Quote:
Originally Posted by Godsdrummer
Than why are you making it an additional requirement for salvation today, if the apostles did not require it of the Gentiles in Acts 15? |
Quote:
|
I am continually dumbfounded that man tends to revert back to the like mind of the religious leaders of Christ day in their quest for outward definitions of holiness, in the process missing the holiness of the heart.
|
When did *I* make it a 'requirement for salvation' (whatever that actually means)? When did *I* state anything about headcovering being part of a quest for outward holiness, or that headcovering replaces the need for holiness of heart? I happen to believe in entire sanctification, unlike many folks here, I happen to believe in 'holiness of heart and life'. I believe the real Holy Ghost baptism 'purifies the heart by faith', and I do not believe anybody 'gets more holy over time' but rather sanctification is an instantaneous, definite work of grace. I believe in the 'Finished Work' view of sanctification as taught by the apostles. It was also taught by William Durham but twisted beyond all recognition shortly after his death. It was twisted into a coddling of sin and a clothesline sanctification which continues today. Although the clothesline is a-gettin shorter and shorter every decade!
I believe that headcovering is taught by the apostle, the reasons he gives for it are not cultural and are still in existence today. He said it is because man is the glory of God. Is man still the glory of God? Then he best be uncovered when he prays or prophesies. He says the woman is the glory of the man. Is that still true today? Then she best be covered when praying or prophesying. He says the woman ought to have authority on her head 'because of the angels'. Are angels still around? Are they still involved in the lives of saints? Then she best have authority on her head.
Paul never gave one reason FROM LOCAL CULTURE. He appealed to divine HEADSHIP, he appealed to the LAW (referencing the order of creation found in Genesis), he appealed to the ANGELS, and he appealed to NATURE as supporting his argument (as a further witness), and finally he appealed to the universal custom of 'all the churches of God'. All the
churches of God practice headcovering as taught by the apostle Paul. What
other churches do is irrelevent.
Quote:
Paul states in 1 Cor. "If it is a shame", Not it is a shame for a women to be uncovered. That points to cultural relevance not a direct command to all and all time. If it is a shame for a women to be unveiled she might as well shave or shorn her hair, for it is the same thing. So let her cover her self with a veil.
News flash, it is no longer a shame in America for a women to go unveiled. Nor in most parts of the world today. Yet by this same admonition if a Christian travels to parts of the world where veiling is required by society a true Christian woman will put a veil on her head in respect to that society.
And that is what I believe Paul is teaching in Corinth.
|
I am sure that is what you believe. And you are wrong.
Let's walk through it verse by verse.
1Co 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
1Co 11:4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
1Co 11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
In verse 5 Paul establishes by a declaration that a woman praying uncovered does something dishonourable, she brings dishonour upon her head. He also declares just as authoritatively that this dishonour is IDENTICAL and of the SAME IMPORT and EFFECT as if she were shaven.
This establishes that a woman praying uncovered is practicing something that is dishonourable, and further it establishes that this is equivalent to being shaven. And therefore, being shaven is dishonourable (shameful). If A = B, and if A = C, then C = B and vice versa. If to be uncovered is dishonourable, and if to be uncovered is equivalent to being shaven, then being shaven is dishonourable. Simple logic.
1Co 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
Being uncovered is equivalent to being shaven, so if the woman doesn't want to be covered, then let her be shorn. 'But if it be a shame' - which he already established in the previous verse, when he declared that being uncovered is dishonourable, and being uncovered is equivalent to being shaven (thus being shaven is dishonourable).
The word for dishonour is kataischuno, and the word for shame is aischron. They are two forms of the same basic word, and have the same basic essential meanings of shame or dishonour.
Paul himself declared it was thus a shame for a woman to be shaven, and that it was a shame for a woman to pray or prophesy uncovered, and if she insists on the one she ought to do both.
Again, Paul never alluded to local cultural practices as justification for his teaching. If he had, it would have been incongruent to the rest of his teachings regarding heathen superstitions, and it would have been incongruent with the Law's commands regarding heathen religious practices being imitated by God's people.
Again, it has not been proven that there even WAS a universal custom at Corinth to begin with. I pointed out the customs of the Greeks and Romans regarding religious headcovering varied, not merely by location, but by cultus and by individual preference. I also pointed out Paul's instructions were NOT IN CONFORMITY with the common practices of the day. He established a UNIFORM rule, which immediately set his teaching in contrast to the established methods of the heathens of his day. Many men covered their heads when praying to their gods, many women uncovered their heads when praying to their gods. Paul certainly did not teach conformity to heathen practices, as you assert. His teaching was in many cases the EXACT OPPOSITE TO HEATHEN PRACTICES.
Finally, once again, I remind you and everyone else, that headcovering has been practiced EVERYWHERE and by EVERY 'culture' of Christians for the last 2000 years - EXCEPT in the West for the last 100 years.
The Amish don't wear headcoverings because they got it from the Arabs, you know...
Linear Mode
