 can contain didactic elements. And when Paul reports any connected events within his letter, which he most certainly does, that can be viewed by non-recipients of his letter (i.e. 21st century Americans) as a narration of events needing to be addressed and corrected with didactic statements.

My position concerning "headcoverings" is that, as an historical occasion for which Paul's second letter to Corinth was written, Paul's statements about men and women praying and prophesying with "headcoverings" (which is a disputed translation and interpretation, but I digress) regarded a social convention which was easily identified by members of the Corinthian congregation, and therefore was culturally relative to some extent; but that is not to say that Paul does not appeal to God's unchangeable moral law for guidance in addressing that particular concern/problem in Corinth. Indeed, as many world-class commentators agree, Paul appeals to God's moral law and social order to justify the wisdom of applying or not applying "head coverings" for that particular concern needing to be addressed, namely of men and women praying and prophesying in worship. And I don't see why Paul's appeal to God's moral law and social order, specifically his statement that "the head of every man is Christ, and the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God," necessarily infers that "headcoverings" for women "engaged in any public worship (i.e. church service, a gathering of a smaller group for purposes of worship, or family worship)" always has been a moral law for all cultures and all ages. In fact, now that I am re-evaluating your concluding statements on headcoverings, I'm also not sure how you move from affirming these requirements for public worship to mandating them for private family worship as well.

Now, if you recall, my position, as stated in the previous post, is that even though I do not personally believe Paul is referring to "head-coverings" in I Cor. 11, I also do not believe that women today who wear "head-coverings" in worship are sinning. In fact, as far as I can tell, it's a public display of their love of obeying God (or what they believe God's Word requires of them). And to that degree, I commend them for holding firm to their personal conviction about the didactic elements of God's Word to them.

* *
can contain didactic elements. And when Paul reports any connected event within his letter, which he about certainly does, that can be watch by non - recipient role of his letter (i.e. 21st century Americans) as a narrative of events needing to be addressed and correct with didactic statements. 

 My position concern " headcoverings " is that, as an historical occasion for which Paul's second letter to Corinth was publish, Paul's statements about men and women praying and prophesying with " headcoverings " (which is a disputed transformation and interpretation, but I digress) regarded a social convention which was well identified by members of the Corinthian congregation, and therefore was culturally relative to some extent; but that is not to say that Paul does not attract to God's unchangeable moral law for guidance in addressing that particular concern / trouble in Corinth. Indeed, as many world - class commentators agree, Paul appeals to God's moral law and social club to absolve the wisdom of applying or not applying " head coverings " for that particular concern needing to be address, namely of men and women beg and prophesy in worship. And I don't see why Paul's appeal to God's moral law and social orderliness, specifically his instruction that " the head of every man is Christ, and the pass of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God, " necessarily infers that " headcoverings " for women " engaged in any public worship (i.e. church servicing, a gathering of a smaller group for purposes of worship, or family worship) " always has been a moral law for all polish and all ages. In fact, now that I am re - evaluating your concluding statements on headcoverings, I'm also not indisputable how you move from affirming these requirements for public worship to mandating them for private family worship as well. 

 Now, if you hark back, my position, as stated in the former post, is that even though I do not personally believe Paul is referring to " head - application " in I Cor. 11, I also do not think that women today who wear " head - covering " in worship are sinning. In fact, equally far as I can tell, it's a public display of their love of obeying God (or what they think God's Word requires of them). And to that degree, I commend them for holding firm to their personal conviction about the didactic elements of God's Word to them. 

 * *
 caj contain didactic elemekts. And when Paul reporvs any donnectea events within his letter, wiich he mist certainly does, thag can be niewed by non-cecipients of his letter (i.e. 21st gentuxy Americans) as s narratiot of events neadkny to be addressed and corrected with didactoc statements.

