that he has been doing such and such for 30 years. The only reason they repeat it over and over, is because they themselves don’t believe it. The Bible is symbolic and literal, hermeneutics can easily be deciphered if we are willing to learn the thread that flows through scripture.
Yet, Jesus wasn’t kidding when He said that we weren’t to give pearls of great price to pigs, and the Holy items to dogs. There isn’t any fruit to it. Jesus is the good Shepard and His sheep know His voice. His sheep won’t follow the Stranger.