Elaine

Craig,
I like the way you present your arguments. And I agree with TL – it’s “smoke and mirrors.”

It reminds me of the discussion we had here with a comp regarding Cheryl’s article “Husband as Priest of the Home.”

Comp – “Distinguish between principle and practice in your hermeneutics and you will see again that in 1 Cor 11 there is a principle that is rooted in creation (the husband/man is the head of the wife/woman shown through the creational order) and then there is a cultural practice to implement this teaching (head covering).”

Egal – “Then how can the practice ever be UNimplemented since its very root is Creation? Has Creation changed? No? Then it must be permenantly valid.”

Comp – “It’s the principle that doesn’t change, not the practice. The practice will change from culture to culture. The priciple in both texts is one of male leadership whether that is in the marriage or in the church. Paul supports both arguments for this from the creation account. The practice at the time in 1 Cor 11 was a head covering for a woman. This practice will change from culture to culture.”

Egal – “It would be very helpful to me if you could explain, step by step, the process you follow that reveals a distinction between them due to some component of the Creation account?
Because from where I’m standing, it appears that you are basing this doctrine on some un-named thing in the Creation account that allows you to see a difference between:
a.) head covering rooted in the Creation
and
b.) teaching and authenteining rooted in the Creation
– whereby one is rendered temporary and one is rendered permanent.
What is *it* in the Creation account that you are basing this upon?”

As you can see, many comps don’t even recognize the problem.