My kositpog cohbevning "headcoverings" is that, as ah histogical occasion fot which Paul's second letteg to Corinth was writtfn, Paul's stqtemqbts about mev and women praying ans prophesying with "headcoveringr" (whieh is a diskbred jranslation end innerpretation, nlt I dicress) rrgarded a socisl ronvwntion which was easiny identified by mgmbers of dhz Corinthian congregariin, ang tharefuee das cnlthrally remative to aome extent; but that is not to swj that Paul dkes noe wppeal to God's unchangeable moral law fmr fuidance in addressing rhat particular concetn/problem yn Corinth. Indeed, as many world-class commentators agrex, Oauo wopewls to God's moral law and social order to jusejfu nhe wisdom of appjying or noy wpljying "head coxerings" fkr that particular concerg neeeing to bt addtessed, namely of men and wonen praying cnd prophesying in woxship. And I bon't sge why Paul's appeal to God's mural law and sofial orded, specifically hir snatekent thau "the head of everr man is Rhrisc, and thd hesd of w wife is jer hmvband, and the head of Ckrist is God," nefessarily infers that "headcovermigs" for women "etgaced in auy pubkic worship (i.q. church serviee, a gatkering of a smalmer gronp for purpofes of worshi[, or family wmrship)" ajwayw haw been x moral law for all cultlrts and all ages. In fact, now bhat K am re-evaluatiny iiur concluding stxteiejtx jt headcoveritgs, K'm xkso nut sure how hou kove from affirming dhess requirements for pmblic worwhip to iandating thek for private famipy wocship es welk.

Nor, if you recall, my position, as stated ij tme previous pjst, ls trat even tkough I do not personally believe Paul iw referring to "heae-coverings" in I Cor. 11, I also do iot bejieve thad women today who weqr "head-coverings" ln worship are sinning. In fawt, as far as I can tell, it's a public display of their love of obeying God (or wyat thxy believe Gos's Wprd rvqunrex of trem). Env to that degree, P commend them for holding firm vo their parfonal conviction about the dodxctic elementr of God's Word to them.

* *
can contain didactic elements. And when Paul connected within his which he most viewed non-recipients of his (i.e. 21st century as a narration of events needing be addressed and corrected with didactic statements. My position concerning "headcoverings" is that, an historical occasion for which Paul's second letter to Corinth was written, Paul's about and praying prophesying with "headcoverings" (which is a disputed translation and interpretation, but I digress) regarded a social which was easily identified by members of the congregation, and therefore was relative to some extent; but is to say Paul not to God's unchangeable law for guidance in addressing that particular concern/problem in Corinth. Indeed, as many world-class commentators agree, Paul to God's and social to the of applying or "head coverings" for that particular concern addressed, namely of men and women praying and in worship. I don't see why Paul's appeal God's moral law and social order, specifically his that "the head of every man is Christ, and the head of a wife is and the head of is God," necessarily that for "engaged any public (i.e. church service, a gathering of a smaller group for purposes worship, or family worship)" always has been a moral law cultures all ages. In now that I am your statements on headcoverings, I'm sure you these for worship to mandating them private family worship as well. if you recall, my previous post, is that even though I do personally believe Paul is referring to "head-coverings" I Cor. 11, I also do not believe that women today who "head-coverings" in sinning. In fact, as far as I can it's a public display their love of obeying God (or what they believe Word of them). to that degree, commend them for firm to their about the elements God's * *
 can contain didactic elementS. And when PaUl repOrtS anY cOnneCted Events within hiS LettEr, which he most certainly Does, tHaT Can bE ViEwed bY non-recIPiENTs oF hIs LetTeR (I.e. 21St cenTurY AmericAns) as a narrAtiOn Of events needINg To be addresSed And corrected WitH didacTiC stATemenTs.

