Poster | Thread |
| Re: | | Quote:
And as for men, If I was asked by my pastor I need to wear a suit and tie to church because someone was stumbling over it, I would buy a suit.
Great Post Poet. Just a quick question though, how would someone stumble over me not wearing a suit and tie? |
| 2008/2/11 16:00 | | Miccah Member
Joined: 2007/9/13 Posts: 1752 Wisconsin
| Re: | | Compliments wrote: Quote:
...how would someone stumble over me not wearing a suit and tie?
How about those that might stumble if they saw [i]me[/i] wearing a suit and tie? :-) :-) Can go both ways.
Would some stumble if they saw Adam and Eve wearing a fig covering? _________________ Christiaan
|
| 2008/2/11 16:06 | Profile | poet Member
Joined: 2007/2/16 Posts: 231 Longview WA
| Re: | | I dont know exactly all the workings of the mind. what offends one but not another? I suppose we must always go with the leading of the spirit in all situations. :-)
I once had a friend who's church split over the music. WOW.
_________________ howard
|
| 2008/2/11 16:28 | Profile |
| Re: | | I stumbled in a suit once... mainly because the cuffs needed to be hemmed up. Too long in the legs...
:-P
Krispy |
| 2008/2/11 16:41 | | davym Member
Joined: 2007/5/22 Posts: 326
| Re: | | Quote:
Then burn the entire ram on the altar. It is a burnt offering to the LORD, a pleasing aroma, an offering made to the LORD by fire.
This was also pleasing to the Lord. Would you say that it is still permisable to burn rams in sacrifices because it "pleases the Lord"? How about incense? This is another pleasing aroma to the Lord. Do we still need to burn incense when worshiping in order to please Him?
1 Corinthians 11 has nothing to do with the Sacrificial Law. The Sacrificial Law was for the Jewish nation. The issue at stake here is order in the church or the assembly. This is New Testament doctrine we're dealing with and there's too much hiding behind 'legalism' in this thread as if we can just ignore what Paul is teaching the Church.
Today's modern churches have become so apostate and worldly that I admit to try and argue a case for head coverings borders on the ridiculous as most so called Christians don't understand the principle behind it, which I keep emphasasing is Headship. This is for our benefit!
_________________ David
|
| 2008/2/11 16:42 | Profile | Miccah Member
Joined: 2007/9/13 Posts: 1752 Wisconsin
| Re: | | davym wrote:
Quote:
This is for our benefit!
Hey davym,
Shouldn't this be for God's benefit? As in for glorifying the Lord?
Also, you want to take out the talk of legalism, but this is exactly what head coverings is acomplishing, creating a form of legalism on someone that is free from such. Head coverings is a works.
The mere fact that head coverings are included in the NT says something about the regard that it was given. I have by no means displaced this meaning, thus the comment of "if this works for you and your house...", but it is not a precept to salvation. To claim that it is, is totally agasint the teachings of Christ.
Is head coverings important? To some yes, to others no. Will not covering your head mean that you loose your salvation or not gain it? No. To preach such is heresy.
If covering of the head makes you feel more holy, then I would quesiton why it is being done. It is being done to show reverence to the Lord, or to man?
[u][b]1 Corinthians 11 (NKJV)[/b][/u]
Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her[a] for a covering. [b]But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God.[/b]
Also, do you mandate that a female pray with her head covered at all times? What about when a man is praying, should she cover her head? What about out to dinner, or in the car, or at home. Anytime you pray should the womans head be covered?
_________________ Christiaan
|
| 2008/2/11 17:26 | Profile | davym Member
Joined: 2007/5/22 Posts: 326
| Re: | | Hey Miccah
Quote:
Shouldn't this be for God's benefit? As in for glorifying the Lord?
Yes, very much so, but the issue of Headship (regardless of head coverings) is an important principle for practising Christians to enable us to live out a Christ centered life. Everything in our life should glorify God.
Quote:
Also, you want to take out the talk of legalism, but this is exactly what head coverings is acomplishing, creating a form of legalism on someone that is free from such. Head coverings is a works.
I understand the legalism argument i.e. Christ's death and resurrection has done away with the Law and we are no longer subject to it and the Law is now written on our hearts and we live it out by faith in Christ. I just feel the way it is being used sometimes has the danger of becoming a slippery slope especially for new believers. It appeals to their carnal nature.
Quote:
The mere fact that head coverings are included in the NT says something about the regard that it was given. I have by no means displaced this meaning, thus the comment of "if this works for you and your house...", but it is not a precept to salvation. To claim that it is, is totally agasint the teachings of Christ.
Of course it is not a requirement for salvation.
Quote:
Also, do you mandate that a female pray with her head covered at all times? What about when a man is praying, should she cover her head? What about out to dinner, or in the car, or at home. Anytime you pray should the womans head be covered?
Especially when they're on the john! :-P
Sorry
The context of 1 Corinthians 11 is order in the church or assembly.
