SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Revival to this Generation
Give To SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : We need to cover head covering

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 Next Page )
PosterThread









 Re:

I would like to offer that vs 14 says "doth not even nature itself teach you".....
Paul here is appealing to the natural understanding of a natural covering,long hair, as a teaching to re-enforce the need for a physical covering spoken of in the earlier passages.
Also the "we have no such custom" vs 16 means no such custom of women praying or prophesying with head "uncovered".
The reason I add this is in hopes of contributing an understanding of the way Paul speaks. Peter mentions that some of the writings of Paul are hard to understand.
Also I would like to add that the testimony of the writings of the early church,(see Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, by David Bercot) on this subject make it quite clear that they plainly understood the apostolic doctrine to mean a physical headcovering.
Finally as I stated in a previous post I do not say this to demand that christian women return to veiling. However I do hope that more realize that it is scriptural to veil and not just a teaching of men.
Let all veil in liberty or not veil in liberty.
God bless, John
God bless you all

 2008/2/22 7:53
Delboy
Member



Joined: 2004/2/8
Posts: 199
Worthing UK

 Re:

Hi all, have not posted for ages but this subject is one that I am re looking at with my wife.
Philogos aka Ron Bailey has an excellent resorce website here is a Link to there with a page of pdf's of GW North's writings, there is one on 'sign of authority' which might help the discussion....
blessings
http://wiki.biblebase.com/index.php?title=G_W_North_Writings


_________________
derek Eyre

 2008/2/22 8:12Profile
murrcolr
Member



Joined: 2007/4/25
Posts: 1839
Scotland, UK

 Re:

1Cor 11:16 But if any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

You could read it like this?

Why are you fighting, we have no such custom of covering the head with a cloth, neither does the Churches of God.

Mennonite's practice head covering. So this book you promote would be baised towards that beliefs.

[b]David Bercot thinks liberal Protestant doctrines are not any more Biblical than the than the Jehovah's Witnesses.[/b]

David Bercot is an Anabaptist (Mennonite/Amish, but in David's case, Mennonite) convert. Originally raised as a Jehovah's Witness, he left when he felt they were not completely honest in their interpretation of the Bible. He became a Liberal Protestant for a brief period, but he was not sure that their doctrines were any more Biblical than the Jehovah's Witnesses.



_________________
Colin Murray

 2008/2/22 8:37Profile









 Re:

I had the pleasure of fellowshipping with David at his home fellowship in Tx. for about a year. This was back in early nineties when he had written "Will the Real Heretics Please stand up.
I do not want to presume to speak for David but he always was sincere in his desire to serve the Lord in Spirit and in truth.
The Dictionary I recommended categorises all the saying of the early writers on all subjects concerning christianity. I have also read the Ante Nicene Fathers from which the dictionary references and I it is accurate to their writings.
Please remember just trying to promote liberty for both sides.
God bless, John

 2008/2/22 9:19
murrcolr
Member



Joined: 2007/4/25
Posts: 1839
Scotland, UK

 Re:

In my searching I have found this it written by a Messianic Jew. Thought I would throw it into the pot as well.

http://werunited.com/yhyby/?p=235

Paul WAS NOT talking about beanies, fedoras, cowboy hats, kerchiefs or Easter bonnets at all! The entirety of this teaching in 1 Cor. 11 has to do with HEADSHIP! The head of the man is YAHSHUA and the man dishonors his “head”, Yahshua, if he allows another man to be his “head” between him and the Holy one of Israel. A woman’s Head is her man (her husband). She dishonors her head (husband) is she looks to any other man (Pastor, Evangelist, etc.) to rule over her in any way above her husband. If a man loves his wife as Yahshua loves those who believe in Him, then he must be the HEAD of the woman he loves. A woman must also then; if Paul is correct in teaching the Torah of headship, and he is; honor and respect her husband as her representative and intercessor before Yahweh. Paul was teaching nothing new or unique here and nothing to do with clothing, but rather pronouncing Torah principles given to Moses on the mountain by Yahweh. The HEADCOVERING of the Man is Yahshua the Messiah and the HEADCOVERING of the woman is her man. All Scripture upholds this principle and Yahweh expects us to obey and be blessed by our obedience to HIS instructions. When we willfully stray and cover our heads with others as our spiritual leaders (head), then Yahweh will walk away and we are on our own. Who is your unauthorized covering? Do you have one or 2 that you respect more than your spouse or, if a man, respect more than Yahshua? Think about it and I’ll see you when the smoke clears. The bottom line is that there is no Scripture anywhere that requires any of us to wear a head covering.


_________________
Colin Murray

 2008/2/22 18:48Profile
ginnyrose
Member



Joined: 2004/7/7
Posts: 7534
Mississippi

 Re:

murrcolr,

If you would study history, you will find that Christian females throughout the years have practiced the literal application of this scripture. It is gross ignorance on your part to suggest this is solely a Mennonite/Amish practice. It has been only in recent years that the larger evangelical church has abandoned it. For proof, look at old photos of church women.

murrcolr, your approach reminds me of someone who used to practice it but has abandoned it, and is now working hard to justify it.


_________________
Sandra Miller

 2008/2/23 9:38Profile
murrcolr
Member



Joined: 2007/4/25
Posts: 1839
Scotland, UK

 Re:

Ginny I want to get it right and I am looking at every sermon or article posted on hear and reading it. I am not only reading sermons but looking at the men who wrote the sermons as well if possible. I have also dug into history. I am not telling you to give up your beliefs. I am only pointing out other options and other ways of thinking that I have going on in my head.

Here is an example of what I have found so far. Other religions at the time also practiced head covering. A lot of pagan practice was adopted by the early church around the time of Constantine so we can't realy go by what the early church did and accept it as Gospel.

