SermonIndex Audio Sermons
SermonIndex - Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival
See Opportunities to Serve with SermonIndex
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Question on head covering

Print Thread (PDF)

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









 Re:

Quote:

KrispyKrittr wrote:
Let me clarify something... I am not against women wearing a head covering. Those I know who do really have a deeper understanding of godly submission than most Christian women.

I simply believe that it is up to the woman to decide between her and her God. There is [b]no[/b] commandment in scripture for a Christian woman to wear a head covering, and Paul explains why (very clearly). However, it's important to note that he did [b]not[/b] forbid it, either. Paul seemed to understand that this is something that some would do because for them it was an outward sign of the submission that has taken place in their heart.

But there are those people and denominations that insist their women wear head coverings. Thats wrong. And it no longer is a sign of whats happening in their hearts... it's now a compulsory thing. A requirement. It's lost it's meaning.

The same principle applies to those who insist that tithing is for the NT believer (altho it is never once taught in the NT as a requirement for the NT believer.)

We want to make everyone do godly things instead of just letting godly things happen because it is in someones heart to please God.

Thats called religion.

Krispy



amen...

not to mention that if you wanted to open the context, the previous (1 Corinthians 10), Paul is talking about the Believer's Freedom.


KJV

23All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

24Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth.

25Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:

26For the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof.

27If any of them that believe not bid you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go; whatsoever is set before you, eat, asking no question for conscience sake.

28But if any man say unto you, this is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:

29Conscience, I say, not thine own, but of the other: for why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?

30For if I by grace be a partaker, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?

31Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.

32Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:

33Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit, but the profit of many, that they may be saved.


NIV


23"Everything is permissible"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible"—but not everything is constructive. 24Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.

25Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26for, "The earth is the Lord's, and everything in it."[c]

27If some unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28But if anyone says to you, "This has been offered in sacrifice," then do not eat it, both for the sake of the man who told you and for conscience' sake[d]— 29the other man's conscience, I mean, not yours. For why should my freedom be judged by another's conscience? 30If I take part in the meal with thankfulness, why am I denounced because of something I thank God for?

31So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God. 32Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God— 33even as I try to please everybody in every way. For I am not seeking my own good but the good of many, so that they may be saved.




Not all things are beneficial. Not everything is constructive.

This is like hanging a cross on your review mirror in your car. There are only two possible reasons for this 1) to SHOW others and 2) to SHOW and remind you.

Where is God? He should be in your heart, in your being, not necessarily on your head, or hanging infront of your face, or as a worldly sign like circumcision.

God Bless the inside, please,
Brian

 2007/4/13 15:44









 Re: Question on head covering

Quote:

myfirstLove wrote:
I have a question on head covering. When should sisters wear head coverings? And, if it is only during church gathering, what happends if you do not have the usual Sunday gathering at a church building, but your fellowship gathering is at a house, so do the sisters wear the head covering every time they gather with brothers and sisters?

Note that these questions are for those who believe in sisters wearing head coverings.

Thank you,
Lisa


Hi Krispy,

This topic was noted to be for those who believe in head coverings. Couldn't resist huh :)?




Lisa, I think you need to listen to what is being said. You asked a question that implied women SHOULD wear head coverings and then footnoted that it is for BELIEVERS only.

Besides your sarcasm about not being able to resist commenting on this topic, you also implied that I am reading out of context. Krispy was clear in the verse that he pointed out, which was the same chapter I quoted.

You are trying to get a narrow answer to a broader question. If you want to feel more holy with a head covering, I am sure you have seen nun or muslim ladies with theirs. Why not just take their example?

This is not to knock head coverings per say, just to say that your question about this topic seems rather worldly. If you do not want to hear the full and complete answer, then do not ask. It reminds me of the person who wanted to talk about apple pies.

God Bless apple pies,
Brian :-)

 2007/4/13 16:00









 Re:

Quote:

myfirstLove wrote:
Krispy, as you will notice, I have not forced any one on this forum to wear headcovering and telling them that they will loose their salvation if they don't. I have not even shared with anyone that they need to wear a head covering, only if they ask, I will share.