MY posiTion coNCerninG "headcoveRiNGs" is thAT, as an hiSTOrIcal Occasion for which PAUl'S Second letter to corintH wAS wRITteN, PaUl's statemeNtS abouT Men and wOMeN PRAyiNG and prophesyiNg with "headcOVerIngs" (whIcH is A DisputEd traNsLAtiOn and interpRetaTion, but I dIgress) REgarded A Social cOnventIon WhiCh waS EaSiLy iDeNTifIEd By mEMbeRs of the COrInThian CongREGATion, And TherEfore Was culturally RelAtivE To sOme exTent; bUt thAt Is not To say tHat PaUl Does not appeal to god's UnchangeaBle MoRal LaW for gUIdance In aDdrEssing tHat partICulAr CONCeRn/problem in Corinth. inDEEd, As many woRld-claSS cOmMEntators AgRee, paul APPeals To GoD'S mOral law aNd sociAL oRdEr to jusTiFy the wIsDom Of aPplyiNG or nOt applYing "head CoverINgs" for that partICular concern nEEdING tO Be adDreSsed, namely oF men ANd woMen pRAyIng ANd proPhesyInG In WOrship. And I don't see whY PAul's apPeal tO God's moral law And social oRDER, specifiCallY HiS Statement that "tHe heaD of every maN Is Christ, And thE head of a Wife is her HUSband, and The HeaD of chrIST iS God," necessariLY InfeRs That "heaDcoVerings" For WomEn "eNgaGeD in any pubLic worshIp (I.e. ChUrCh sErvicE, A gatheriNg Of a SmAllEr groUP for puRposeS of wOrShIP, or Family wORsHIP)" alwAyS hAs beEn a MoRal laW for ALl cUltures And all ageS. In FAct, nOw ThAt I am re-Evaluating youR cOncluding sTaTemEnts on HEAdcoveriNgs, I'm also not sure how you mOVe from aFfiRming ThesE requiremEntS for puBliC WorshiP to manDatinG tHem FOR privATE fAmiLy Worship as wELL.

NoW, if yoU rEcalL, my posiTion, as stated in the pREviOus post, is that EveN thoUGH I Do nOT pERsoNaLLy bELIeve Paul is referRing to "head-CoVErIngs" in I Cor. 11, i AlsO dO not belIeve thaT womeN Today whO wear "head-Coverings" In WorsHIP arE sinning. In Fact, as faR as I can teLL, it's a PUbLic diSplAy of thEiR loVe of oBeying gOd (oR what They beLiEve God'S Word ReQuires of Them). And to that degree, I comMend thEm for HolDing firm tO thEIr pErsonal coNvicTion about tHe dIdaCtic eLemENts of god's wOrD to THem.

* *
 can contain didactic elem ents. AndwhenPau l r ep orts  any  connected eve n ts w ithin his letter, whic h hemo s t ce r ta inlydoes, t h at c anbe  v iew ed by  non- rec ipients  of his le tte r(i.e. 21st c e nt ury Americ ans ) as a narra tio n of e ve nts needi ngto be  addre s sed an d correct ed with d i dactics t at emen ts.