Vestal Virgins

This is probably where you get nuns from have a look at the man's title who presided over the rites of the ceremony.

Pontifex Maximus presides over rites, prescribed rules for public ceremony, and watch over the Vestals.

Their tasks included the maintenance of the fire sacred to Vesta, the goddess of the hearth and home.

The main articles of their clothing consisted of an infula, a suffibulum and a palla. The infula was a long headdress that draped over the shoulders. Usually found underneath were red and white woolen ribbons. The suffibulum was the brooch that clipped the palla together. The palla was a simple mantle, wrapped around the Vestal Virgin. The brooch and mantle were draped over the left shoulder.

---------------------------------------------

One statement commonly cited as evidence about the headcovering customs of Greek women is in Plutarch's Sayings of Spartans (written during the first century A.D.). Concerning a Spartan he writes, "When someone inquired why they took their girls into public places unveiled, but their married women veiled, he said, 'Because the girls have to find husbands, and the married women have to keep to those who have them!'" This seems to indicate that in Sparta married women usually covered their heads in public and unmarried women did not.

--------------------------------------------

Some on here have mentioned authority and also some some sermons have also mentioned authority. In some of the sermons men have not fully understood authority and called judgement authority which I discussed earlier on here and on another thread.

1Cor 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. That word power means authority.

I would agree with anyone on here that says this portion of scriputre in Cor 11 has to do with authority. But the need to cover a womans head I would disagree with. I will keep digging it says in the bible seek and you shall find, knock and the door will be opened. It also says the truth shall set you free.

Please do not get upset with me, I do not mean to offend anyone, if I have please forgive me.


_________________
Colin Murray

 2008/2/23 18:03Profile
ginnyrose
Member



Joined: 2004/7/7
Posts: 7534
Mississippi

 Re:

murrcolr,

I think it is pointless for me to continue this discussion with you. You have chosen to disregard the plain teaching of the Word.

And your slam at the Mennonites (in reference to David Bercot) is uncalled for. I find your attitude repulsive and arrogant. While I am likely old enough to be your mom (and maybe grandmother) I am very concerned that your approach to this issue could cause young, weak Christians to falter. I do not plan to continue this discussion with you anymore.

ginnyrose


_________________
Sandra Miller

 2008/2/23 18:49Profile









 Re:

Quote:

Compliments wrote:
Let me put this thread in a different light.

Lets consider the ministry of David Wilkerson and Carter Conlon and the Times Square Church. Are these men in error and rebellion because their wives don't put on the head covering?

We can practically pull out hundreds of "godly" ministries that are out there and most would not have this set in stone, would anyone say that these ministries are in rebellion?

There has been enough bickering and judging in this thread to make a fair assessment of these ministries.

Picture yourself standing before Carter and his wife Theresa and tell them that they are in rebellion because the women are not wearing the head covering.

I can imagine their reply. They would look at you with compassion and say nothing. They would just stand there and look at you with compassion in their eyes while you would begin to melt under the conviction power of the holy Ghost.



This is the only thing I feared - was division in the Body over this controversy.

I and others have said that we would fight for the right for sisters to wear a covering - though we don't at my Church or any AoG or CoG church I've been in.

I think Compliment's post wraps up an aweful lot.


1 Corth 13

 2008/2/23 19:01
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4779


 Re:

Hi HE_Reigns...

Quote:
This is the only thing I feared - was division in the Body over this controversy.

I and others have said that we would fight for the right for sisters to wear a covering - though we don't at my Church or any AoG or CoG church I've been in.


Good point.

I don't think that I had ever heard a person attack a woman who chose to wear a man-made head covering before. I've visited some fellowships where women freely and sincerely lived with such dress "obligations" (like head coverings, no pants ever, etc...). No one seemed to mind that they felt such a thing was required by Scripture. Nor did there seem to be any "whispering" by our "head fabric" wearing sisters about the "ungodliness" of those women who didn't wear them.

If it is a matter of choice -- well then, by all means, allow yourself to set your conscience at ease. I do find it difficult when such practices are forced upon everyone else. I've visited congregations where there was a mandatory set of rules for attendance or membership. Since I don't embrace the idea that an additional, man-made covering is what is spoken of in I Corinthians chapter 11, I suppose that neither my wife nor myself would be "accepted" in such a congregation.

In addition to Times Square Church, I've visited other congregations of sincere believers who don't practice or teach this particular custom. You know what? They were wonderful believers. In fact, I don't remember that Martha Ravenhill wore one during my visit with Brother Leonard. Nor did I see any lying around the house.

It is difficult for me to believe that this was the "norm" during history. While I have seen some photos of women wearing hats -- I have also seen many photos of Christian women WITHOUT them. I haven't seen anything that would cause me to believe that this was a common practice in the early Church, the underground Church or anything since then. In fact, I can't find a single Scriptural anecdote (or historic anecdote) that would "verify" the interpretation of the "covering" being anything but a natural covering of "hair" (as defined in I Corinthians 11:15).

But this shouldn't be such a divisive issue. If you feel that you must wear another "covering" (in addition to the natural one), then by all means -- keep it on the head! Either way, we shouldn't feel obliged or oblige others to fulfill something that they do not (in good faith) see as a binding ritual of the Church.

I suppose that the heart of the matter is for men and women to understand the roles given to them by God. Christ is our covering. Men should provide a "cover" for their wives with the love, protection and nurture that is prescribed in the Word. It is, after all, the natural order of things.

The Lord bless you all -- regardless of the physical condition of your scalp!

:-)


_________________
Christopher

 2008/2/23 19:22Profile





©2002-2024 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Revival to this Generation.
Privacy Policy