You will notice that my first post on this thread made it clear that I only want those people who believe in head coverings to comment because I do not want this thread to turn into a debate.

Your the one that is turning it into religion.



I do not want to be 'sticking up' for Krispy, because he is quite good at that himself, but Lisa, you seem to be passively argumentative. I do not know you, nor have I read anything from you (i don't think), but your responses do tell me something.

By mentioning that you do not want to turn this thread into a debate, you obviously knew it was a 'hot' topic. I, for one, did not know. I have never seen this topic before. If you have and I think you said that your husband has as well, then why bring it up again?

No one talks about apple pies.

God Bless apple pies,
Brian
:-)

 2007/4/13 16:09









 Re:

Quote:

ginnyrose wrote:

Personally, I wear one and I am not ashamed of it. It makes me stand out like a sore thumb, but if Jesus was willing to die a cruel death on the cross, which was a shameful thing to do, the least I can do is be willing to be obedient to this Biblical directive. And you know what? I experience respect from the males in the public! They will open/hold doors for me when entering a building! Now this of course, is not required Biblically, but it is a nice gesture.

Apparently, the Holy Spirit has been speaking to you about this?

Blessings,
ginnyrose



ginnyrose, I am truly happy that a head covering brings you respect... although, I cannot see your comparision of Jesus dying on the cross and, as you mentioned, being obedient to this Biblical directive of covering ones head, especially since 1 Corinthians 11 does not direct such a thing.

Help me understand as if I was 5.

Also, although you ask a question, I think the courts would call,"Objection! Leading the witness, you honor!" Why is it appearant that the Holy Spirit is speaking to her about this?

God Bless,
Brian

I hold the door for all women and men, too. Do you think that Jesus will open the gate for you any more or any longer, because you had something on your head? :-) I don't.

 2007/4/13 16:27









 Re:

Quote:

ginnyrose wrote:
JelloTaster,

There are so many blessings in wearing one I am reluctant to detail them because one can not back them up with scripture. It is like the icing on the cake, a fringe benefit or who knows? Perhaps it is the natural result by divine order when done?

ginnyrose



maybe this could be an answer, but it seems worldly or fleshy to me...you know?...the icing on the cake?!

 2007/4/13 16:31
myfirstLove
Member



Joined: 2005/11/26
Posts: 496


 Re:

Brian you are very wrong.

There was no sarcasm in my words, but there are plenty in yours.

You were very rude in your posts. Insinuating that I am using head coverings to be more holy and adding to my words.

I ask a question about when to wear head coverings. Thats all. How is that trying to get a narrow answer to what I believe? I am not asking help in wanting to know if head coveing is material or not. I am asking when to wear it.

Your adding to my words when you say I am asking only for believers to answer. I ask those who believe in women wearing coverings to answer because I was not looking to understand about the covering, BUT when to wear it.

The reason why I told you to read it in context is because you only pulled one verse out.

You need to reread your posts because it is full of pride, immaturity, ill humor and rudeness.

I will not continue this conversation with you in that attitude.




_________________
Lisa

 2007/4/13 16:40Profile









 Re:


[b]This is an excerpt from an article on headcoverings. It's from a messianic website. Though I disagree with much of the doctrine found in some Messianic Churches I found part of this article to be a good teaching on headcoverings.)[/b]




THE VALIDITY AND VALUE OF WOMAN'S HEADCOVERING




INTRODUCTION

D. L. Moody once mentioned an old minister who said that "the cries of neglected texts were always sounding in his ears, asking why he did not show how important they were."2 For a number of years, this text concerning the woman's headcovering has been sounding in my ears, asking why I do not show how important it is.