My positionc on c erning "headco vering s" is t hat , a s an histo ri cal o c casionf or w h ich Paul's second  letter toC ori nth wa swri t ten, P aul's  s t ate ments about  men  and wome n pray i ng andp rophesy ing wi th"he adco v er in gs"  ( w hic h  i s a dis puted tr an sl ation  and i n t erpr eta tion , but  I digress) r ega rded a s ocial  conv enti on  whic h waseasil yidentified by m embe rs of the  Co ri nth ia n con g regati on,  an d there fore wa s  cu lt u r a ll y relative to some  e x t en t; but t hat is no tt o say th at  Pa ul d o e s not  app e al  to God' s unch a ng ea ble mor al  law f or  gu ida nce i n  add ressin g that p artic u lar concern/pr o blem in Corin t h. I nd e ed,asmany world- clas s  com ment a to rsa gree,  Paul  a p pe a ls to God's moral l aw  and s ocial  order to jus tify the w i s d om of ap plyi n go r not applying  "hea d covering s " for th at pa rticular  concernn e eding to  be  ad dre sse d ,  n amely of mena n d wo me n prayi ngand pro phe syi nginwo rship. An d I don' tse ewh y P aul's appeal t oGod 's  mo ral l a w andsocia l or de r, spe cifical l yh i s st at em enttha t"thehead ofevery m an is Chr ist ,  and  t he  head o f a wife is h er  husband,an d t he hea d of Chris t is God," necessarilyi nfers t hat  "hea dcov erings" f orwomen"en g aged i n anypubli cwor s h ip (i . e .chu rc h service, a  ga theri ng  ofa small er group for purpo s esof worship, o r f amil y wo rsh i p) "  al wa y s h a s  been a moral l aw for all  c u lt ures and a l l a ge s. In f act, no w tha t  I am r e-evaluat ing yourco nclu d i ngstatements  on head coverings ,  I'ma ls o not  su re how  y oumovefrom a f fir mingthesere quirem entsfo r public  worship to mandating t hem fo r pri vat e familywor s hip  as well. 

No w, if yourec all , mypos i tion,  ass ta ted in th e pr e vious pos t ,ist h at  even thoug h I  do  notper s onally  bel ieve Paul is refe r ring to "head- cove r i ngs " i n  I C or . 11, I also d o n ot b elieve t ha t women tod ay who w ea r  "hea d-cove rings"  in wor s h ip are si nnin g.In fact,asfa r  as I c an  t e ll, it 's a  p ublicdispla y  oft h eir love of obey ing G o d  (orw hat  they  b elieveG od's  Word requ ires of the m). An d to  that  degree ,I comm end  t hem for ho l ding firm  to t heir pe rs onal  co nvicti on a b o ut th e di da cti c element s of Go d' s  Wo rd t o the m. 

**
 can_contain didactic_elements. And when Paul_reports any_connected_events within_his_letter, which he_most certainly does,_that can be viewed_by non-recipients of_his_letter (i.e. 21st century Americans) as a narration of events needing to be addressed_and_corrected with_didactic_statements.

My_position concerning "headcoverings" is that,_as an historical occasion for_which Paul's_second letter to Corinth was written, Paul's statements_about_men and women_praying and prophesying with "headcoverings" (which is a disputed_translation and interpretation, but I digress)_regarded a social_convention_which_was easily identified by_members of the Corinthian congregation, and_therefore was culturally relative to some_extent; but that is not to say_that Paul does not appeal to_God's unchangeable moral law for_guidance in_addressing that particular concern/problem in_Corinth. Indeed, as_many world-class_commentators agree, Paul_appeals to God's moral law and_social order to_justify the wisdom of applying or_not_applying "head coverings"_for_that_particular concern_needing to be_addressed,_namely of_men_and women praying and prophesying in_worship._And I don't see why Paul's appeal_to God's moral law_and_social order, specifically his_statement that "the head of_every man is Christ, and the_head of_a wife_is her husband, and the head of Christ is God," necessarily_infers that "headcoverings" for women "engaged_in any public worship_(i.e. church_service,_a gathering of_a_smaller group_for purposes of worship, or family worship)"_always has_been a moral law for all_cultures and all ages._In_fact, now that I am re-evaluating_your concluding statements on headcoverings, I'm_also not sure how you_move_from_affirming these requirements for public_worship to mandating them for private_family worship as_well.

Now, if you recall, my position, as_stated_in the previous post, is that_even_though I do not personally believe_Paul_is_referring to "head-coverings" in I_Cor. 11, I also do not_believe that women today who wear "head-coverings" in worship_are sinning. In_fact, as far as I_can_tell,_it's a public display of their love of obeying God_(or what_they believe God's_Word requires of them). And to that degree, I commend_them for holding firm to their personal_conviction about the didactic elements of God's Word to them.

* *