If a woman wears a head covering because of a desire to please her Lord because it reflects the Headship principle, is this not a beautiful thing? Yes, it has been taken too far by many, but the real issue here is why the desire for the Headship principle is leaving our churches. The 'anti-legalism' lobby will not help to reverse this trend.
_________________ David
|
| 2008/2/11 18:27 | Profile | narrowpath Member
Joined: 2005/1/9 Posts: 1522 Germany NRW
| Re: | | Dear Krispy,
Let me take a look at some of your replies
Quote:
... and in the OT that was all part of what the Old Covenant was about. Head coverings, circumcism, etc etc. It was all symbolic outward type stuff. And didnt Jesus come against that stuff IF there was nothing inside?
Where did the law teach head-covering?
Where did I say that headcovering is a means of salvation?
Quote:
1 Corinthians 8:8-9 But meat (HEAD COVERINGS) commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat (WEAR A HEAD COVERING), are we the better; neither, if we eat (WEAR A HEAD COVERING) not, are we the worse. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.
Now you are tweaking the scriptures. Here Paul talks about individual freedom in regards to food and drink or festivals and commends us to be considerate towards each other by neither tempting or condeming each other.
Quote:
Galations 3:1-2 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you? This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?
Head covering is not a work of the law and it is not a means of receiving the Spirit.
Now to my own interpretation of this passage. First of all the letters to the Corinthians was written to a lively and thriving church where things got seriously out of order. The issues he addressed were Factions and divisions A case of church discipline Food and drink Orderly use of the gifts of the Spirit The Lord's supper and also Head covering
So he had to bring correction but he also took great pains to explain why. If head covering was a matter of personal prerrence I am sure he would have covered it together with food, drink and festival. He would not have ended with
Quote:
1 Cor 11:16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God
Paul pointed out the order in relations to and between man that God is the head of Christ, Christ the head of the church in its entirity. Man under Christ and women under man. All these relations should be patterned after the father / son relationship which are completely opposite from what we see in the world now. Some brothers have already pointed out, it is a privellege and not a curse to submit to a godly husband. Sarah called her husband "master" which I do not expect my wife to do. She obeyed in faith and became the mother of all faithful women.
A God-fearing and husband-honoring women is highly esteemed in God's eyes. Her trusting submission to her husband as unto Christ, her gentle and silent service can bring the rebellious wayward onto their knees - even without word. Womenhood is so distorted today. The world mocks this women. Satan tries to tell her that she should be like man, just as he suggested that man can be like God. The worlds suggest the women to look seductive as if pass on the seduction that she fell under when she listened to the snake.
A women worshipping God under the veil states that the will listen to God and to her husband, rather than the snake. She also states that she does not need to seek attention by displaying beautifully braided, permed, dyed of whatever processed hair to the rest of the men in the or make other women jealous.
I am proud to have such a wife and feel obliged to return this honour with loving care for her as the weaker part. I still have a lot to learn and so does she, but we are on the way.
Now, is the women's hair her legitimate covering? Under every day circumstances that may apply but not in the worship service? I agree with my brother who said that the man would dihonour God if he did not shave his head. Is the husband then the wife's covering? Yes, in every day life, but in the worship service Paul required the women's head to be covered.
Quote:
5For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6as Sarah obeyed Abraham,(A) calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and(B) do not fear anything that is frightening.
Quote:
1. Cor 11:10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
How can a women have a symbol of authority on her head if she has it by default by wearing her long hair? So this talk about a physical covering (hat, scarf etc. Paul is not specific here)
Quote:
1.Cor 11:5 but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her
This only makes sense if it means that the unveiled head dishonors her head, otherwise it would not make sense to draw the paralell to a shaved head.
When I just apply logic I come to the conclusion that headcovering means covering the womens hair, and it is for today and it is for the worship service.
Some may say that this is only for married women, this I cannot reprove. Others say this was only for the first century Greek Christians. Well, I do believe that everything that was valid after the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and taught in Scripture is for today.
If you take the scripture at face value in its plainest sense without trying to make any adaptions to modern days, I think head covering means head covering. If we believe that everything what Paul teaches is of God, then we should obey it.
Philip |
| 2008/2/11 18:31 | Profile |
| Re: | | The KJV says Quote:
1 Corinthians 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
It doesn't say anything about a symbol on her head, it's says power. |
| 2008/2/11 19:40 | | Miccah Member
Joined: 2007/9/13 Posts: 1752 Wisconsin
| Re: | | davym wrote: Quote:
Especially when they're on the john! :-P
Sorry
Don't be sorry, that was great! :-)
All of a sudden this conversation seems very "who cares" when looking at some of the other threads where people are questioning the deity of Christ. Still think your wrong on the kipa, but love ya anyways (I know, but you get my point).:-)
Blessings brother. _________________ Christiaan
|
| 2008/2/12 0:55 | Profile |
|