I realize that most Bible-believers consider headcovering one of the least important commandments, and perhaps they are right. There are certainly many things that are more vital to our faith than headcoverings. However, the subject requires attention because it is a practice that is ignored by all but a small minority of women. Merle Ruth, a Mennonite writing about the subject, points out that "a practice, once it becomes neglected, ought to receive more attention than it otherwise would, and this is obviously a neglected practice."3 It is for this very reason that we should closely examine what the Bible actually teaches about this neglected, forgotten custom.

The prophet Jeremiah was commanded "to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant" (Jer.1:10).I do not want to tear down people who hold erroneous views about the headcovering. However, as a teacher whom God has set in the Body, it is my duty to root out, to pull down, to destroy, and to throw down the erroneous view, themselves, because erroneous views rob God's people of potential blessings. In New Testament terminology, this is called "casting down imaginations" or "destroying speculations." (2 Cor.10:5 KJV/NASB).

In the first part of this paper, I must "cast down" by exposing the inadequacies of some opinions believers typically have about the woman's headcovering. This must be done to establish the validity of the practice for believers today. Then I want "to build and to plant" by presenting a sound, Biblical understanding of the subject to establish the value of the practice. It is my prayer that both the validity and the value of the headcovering will be planted in the hearts and minds of readers, and thereby build up the Body of Messiah.

PART I:
VALIDITY OF THE HEADCOVERING
SOME TYPICAL RESPONSES

Whenever the issue of the woman's headcovering is brought up, people often dismiss the practice in one of several ways. There are some who simply ignore the subject because, they say, there are different ways to interpret the passage. Others avoid further discussion by saying that the headcovering Paul refers to is just the hair itself, and not a scarf or shawl worn over the hair. Many others insist that these instructions about headcovering applied only to the congregation in Corinth, and that the reasons for the headcovering were due to some local, cultural customs of the First Century that are irrelevant to Twentieth Century believers. Some people dismiss the subject by saying that God is concerned with what is in the heart, and the headcovering is merely an unimportant outward symbol. Finally, there are some women who do not wear a headcovering simply because no other women in their congregation do it, and they fear they might project a "holier-than-thou" image by wearing a headcovering in a bareheaded congregation.

Let us now examine each of these five responses in detail, honestly and objectively.

RESPONSE #1: IGNORING THE SUBJECT

Those who say there are different ways to interpret 1 Corinthians 11 are right. Different people interpret this passage in different ways. There are different ways to interpret almost any passage of Scripture. However, this does not mean we should ignore a subject, especially when fifteen verses (half a chapter) are devoted to giving detailed explanations and instructions about a practice. A passage of instruction this lengthy should not be neglected by God's people simply because there are different ways to interpret it.

Paul felt it was important enough to write about, and the Holy Spirit felt it was important enough to preserve as Scripture for the instruction of future generations, including ours. When people interpret Biblical instruction differently, the response most pleasing to God is not to ignore it, but to seek the correct interpretation, and then humbly respond in cheerful obedience to the will of our Heavenly Father.

RESPONSE #2: THE WOMAN'S HAIR AS A "COVERING"

Those who say that the only covering a woman needs is her hair base their conclusion on a statement near the end of the passage: "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory for her: for her hair is given her for a covering" (va.15).

There are three proofs that the hair cannot be the only covering Paul refers to, and certainly not the covering he refers to earlier in the passage.

PROOF A: TWO GREEK WORDS

First, the Greek word translated "covering" in this verse is peribolaion, a word that is different from and unrelated to katakalupto, the "covering" spoken of in all the previous verses. If Paul had meant that the hair is the only covering a woman needs, he would have used the word katakalupto -- the term he uses all six times that the "covering" is mentioned in the preceding verses. But Paul does not write "her hair is given her for a katakalupto." He uses a totally different word, peribolaion, when he tells us the hair is a "covering." Paul switches to another term for a reason: He wants to make sure we do not confuse the woman's natural covering, her hair (peribolaion), with the scarf or shawl (katakalupto) which she willingly places on her head. This fact becomes even more apparent when we look at the meanings and uses of these two different Greek words.

