SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : No Custom? Or No Argument?

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )
PosterThread
ravin
Member



Joined: 2004/5/6
Posts: 309
Washington st. u.S. A.

 Re: No Custom? Or No Argument?

yes and what version does God use. the one we are looking for? the softer easyer way. you know the devil has his own version too, he used it on the Lord.
we must all find the word of God thru the spirit. Spiritual things are discern by spiritual men.
If we need wisdom God says ask for it. the Holy spirit will guide you into all truth.
I pray the Holy Spirit lead you in Jesus name.

 2006/3/1 23:51Profile
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4499


 Re:

Hi ginnyrose...

Quote:
2. All Christian women wore a head covering when praying or prophesying until the 20th century. If you will study Christian history you can easily see this. Even the pics of Christian women in the 19th century show them wearing a covering.

Actually, this practice is relatively new in light of history. It is not written about in the Old Testament, nor in any other passages found in the Word of God. Little is written about Christian customs following the rise of the Roman Church. However, outside of strict sects, there is little indication that such a practice was common until the past 500 years.

It is important that we are careful about creating a tradition out of an interpretation of a single passage. Otherwise, traditions could be started for the "baptism of the dead" (I Corinthians 15:29), "taking up serpents" (Mark 16:18), etc... To employ a single verse to establish such a tradition seems unwise.

It is my own opinion that this passage of Scripture is speaking of [u]hair[/u] and not a bonnet, veil or man-made covering. Notice the end of this passage:
Quote:
13 Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?

14 Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?

15 But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.

16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

Many other versions (such as the NIV, NASB, etc...) concur with the KJV in this. The entire passage seems more directed about "hair length" (and possible worldliness thereof) than the Scriptural importance of wearing a hat.

That being said, I actually attended a meeting in a strict Pentecostal Church once. On the wall of the kitchen, there was literally a sign that read: "[i]They will know you are Christians by your headcoverings[/i]." It would have been humorous -- but I don't think it was meant to be funny.

:-)


_________________
Christopher

 2006/3/2 1:20Profile









 Re:

Oh my.

Next time I visit Times Square Church I better make sure to copy that link and give it to DW.

He and his congregation should get it right.

Yes, there is a mystique in shows of outward Holiness. We had to wear doilies (whatever) on our head when I was a Catholic. Now that 'is' History.

 2006/3/2 1:45
ravin
Member



Joined: 2004/5/6
Posts: 309
Washington st. u.S. A.

 Re:

We must know if we are here to please God or man.
We must believe in the unseen,God is spirit.
seek ye first the kingdom of God...
by faith we follow Gods written word.
all scripture is given by the inspiration of God.
He(God) wrote,telling us not to add or take away from his word.
Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.

 2006/3/2 1:55Profile
PreachParsly
Member



Joined: 2005/1/14
Posts: 2164
Arkansas

 Re:

Where are all of the greek scholars at on this question? It seems that that there is something with the languange what would make different translators traslate it so differently. Are they from different texts?


_________________
Josh Parsley

 2006/3/2 15:22Profile
Graftedbranc
Member



Joined: 2005/11/8
Posts: 619


 Re:

Quote:
1. It is not in the nature of the scriptures to address a local issue resricticted to a limited time/culture.



Paul instructed Philemon conserning Onisimus who was a run away slave. The situation was cultural and political, the application in principle was timeless.

Meat sacraficed to Idols was a cultural and religious question of the times. We don't usually encounter it today. But the principle of not putting a stumbling block before someone "weak in faith" is timeless.

Head coverings are related to a practice in the culture, A woman who uncovered dishonered her husband as was considered a "wanton woman" in that culture. The situation was cultural, the principle is timeless. That is again, don't, because of your liberty, put a stumbling block before others."

To take a principle and make a legal requirement is to forsake the essense of the New Testament, to forsake Christ, His redemption and the indwelling Spirit to take up a religious practice.

If there are pictures historically of women with head coverings, there are also nuns and monks with monk robes in church history. We don't derive doctrine and practice from historical religious observances. IN fact, it is always religion and tradition which are most opposed to the genuine work of the Spirit in any generation. It was religion and tradition that crucified the Lord Jesus and in every generation, it is those who cleave to tradition which oppose the move of the Spirit in genuine revival and renewal.

If women feel that they should were a little lace thingy on their head or a clip or some other "sign of submission" then they should do so. Or maybe their men who would demand this should put a collar with dog tags around their neck.

But if they want to take the biblical pattern they should follow the women in Iraq and veil. They should cover themselves totally.



Graftedbranch



 2006/3/2 15:38Profile
ravin
Member



Joined: 2004/5/6
Posts: 309
Washington st. u.S. A.

 Re:

"But if they want to take the biblical pattern they should follow the women in Iraq and veil. They should cover themselves totally."



Graftedbranch
//////////////////////////////////////////////////



Would you rather be foolish in mans sight. man can reason his way out of most things, take the garden,well he did(God) In his wisdom God wants to know will we follow him.
We make a big show of Bible in hand going to church and for some it is the only time the Bible is handled all week.
"If ye love me keep my commandments" "Be ye not hears of the word only but doers"
Gods way is not mans way, his thinking is far above what we have now. his foolishness is far wiser then mans wisdom. talk your way out of God s way and you will find yourself in a big crowed and on a wide road. many are called but few are choosen, better to find yourself on the narrow path.
when we give ourselves to God its not lets make a deal. he wants our will to be his will. Jesus said I do only what I see my father doing.
wise men came to Jesus long ago and they still do today.
be ye doers of the word and not hearers only.

 2006/3/2 17:37Profile
ginnyrose
Member



Joined: 2004/7/7
Posts: 7469
Mississippi

 Re:

It is difficult to jump in here to counter a number of issues this post has generated. I could not log on this morning and was gone the rest of the day....I would like to respond to a few points made about this issue of women wearing a head covering and whether it is Biblical.

1 Corinthians 11:2-16 is the basis for this discussion. This scripture reminds the reader of some fundamental doctrines:
1. Headship: God is the head of Christ; Christ is the head of every man; man is the head of a woman.
2. Praying. Both men and women pray.
3. Angels are keen observers of men and women praying.
4. No man is an island: we all come from another, all are interrelated: v. 11, 12

Now, with these fundamental principles operational, the scriptures clearly teach us what males and females should do to remind us of these fundamental facts of headship, prayer and angels. Men are to have short hair because he is the image and glory of God (v.7). Women are to have their heads covered because she is the glory of man. Women are also to wear a covering because of the angels. No more explanation is given here. We do know angels are ministering spirits who assist God in his work with people. Now godly females are to wear a covering because of the angels. (More on this later).

If we refuse to accept the literal application of a head covering for the females, we will also have to discard the principle of headship as demonstrated by God-Jesus-man –woman because they are so intricately interwoven.

It is true this was not practiced in the OT; it is a NT practice and the early church fathers had a lot to say about this issue. Check out this site: http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/HeadCovering.html

Here is another one which deals more in depth with this issue:
http://www.heritagemusic.org/brr/prayerveiling.shtml

Now for some modern history: If you check the artwork of centuries past of Christian women, you will notice they wore a head covering: Catholics, Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Anabaptists, Mennonites....Most of these groups have dropped the application of wearing the covering because they did not deem it necessary. But what has happened to these churches as a result of it? Homes have broken up because of divorce. Immodesty is accommodated. Women compete with men in the marketplace and are no longer content to be mothers and keepers at home. Children are hauled off to the day care center to be raised by others. There has been a severe breakdown of the marriage relationship where divorce among 'Christians' is the same as their worldly neighbors. Immorality is common. Homosexuality is debated and accepted. Now you will take me to task for making such a sweeping judgment of the apostasy of the Christian church. Before you rail on me for this, I urge you to go study history! Most of you are young enough to be my child, or me old enough to be your mom! I remember! This is exactly what has happened in the larger Mennonite church is the past 50 years! And the Mennonite church is just a little behind the rest of the well known church denominations.

Excuse to not wear a covering: "I do not want to stand out like a sore thumb." I wrestled with this issue - big time! I did NOT WANT TO LOOK DIFFERENT! PERIOD!!!!! Then the Holy Spirit gently reminded me that "whosoever therefore will be ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him also the son of man be ashamed when he cometh in the glory of his father with the holy angels. Mk.8:38. This clinched the matter for me. I did NOT want Jesus to be ashamed of me!

Will the refusal to wear a covering bar one from heaven? I do not know. I am not God: that is His job to determine this. We do know the Bible tells us that if we know to do good but do not do it, to him it is sin. James 4:17. The scriptures also specifically warn us against disobeying God and his word. That is what the entire scripture is about: How man sinned and the remedy God offers to reconcile man to himself.

Do people use the covering as a "good luck charm?" Yes, some do, but we cannot allow other peoples’ sin to interfere with our obedience.

Blessings in obeying this scripture: wives are more content to be a stay-at-home mom, to mother their children; have superior relationship with their husbands, marriages more stable, fewer divorces; have less fear for their own personal safety (I have never heard of a woman who wore a WHITE covering being criminally accosted by a man.)

Does God grant woman special protection as a reward for their obedience to this scripture? The answer is a YES.

If any of you disagree with me, let me assure you this is not something I dreamed up and decided to do and impose on anyone else: it was the Holy Spirit who inspired Paul to write like he did. I have wrestled with this issue personally, and have decided the disadvantages of wearing one pales into insignificance compared to Jesus dying on the cross. He did that for me and the least I can do is be willing to stand out in a crowd. And that does have its advantages: gives one many opportunities to witness for HIM! Now THAT is FUN!!!:-)

ginnyrose


_________________
Sandra Miller

 2006/3/3 1:06Profile
ccchhhrrriiisss
Member



Joined: 2003/11/23
Posts: 4499


 Re:

Hi ginnyrose...!

I appreciate the honesty in which you approach this tradition. Modesty is greatly needed in the Church. I have been to meetings where girls wore much less clothes than they should. And I do believe that there is a "worldliness" in dress. It may not come from wearing a particular pair of jeans or shirts -- but it is a desire to be like the world. But as many people have pointed out, holiness cannot be measured. It is a condition that starts in the heart before it appears in a physical sense. As a young man, I also believe that long hair and nice, modest dresses are particularly attractive on young ladies (of course, not is a lustful sense).

That being said, I still do not see any link between a [i]lack of hats on women[/i] and the sinful practice of [u]homosexuality[/u] in the Church.

Not only that, but I have a difficult time seeing the "covering" as mentioned in I Corinthians 11 as referring to any sort of covering besides hair. The "nature of things" does teach us that women were meant to wear long hair. Men are [u]not[/u] meant to wear long hair -- because it is against the natural order that God gave us. Verse 15 of I Corinthians chapter 11 teaches us that [u]hair[/u] is the natural covering referred to in this passage. A [u]hat[/u] is simply a man-made object. And there is instances where men in the Old Testament actually prayed with a linen covering over their head -- quite the opposite of what many are interpreting this passage.

There are many religions and religious sects or cults that require strict and "forced" obedience to certain standards of dress. Muslims, hindus, buddists, the amish and some other strict Christian sects still hold this tradition. Does such obedience make one holy? Of course not. If the heart is unclean -- outward signs of "holiness" are irrelevant. But I do not see the wearing of a hat as a doctrine of the Church in the Bible. Again, the passage in I Corinthians 11 (as far as I can tell) is referring to [u]hair[/u] -- and not [u]hats[/u].

Evidence that certain Christian sects may have practiced female hat-wearing (or veil-wearing) throughout history (regardless of whether [i]accurate[/i] or [i]inaccurate[/i]) is also irrelevant. Why? Because there are alot of such historic practices that were also widely accepted that are now seen as having been based upon extra-Biblical tradition. Have you ever wondered why there are three different types of water baptisms practiced in Churches?

I view this practice as such. I don't believe that wearing a veil makes a woman any more holy than a true believer that does not wear one. I also do not believe that such a practice of wearing a veil is needed for a woman to communicate with God. I believe that it is much more important to honor the concept that such symbolism represents rather than the actual symbol itself. And as was stated earlier, it still seems like the entire passage refers to hair -- and not hats or veils.

:-)


_________________
Christopher

 2006/3/3 2:19Profile
GaryE
Member



Joined: 2005/4/26
Posts: 376
Mifflinburg, Pennsylvania

 Re:



It seems to me that the word custom has a lot to do with what is acceptable or not. Also, the reason why someone does or doesn't do something like have a covering or not having a head covering or having short hair or not having short hair. Modesty in the culture that one is in goes along with custom and also the reason why or not the person does or doesn't do something.

I've noticed that men's appearance over the centuries have varied widely. Many men of God had very long beards. People like Booth, Moody, Knox and others had very long beards. Men like John Owens, George Whitefield, John and Charles Wesley had long hair. They definitely did not have the clone look that many churches have today and yet the Lord used them in great ways.

I wonder how many churches today would invite Charles Finney to preach at their towns.

Where I live, many women have head coverings and wear long dresses. I think they look just fine but I also know that often within their denomination there is a legalistic and self-righteous air that isn't ok. Not all of them appear self-righteous though. It all goes back to why people do what they do or don't do what they do. A tradition doesn't make a person righteous.

Once, I was witnessing to a man and he told me that his church teaches that if a man has a beard or a mustache, he is in sin. They call it shamefacedness. I know that in Pennsylvania there are Amish that think if you have a mustache that is worldly. This is all self-righteous rubbish. It's no different than the leaven that Jesus warned us of from the Pharisees.

I heard that Hudson Taylor was used in a great way in China and that he took on the appearance of a China man. From what I heard he had a pigtail and when he came back to England and he was ridiculed by many for his appearance. Again, it is the reason why you do or don't do something. God sees the heart.

Years ago a woman church leader vocally attacked and accused me before the church for wearing blue jeans in that church. She said because I was grown in the Lord I should know better. Thank God, the poison from that snake has had no effect on me and to this day I where blue jeans where ever I go.

When a person is where he or she should be, that person is concerned with what is going on inside of peoples hearts, not what they look like.







_________________
Gary Eckenroth

 2006/3/3 3:07Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Privacy Policy