Katakalupto, the word that refers to the covering a woman places on her head, is composed of the prefix kata-('down") and kalupto ("cover"). This is exactly what a scarf or shawl does -- it hangs down from the top of the head and covers the woman's hair.

Peribolaion, the word that refers to the woman's hair as a natural "covering," uses the prefix peri- ("around," as in our English word perimeter). The long hair functions as a frame that flows around the perimeter or border of the woman's face.

The word peribolaion appears only twice in the New Testament, but it appears twelve times in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Bible which was used and quoted by New Testament writers. It is significant that the word peribolaion is used in Deut.22:12 to refer to the tallit, the four-cornered, fringed cloak worn by men. Paul was familiar with the Greek Septuagint, and most certainly was aware of the use of peribolaion to refer to the tallit. So when Paul writes that the woman's long hair is given to her anti (literally, -instead of") peribolaion, he is telling us this: the woman is given long hair to flow around her head and shoulders instead of the peribolaion/tallit, the four-cornered, fringed cloak that men are commanded to wear.4 Therefore, Paul is not saying in 1 Cor.11:15 that the hair is the only covering a woman needs. On the contrary, he is saying that the hair is not a substitute for the katakalupto (scarf or shawl), but it is given to the woman to wear instead of the peribolaion/tallit.

This verse also points out that God uses the woman's naturally long hair to show that He expects the woman to cover her head with a scarf or shawl, and He uses the man's absence of long hair to show that the man should not be covered with a scarf or shawl hanging down over his head like a woman.5 This is why Paul appeals to nature in the preceding verse ("Does not even nature itself teach you?"). As Mennonite writer Ruth explains it, "When obedient to the dictates of nature, the man with his short hair appears uncovered the woman with her long hair appears covered. By this arrangement, God has shown what He expects."6

PROOF B: CUTTING OFF THE HAIR

A second proof that the hair is not the only covering a woman needs is found in the statement Paul makes in verse six: "For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off." If Paul meant that the woman's only headcovering were the hair itself, this verse would be saying, "If a woman does not have hair on her head, let her also have her hair cut off." It is linguistically impossible to say that the woman's headcovering is nothing more than her hair. If the hair were the only "covering," then an "uncovered" woman would be a woman who already had her "hair cut off." An already hairless woman cannot be commanded to have her hair cut off. It would be like saying, "Let the bald man get a haircut" or "Let the beardless man shave his beard."

What verse six means is this: if the woman refuses to wear a scarf or shawl, she should also remove the natural covering, her hair. In other words, she should wear both coverings or none at all. Watchman Nee comments on this verse with these strong words:

"Today people keep neither of these two commands of the Bible. If a sister will not cover her hair but shears or shaves it, she may yet be reckoned as hearkening to the words of the Bible. But today woman neither shaves nor covers her hair -- a double disobedience.7

PROOF C: BIBLICAL AND TALMUDIC EVIDENCE

One final proof which shows that the headcovering is more than the hair is the fact that women did, indeed, wear scarves or shawls on their heads in Biblical times. The Encyclopedia Judaica tells us that "the general custom was to appear in public, and in the presence of strange men, with covered hair."8 We know from both the Bible and the Talmud that this is true. In Numbers 5:18, we are told that a woman suspected of being unfaithful to her husband was to have her head uncovered by the priest.9 This tells us that a woman's normal clothing in Biblical times included a headcovering, for how else could the priest "uncover the woman's head"? We see from this passage that a woman's uncovered head marks her as one suspected of being unfaithful to her husband. Today's modern culture may attach no meaning at all to an uncovered head, but from a Biblical viewpoint, it represents suspicion of unfaithfulness. This is why Paul says, "Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with head uncovered?" (1Cor.11:13). Paul expects the answer to be obvious (at least to those familiar with the meaning of an uncovered head). The woman with an uncovered head, Paul says, "disgraces her head [i.e., her husband]" (rs.5).


RESPONSE #3: FIRST CENTURY CORINTHIAN CUSTOM

Because the headcovering is not mentioned in any other New Testament epistle, some say that the only women who needed to cover their heads were those in Corinth, perhaps due to some local to the Corinthians, but also to "all who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Cot.1:2). Furthermore, he ends the passage on headcoverings with these words: "But if one is inclined to be contentious, we [i.e., we Apostles] have no other practice, nor have the churches [plural] of God" (1Cor.11:16).11 In other words, it was a universal custom in all the congregations, and not even open to dispute. If someone wanted to be contentious, Paul wrote, arguing about it was not allowed. It was a non-negotiable custom that all believers in all places were expected to practice. The reason headcovering is not mentioned in any other epistle is because correction was not needed in the other congregations. It was only the women in Corinth who refused to follow the Apostles' instructions about covering the head.

Some believers today will admit that headcoverings were worn not only in Corinth, but in all congregations, when Paul wrote his epistle. But, they say, the reason had to do with time, not place -- it was just a First Century custom. For some reason unknown to us, it was considered improper for a woman to be bareheaded. But since society thinks nothing of bareheaded women today, they say, it is no longer important. It was only important then, because it was the custom of that time.

The above reasoning is flawed for a very simple reason: it overlooks the fact that the Bible plainly states the two reasons for the headcovering, and neither of these reasons is restricted to First Century cultural customs. The Bible tells us that one reason for the headcovering is to demonstrate the divine order of authority and submission that God has decreed (va.3). The other reason is -because of the angels' (va.10). Both of these reasons (which will be discussed later) have to do with eternal principles, and are not limited to some First Century cultural custom that Christians have imagined. God's order of authority and the actions of angels are not things that only First Century believers needed to be concerned with. Both of these are as valid today as ever.

When the Bible clearly states the reasons for a practice, it is presumptuous to ignore those reasons, and then excuse oneself from obedience by theorizing and imagining reasons that are not even suggested in the text. R. C. Sproul, in his book Knowing Scripture, discusses this common error that people make when they assume Paul's instructions were due to some First Century Corinthian custom:

What is wrong with this kind of speculation? The basic problem here is that our reconstructed knowledge of first-century Corinth has led us to supply Paul with a rationale that is foreign to the one he gives himself. In a word, we are not only putting words into the apostle's mouth, but we are ignoring words that are there. If Paul merely told women in Corinth to cover their heads and gave no rationale for such instruction, we would be strongly inclined to supply it via our cultural knowledge. In this case, however, Paul provides a rationale which is based on an appeal to creation, not to the custom of Corinthian harlots. We must be careful not to let our zeal knowledge of the culture obscure what is actually said. To subordinate Paul's stated reason to our speculatively conceived reason is to slander the apostle and turn exegesis into eisogesis."12

RESPONSE #4: OUTWARD SYMBOLS AND INWARD REALITIES

We know from Matthew chapter 23 that many Pharisees of the New Testament period emphasized only outward holiness and neglected inward holiness. Many Christians, in their attempt to avoid making the same mistake, make the opposite mistake -- they emphasize only inward holiness and neglect outward holiness. The headcovering, they say, is just one of those outward symbols that only Pharisaical hypocrites are concerned about.

A passage often quoted to dismiss headcovering and other matters of outward appearance is 1 Samuel 16:7b: "...for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.'

Those who so quote from this verse conveniently omit and ignore the first part of the verse, which shows us what it actually means. The context of the passage makes it clear that the Lord is not saying "dress any way you please." These words about man's looking on the outward appearance were spoken to Samuel because he was impressed by the height and good looks of Jesse's oldest son, Eliab. Samuel thought that Eliab was surely the one he was to anoint as king. "But God said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him" (1Sam. 16:7a). Then it was that the Lord spoke about man's looking on the outward appearance.

The Lord is not saying in 1 Samuel 16:7b that He does not care what we wear. He is simply saying that when He decides to anoint someone for a task, He does not base His choice on the height, weight, or physical beauty of the person. He looks at the heart, not the body.

Wearing a headcovering is only one of many Biblical practices that could be called outward, symbolic acts. Many of these acts can be done by insincere believers or even by unbelievers. As a result, there are, unfortunately, some people who emphasize only outward symbols and ignore the more important inward realities that those symbols represent. But the abuse of a Biblical practice by hypocrites does not negate or lessen its value and importance for sincere believers. Insincere believers, hypocrites, and even unbelievers sometimes get baptized or take the Lord's Supper, yet very few Christians suggest that these Biblical practices be abandoned by sincere believers. Likewise, the wearing of the headcovering should not be abandoned simply because it is an outward symbolic act that may be done by hypocrites.

RESPONSE #5: "NOBODY ELSE DOES IT"

Some women agree that wearing a headcovering is a valid Biblical practice, but they refuse to do it because no other women in their congregation do it. They fear they will draw attention to themselves and project a "holier-than-thou" image if they wear a headcovering in a bareheaded congregation.

Our motive for obeying any of the Lord's commands should be to please our Heavenly Father, of course. Our motive should never be "to be seen of men." But if we begin to obey a commandment that is neglected by our peers, our action will often draw attention upon us, whether we want it or not. It is unavoidable. Regardless of the purity of our motives, there will always be carnal people who misjudge us and accuse us of trying to project a "holier-than-thou" image.

Those women who do not wear a headcovering only because "nobody else does it" may think they are being humble and spiritual by refusing to draw attention to themselves. The sad truth is that preserving their reputation among their peers is more important to them than obeying the will of God. They fear that carnal people will misunderstand them and consider then eccentric. The great Nineteenth Century evangelist Charles Finney tells us what to expect if we want to be truly spiritual:

"You will be called eccentric; probably you will deserve it. Probably you will really be eccentric. I never knew a person who was filled with the Spirit that was not called eccentric. And the reason is that such people are unlike other folk. There is therefore the best reasons why such persons should appear eccentric. They act under different influences, take different views, are moved by different motives, led by a different spirit. How often I have heard the remark respecting such-and-such persons: "He is a good man -- but he is rather eccentric." I have sometimes asked for the particulars; in what does his eccentricity exist? ! hear the catalogue, and it amounts to this, that he is spiritual. Make up your mind for this, to be "eccentric."13

PART II: THE VALUE OF THE HEADCOVERING

When I visited India in 1988, I noticed that all the Christian women wore headcoverings. I asked my Indian friend, Brother Mathew, if the women covered their heads because of what the Bible said or because of some local, cultural custom. Brother Mathew assured me that it had nothing at all to do with Indian culture.

"When the Apostle Thomas brought the gospel to India in the First Century, he taught that the woman's head should be covered," my friend explained, "and they have been doing it ever since. Pastors in India never need to tell the women to cover their heads. The women know the Bible tells them to do it, so they do it."

Western culture, has not been as insulated as rural Indian culture has, and, as a result, women in western culture have not continued this Biblical practice as their Indian sisters have.

Many Americans think of India's culture as male-dominated and repressive toward women. That may be true among the Hindus and Moslems, but it is certainly not what I saw among the Christians of India. It is true that leadership, decision-making, and teaching the congregation are functions limited to men; however, women are quite active in other areas of public ministry. During meetings women are free to openly pray, worship, praise, prophesy, testify, and even to read a passage of Scripture and give a brief comment on it. The women of India do these things with godly fear and trembling, often with tears streaming down their faces -- and always with their heads covered, of course. They seem to possess a genuine freedom and authority in the spirit that is noticeably absent in most congregations in America, a land that supposedly offers women more "freedom" via the feminist movement.

I believe this freedom and authority that the Indian sisters enjoy is directly related to the issue of headcovering. Simply putting a piece of cloth on one's head will not impart spirituality, of course. But understanding and appreciating the significance and value of the act, and what it proclaims, will result in a newfound freedom and authority for the woman of God.

The key to seeing and appreciating the value of the headcovering is simply understanding the two reasons the Bible gives for wearing it. As mentioned earlier, the two reasons are 1) to demonstrate God's order of authority (va.3) and 2) "because of the angels" (vs.10). When these two concepts are properly understood, wearing the headcovering will not be viewed as some legalistic bondage, but as a doorway into glorious liberty. It will be viewed not as something to oppress women, but as something that gives women the freedom and privilege to rightfu!ly move into their God-given place of authority in the Body. Furthermore, the use of the headcovering will be seen as something that affects angelic and demonic activity when the woman believes in the spiritual realities the headcovering represents.

 2007/4/13 16:48









 Re:

Quote:

myfirstLove wrote:
Brian you are very wrong.

There was no sarcasm in my words, but there are plenty in yours.

You were very rude in your posts. Insinuating that I am using head coverings to be more holy and adding to my words.

I ask a question about when to wear head coverings. Thats all. How is that trying to get a narrow answer to what I believe? I am not asking help in wanting to know if head coveing is material or not. I am asking when to wear it.

Your adding to my words when you say I am asking only for believers to answer. I ask those who believe in women wearing coverings to answer because I was not looking to understand about the covering, BUT when to wear it.

The reason why I told you to read it in context is because you only pulled one verse out.

You need to reread your posts because it is full of pride, immaturity, ill humor and rudeness.

I will not continue this conversation with you in that attitude.






Lisa, you are so funny. If I placed your name in the first word of this post, then it would make complete sense to me. I just read all my posts and yours. Besides mentioning apple pies (which someone really wanted to talk about on SI), there is no sarcasm. I am serious and I am not wrong, or 'very wrong' as you say.

Also, you stated that I had to read in context because I quoted one verse. Check again. I never did that once, Krispy did.

Your topic is about head coverings and I simply stated that they are not necessary and more of an outward sign like circumcision. One should wear them as they are led to, not told to. Someone else posted something that I agreed to and you said I was out of context, which I was not.

You may believe that I was wrong, rude, out of context, prideful, immature, unhumorous, or many other things, however, I will state again that I feel that you are passively argumentative and that my intent was to state one point...

head coverings are not necessary.

I am done.

God Bless those that wear Him in the inside and He shines on the outside,
Brian :-)

 2007/4/13 17:11









 Re:

sscott, I must thank you for posting this article. Thank You!

Lisa and ginnyrose, I must say sorry for my posts. I am truly sorry.

I am not sure where I stand on this topic, but I do know it is not where I did five minutes ago.

I am sorry for jumping the gun.

So, I guess my question is,"when should women wear head coverings?" :-)




Quote:

sscott wrote:

I believe this freedom and authority that the Indian sisters enjoy is directly related to the issue of headcovering. Simply putting a piece of cloth on one's head will not impart spirituality, of course. But understanding and appreciating the significance and value of the act, and what it proclaims, will result in a newfound freedom and authority for the woman of God.

The key to seeing and appreciating the value of the headcovering is simply understanding the two reasons the Bible gives for wearing it. As mentioned earlier, the two reasons are 1) to demonstrate God's order of authority (va.3) and 2) "because of the angels" (vs.10). When these two concepts are properly understood, wearing the headcovering will not be viewed as some legalistic bondage, but as a doorway into glorious liberty. It will be viewed not as something to oppress women, but as something that gives women the freedom and privilege to rightfu!ly move into their God-given place of authority in the Body. Furthermore, the use of the headcovering will be seen as something that affects angelic and demonic activity when the woman believes in the spiritual realities the headcovering represents.




...now I have to talk to my fiancee... :-(

God Bless those that do not know everything,
Brian

 2007/4/13 17:39









 Re:

:-( ...now I'm curious about head coverings...

fill me in please...

 2007/4/13 18:15





©2002-2021 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy