• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Women's head covering in Abrahamic belief systems.

Rival

Si m'ait Dieus
Staff member
Premium Member
I was "Christian" for over 32 years, and then Muslim for about 7 or so. It is simple to see the fantasy in Christianity, and to see the primitive in Islam. Examining Judaism but I won't put up with anyone that is arrogant and superiority oriented. I teach at times, so know there is no need to upbraid or shame others.
Just be a Noahide :D
 

outlawState

Deism is dead
No need for you to be mean spirited about this. I'll happily leave.
Enlightenment only comes via Christ. It's not mean spirited to tell the truth. Only truth can set you free. There is no freedom in Islam. You are a slave to legalism all the days of your life, and you never know freedom, because the truth remains veiled.

2Co 4:3
And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing.

article-2019547-0D076F6F00000578-268_233x423.jpg
 
Islam and Judaism are just as denomination ally divided. These days, I don't feel the need to understand everything perfectly. In sentiment I am likely a Quran only Muslim that has lots of questions about Jesus Christ. I am not strong enough to "fix" anyone else's religion. I see lots of wisdom in the Bible and in the Quran. Not many realize that Muhammad PBUH saw Jews and Christians as "The People of the Book", and issued instructions not to attack them if they were not attacking him, and to protect them if needed. It was after his death that Islam took such a dive into depravity.
One thing I know is that you can’t believe in both Islam and Christianity and be true to both, it’s just not possible. They’re contradictory to each other; if you really understand both, Islam is the complete antithesis of Christianity. It was as if that was the whole purpose of the forming of that religion, to oppose Jesus and deny Christianity’s fundemental values.
Muhammad was peacful in the beginning of his life when he had no power, but was not the case when he gained power in the last years of his life. Just look at surah 9, the last marching orders of Muhammad, it’s the most violent chapter in the Quran, this is what he left his followers, being an example himself, to kill and destroy.
 
Last edited:

outlawState

Deism is dead
Have you read 1 Corinthians 11 carefully?
Much more carefully than you.

First off it begins with in verse 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.”
Which could mean that Paul is not talking about actual head covering here, but a man not covering Christ and a woman covering her husband.
Meaningless. It means exactly what it says.

But even if it wasn’t; and it was talking about actual head covering, Paul only says to cover your head while praying or prophesying; not all the time. But even then in verse 16 he goes on to say that it is not a custom/practice in the churches of God “ But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.”.
In verse 16, it means, "we have no such custom [as you Corinthians have adopted]." That is the only contextually valid meaning. The Corinthians had adopted a "custom" in violation of God's law.

Personally I agree that woman should dress modestly, just like the bible says; and I even like the idea of head coverings because there seems to be an aspect of being holy before the Lord: but there’s no rule or commandment that says a woman must wear a head covering in the bible.
Yes there is. It is right in front of you.

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.

Plus there’s much biblical support for tongues and the gifts of the Holy Spirit.
You can speak in tongues to those who can understand them, but there is very little support in a uni-lingual congregation. Why would you want to speak in a tongue other than the one that people can understand?

And if there is no-one to interpret it, then what is that person doing. And anyway, I don't necessarily believe the interpreters of tongues. I think may be that often they are lying.
 
Much more carefully than you.


Meaningless. It means exactly what it says.


In verse 16, it means, "we have no such custom [as you Corinthians have adopted]." That is the only contextually valid meaning. The Corinthians had adopted a "custom" in violation of God's law.


Yes there is. It is right in front of you.

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.


You can speak in tongues to those who can understand them, but there is very little support in a uni-lingual congregation. Why would you want to speak in a tongue other than the one that people can understand?

And if there is no-one to interpret it, then what is that person doing. And anyway, I don't necessarily believe the interpreters of tongues. I think may be that often they are lying.
Saying its meaningless just seems like your opion, but then again what I wrote is my opinion. I can see what your saying in verse 16, so I’ll give you that one, even though it could be wrong. However you didn’t address the fact that it is only done while praying or prophesying, and not all the time; which was my main point that there is no commandment for women to wear head coverings all the time like in Islam.

As for tongues, I never said to speak in tongues to someone who doesn’t understand. Paul goes through it in 1 Corinthians 14. There’s a message in tongues to edify the body, which is when there is an interpreter. And then there are personal tongues, which edify the person speaking. If someone wants to sing in tongues during worship I don’t see anything wrong with that, or if the church is praying together and a person is praying in tongues I see nothing wrong with that, because it’s them praying to God alone.
 

outlawState

Deism is dead
Saying its meaningless just seems like your opion, but then again what I wrote is my opinion.
What I meant was when it says the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God, it is talking about authority, a God-assigned order of creation. It is difficult to conceive of it in this day and age, but only a hundred years ago, the principle was understood and even found in legal systems. It has been steadily eroded throughout the 20th century, not only in legal systems but in many churches that are no longer "of God."


I can see what your saying in verse 16, so I’ll give you that one, even though it could be wrong. However you didn’t address the fact that it is only done while praying or prophesying, and not all the time; which was my main point that there is no commandment for women to wear head coverings all the time like in Islam.
Islam is based on legalism and justification by law. It is a throwback to judaism, but with an alternative law. It is not based in faith. Islam does not accept the order of God, where women have a right of divorce.

Head coverings are only one way that the woman shows the authority of the man. The point of it seems to be that it is necessary when approaching the throne of God and relating to God, to have a visible manifestation or acknowledgement of God's order, to prove what is being done is being done in the name of God at all.

The pagan priestesses did not do it, but had shaved heads. Religious deception is everywhere. So many "women priests" are in it for themselves and are not "of God."



As for tongues, I never said to speak in tongues to someone who doesn’t understand. Paul goes through it in 1 Corinthians 14. There’s a message in tongues to edify the body, which is when there is an interpreter. And then there are personal tongues, which edify the person speaking. If someone wants to sing in tongues during worship I don’t see anything wrong with that, or if the church is praying together and a person is praying in tongues I see nothing wrong with that, because it’s them praying to God alone.
Except that in the congregation time is short. Having been to all sorts of churches, I can honestly say that going to a tongue speaking church is just a waste of time. I'd much rather go to a church where people spoke and could be understood.

1Co 14:5
I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified.

And then what do people who speak in tongues actually want? They want to monopolize the whole show. There are women who keep up a monotonous babble for 1/2 the service. It's like a mad house. Count me out. Really I can see the point but the point is also that it is frequently vainglorious. Even the interpretations hardly warrant being heard as they make no sense other than what is mundane.

Christianity is reliant on learning, knowledge, wisdom, These are the things that should be prioritized in the congregation, not vainglorious tongue speaking that as you say, it may edify you, but there a 100 other people in the church who may not want to hear you. And then there is the problem that in tongue speaking churches, there is often no attempt to obey 1 Cor 11, often legalism such as tithing, back-biting. i went to one Pentecostal church and a lot of time was given over to rebuking people. What sort of church is that?
 
Last edited:
What I meant was when it says the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God, it is talking about authority, a God-assigned order of creation. It is difficult to conceive of it in this day and age, but only a hundred years ago, the principle was understood and even found in legal systems. It has been steadily eroded throughout the 20th century, not only in legal systems but in many churches that are no longer "of God."



Islam is based on legalism and justification by law. It is a throwback to judaism, but with an alternative law. It is not based in faith. Islam does not accept the order of God, where women have a right of divorce.

Head coverings are only one way that the woman shows the authority of the man. The point of it seems to be that it is necessary when approaching the throne of God and relating to God, to have a visible manifestation or acknowledgement of God's order, to prove what is being done is being done in the name of God at all.

The pagan priestesses did not do it, but had shaved heads. Religious deception is everywhere. So many "women priests" are in it for themselves and are not "of God."




Except that in the congregation time is short. Having been to all sorts of churches, I can honestly say that going to a tongue speaking church is just a waste of time. I'd much rather go to a church where people spoke and could be understood.

1Co 14:5
I would like every one of you to speak in tongues, but I would rather have you prophesy. The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in tongues, unless someone interprets, so that the church may be edified.

And then what do people who speak in tongues actually want? They want to monopolize the whole show. There are women who keep up a monotonous babble for 1/2 the service. It's like a mad house. Count me out. Really I can see the point but the point is also that it is frequently vainglorious. Even the interpretations hardly warrant being heard as they make no sense other than what is mundane.

Christianity is reliant on learning, knowledge, wisdom, These are the things that should be prioritized in the congregation, not vainglorious tongue speaking that as you say, it may edify you, but there a 100 other people in the church who may not want to hear you. And then there is the problem that in tongue speaking churches, there is often no attempt to obey 1 Cor 11, often legalism such as tithing, back-biting. i went to one Pentecostal church and a lot of time was given over to rebuking people. What sort of church is that?
Ya I agree that the man is the head of the women in terms of authority: and I can see why you don’t like “tongue speaking churches”, but I would like to say that many charismatic/Pentecostal churches have lost they’re way in terms of the formulation of a New Testament church. They’ve decided to do their own thing; and in turn many have been hurt and offended by anything that has to do with the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the spirit. Much of what’s happening in charismatic churches could be of the flesh, or people yielding to their own spirit and saying it was the Holy Spirit. But when the Holy Spirit genuinely moves its glorious; in my church tongues and interpretations doesn’t happen that often, but when it does, it edifies the church because it acts the same way as prophecy.
 

outlawState

Deism is dead
Ya I agree that the man is the head of the women in terms of authority: and I can see why you don’t like “tongue speaking churches”, but I would like to say that many charismatic/Pentecostal churches have lost they’re way in terms of the formulation of a New Testament church. They’ve decided to do their own thing; and in turn many have been hurt and offended by anything that has to do with the Holy Spirit and the gifts of the spirit. Much of what’s happening in charismatic churches could be of the flesh, or people yielding to their own spirit and saying it was the Holy Spirit. But when the Holy Spirit genuinely moves its glorious; in my church tongues and interpretations doesn’t happen that often, but when it does, it edifies the church because it acts the same way as prophecy.
If I am not into pentacostalism, neither I am not denigrating them over and above others because I am also aware that many non-pentacostal churches have also lost their way. Yet I ask myself, would going to a pentacostal church ever reveal to me what Jesus explained on the road to Emmaus?

Luk 24:27
And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

I have my doubts. Yet there are some churches that are very strong on the Old Testament and educate you on what Jesus would have explain to them. Those are the churches I like.
 
If I am not into pentacostalism, neither I am not denigrating them over and above others because I am also aware that many non-pentacostal churches have also lost their way. Yet I ask myself, would going to a pentacostal church ever reveal to me what Jesus explained on the road to Emmaus?

Luk 24:27
And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

I have my doubts. Yet there are some churches that are very strong on the Old Testament and educate you on what Jesus would have explain to them. Those are the churches I like.
I like the churches that establish God’s kingdom on earth. I don’t see church as an institution or building, but an assembly of people that love Jesus; His body. And the only paradigm we were to have was a kingdom paradigm; not petacostal or Baptist or any other paradigms. The church is a spiritual family on mission to establish the kingdom of God and do His will; and where Jesus reigns as king. It’s only in this covenant community where Jesus is revealed and unlocked, when it looks like the church in acts.
 

outlawState

Deism is dead
What I'm asking is, do pentacostal churches go in much for scripture exposition? From what I have experienced, they are not very scripture orientated in the sense of explaining the hidden mysteries of God buried in the Old Testament.
 
What I'm asking is, do pentacostal churches go in much for scripture exposition? From what I have experienced, they are not very scripture orientated in the sense of explaining the hidden mysteries of God buried in the Old Testament.
I guess not, but there are exceptions. I do however see a new movement of churches filled with the Spirit and very deeply rooted in the word, both old and New Testament; but i wouldn’t say they’re “Pentecostal” or of any denomination.
 

outlawState

Deism is dead
After doing some reading I think that the approach of Pentacostals to the bible and things like what women do in church is semi-anarchy i.e. anything goes, depending of your view. Pentacostals have no national, cultural, political or cultural coherence. Could pose a lot of problems where disagreements arise.

Pentecostals’ reading of the Old Testament
M Nel (2007)

"The implication is that Pentecostals tend to use the Bible to propagate a spiritual experience in continuity with what they consider Biblical figures experienced. Their concern is with practice rather than with belief and doctrine. “…the role of Scripture is to serve as confirmation and guideline to the dynamic of the Spirit…” (Clark, Lederle et al 1989:101). The practice of Pentecostals is based on their interpretation of the Spirit baptism and its accompanying release of power in the lives of the baptized and their interpretation of the Bible is based on this perception and experience. From the experience follows theology. “First comes the act of God, then follows the attempt to understand it” (Bond 1989:135)."​

"There is no Pentecostal tradition but rather a Pentecostal ethos that establishes the practice and values found commonly in the movement (Clark 1997)

In some branches of Pentecostalism sanctification is also emphasized, as a residue of the holiness movement, one of the originating factors of the Pentecostal movement (Dayton 1987). According to this formulation the Pentecostal movement is actually more christological that pneumatological, with Christ the acting agent in the Church and whose imminent return gives Pentecostal missions its urgency and believers the impetus to obey and follow their Master (discipleship movement)

The expectation of Pentecostal believers is to experience Christ as their Savior, Baptizer in the Spirit, Healer and, through the working of his Spirit, also as Sanctifier. Thus the widespread notion amongst Pentecostals that this history of God with his people, starting in the Bible, is continued and accompanied by the same phenomena until the present day, and the narratives in the Bible of people’s encounters with God are seen as normative for present-day believers. These narratives are understood literally, and taken to be repeatable and expected, and Biblical characters’ experiences are to be emulated. In this way Pentecostalism shares the primitivism of movements such as Montanism and the Anabaptists that the earliest Church was the only [church] to be unpolluted by later events determined largely by the cooperation between church (pope) and (the Roman) state (Bruner 1970) (Poirier & Lewis 2006).

To summarize, the propria of Pentecostals’ self-understanding are: a radical, apocalyptic, disciple-centred, missional, Jesus-centred and encounter-expecting movement without any national, cultural, political or cultural coherence (Goff 1988) (Kraus 1979) .

.
.
.

The question can be raised whether Pentecostals have developed the historical consciousness necessary to do justice to the Bible as a historically situated and determined document. Whether this is the case needs to be investigated in a scientific way, but what is true is that Pentecostals read the Bible well aware of the historicity of what happened two or three millennia ago while also expecting the same God to reveal his power and love to them. Abraham, Moses, David and Daniel are well-known figures that are emulated by modern Pentecostals.

Pentecostals do not have a uniform viewpoint about the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible. These issues are not very relevant for them because they do not base their belief upon the Bible as such but rather see the Bible as testimonies of God’s involvement in ancient believers’ lives with the aim to replicate those acts of involvement in modern believers’ lives. Due to their interest in Biblical narratives Pentecostals use the Old Testament rather eclectically.

Although some parts of classical Pentecostalism have tended to become legalistic.....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




ATTEMPTING TO DEFINE A PENTECOSTAL
HERMENEUTICS

By Way of Conclusion

The question was asked: Why do Pentecostal people reach different conclusions when they read the Bible compared to believers in other Christian traditions, such as the Catholic and Reformed traditions? And how does their hermeneutics inform Pentecostals’ practice? It has been argued that a Pentecostal hermeneutics emphasises three elements: the inter-relationship between the Holy Spirit as the One animating Scriptures and empowering the believing community. For them, the experience of an encounter with God through his Spirit is imperative, and interpretation of the information contained in the Bible is determined by their praxis.

(PDF) Attempting to define a Pentecostal hermeneutics. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282070940_Attempting_to_define_a_Pentecostal_hermeneutics [accessed Jun 16 2018].​
 
After doing some reading I think that the approach of Pentacostals to the bible and things like what women do in church is semi-anarchy i.e. anything goes, depending of your view. Pentacostals have no national, cultural, political or cultural coherence. Could pose a lot of problems where disagreements arise.

Pentecostals’ reading of the Old Testament
M Nel (2007)

"The implication is that Pentecostals tend to use the Bible to propagate a spiritual experience in continuity with what they consider Biblical figures experienced. Their concern is with practice rather than with belief and doctrine. “…the role of Scripture is to serve as confirmation and guideline to the dynamic of the Spirit…” (Clark, Lederle et al 1989:101). The practice of Pentecostals is based on their interpretation of the Spirit baptism and its accompanying release of power in the lives of the baptized and their interpretation of the Bible is based on this perception and experience. From the experience follows theology. “First comes the act of God, then follows the attempt to understand it” (Bond 1989:135)."​

"There is no Pentecostal tradition but rather a Pentecostal ethos that establishes the practice and values found commonly in the movement (Clark 1997)

In some branches of Pentecostalism sanctification is also emphasized, as a residue of the holiness movement, one of the originating factors of the Pentecostal movement (Dayton 1987). According to this formulation the Pentecostal movement is actually more christological that pneumatological, with Christ the acting agent in the Church and whose imminent return gives Pentecostal missions its urgency and believers the impetus to obey and follow their Master (discipleship movement)

The expectation of Pentecostal believers is to experience Christ as their Savior, Baptizer in the Spirit, Healer and, through the working of his Spirit, also as Sanctifier. Thus the widespread notion amongst Pentecostals that this history of God with his people, starting in the Bible, is continued and accompanied by the same phenomena until the present day, and the narratives in the Bible of people’s encounters with God are seen as normative for present-day believers. These narratives are understood literally, and taken to be repeatable and expected, and Biblical characters’ experiences are to be emulated. In this way Pentecostalism shares the primitivism of movements such as Montanism and the Anabaptists that the earliest Church was the only [church] to be unpolluted by later events determined largely by the cooperation between church (pope) and (the Roman) state (Bruner 1970) (Poirier & Lewis 2006).

To summarize, the propria of Pentecostals’ self-understanding are: a radical, apocalyptic, disciple-centred, missional, Jesus-centred and encounter-expecting movement without any national, cultural, political or cultural coherence (Goff 1988) (Kraus 1979) .

.
.
.

The question can be raised whether Pentecostals have developed the historical consciousness necessary to do justice to the Bible as a historically situated and determined document. Whether this is the case needs to be investigated in a scientific way, but what is true is that Pentecostals read the Bible well aware of the historicity of what happened two or three millennia ago while also expecting the same God to reveal his power and love to them. Abraham, Moses, David and Daniel are well-known figures that are emulated by modern Pentecostals.

Pentecostals do not have a uniform viewpoint about the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible. These issues are not very relevant for them because they do not base their belief upon the Bible as such but rather see the Bible as testimonies of God’s involvement in ancient believers’ lives with the aim to replicate those acts of involvement in modern believers’ lives. Due to their interest in Biblical narratives Pentecostals use the Old Testament rather eclectically.

Although some parts of classical Pentecostalism have tended to become legalistic.....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




ATTEMPTING TO DEFINE A PENTECOSTAL
HERMENEUTICS

By Way of Conclusion

The question was asked: Why do Pentecostal people reach different conclusions when they read the Bible compared to believers in other Christian traditions, such as the Catholic and Reformed traditions? And how does their hermeneutics inform Pentecostals’ practice? It has been argued that a Pentecostal hermeneutics emphasises three elements: the inter-relationship between the Holy Spirit as the One animating Scriptures and empowering the believing community. For them, the experience of an encounter with God through his Spirit is imperative, and interpretation of the information contained in the Bible is determined by their praxis.

(PDF) Attempting to define a Pentecostal hermeneutics. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282070940_Attempting_to_define_a_Pentecostal_hermeneutics [accessed Jun 16 2018].​
God’s moves, and then man has made it a lens by which we live in. For example with Luther God restored the understanding of being saved by grace through faith(in a general sense as there were exceptions throughout history) but man took that and made it a lens of lutherisim or being Lutheran. Similarly when God moved and His spirit fell around the early 1900s man took it and made its own lens; turning it into Pentecostalism.But God’s only lens was and is the kingdom of God, and I believe there’s a new reformation coming, if not already here of the Spirit and the Word coming together; and the church looking like the New Testament church we see in the book of acts; and where the only lens will be the kingdom of God. So what I’m saying is lutherans, methodists, pentacostals, etc all don’t have the full picture and have short comings or is incomplete, but i do believe we are in the season where God is restoring His churchf ully back to the way it was supposed to be: like He said “the kingdom of God is as a grain of mustard seed” it starts off as a small seed and then takes root and the stem grows and the leafs until it becomes whole; so is the kingdom of God.
 

outlawState

Deism is dead
God’s moves, and then man has made it a lens by which we live in. For example with Luther God restored the understanding of being saved by grace through faith(in a general sense as there were exceptions throughout history) but man took that and made it a lens of lutherisim or being Lutheran. Similarly when God moved and His spirit fell around the early 1900s man took it and made its own lens; turning it into Pentecostalism.But God’s only lens was and is the kingdom of God, and I believe there’s a new reformation coming, if not already here of the Spirit and the Word coming together; and the church looking like the New Testament church we see in the book of acts; and where the only lens will be the kingdom of God. So what I’m saying is lutherans, methodists, pentacostals, etc all don’t have the full picture and have short comings or is incomplete, but i do believe we are in the season where God is restoring His churchf ully back to the way it was supposed to be: like He said “the kingdom of God is as a grain of mustard seed” it starts off as a small seed and then takes root and the stem grows and the leafs until it becomes whole; so is the kingdom of God.
A blog called The Head Covering Movement quotes from Sproul on their homepage:

The wearing of fabric head coverings in worship was universally the practice of Christian women until the twentieth century. What happened? Did we suddenly find some biblical truth to which the saints for thousands of years were blind? Or were our biblical views of women gradually eroded by the modern feminist movement that has infiltrated the Church…? – R.C. Sproul​

RC Sproul Jr

I have never met a Christian husband or wife who regretted having his wife cover her head when gathered for corporate worship. I have met Christian husbands and wives who regret not having done so earlier.​

There are many churches that "do not have the full picture" but we have more than a little problem with head coverings, where the apostle said that the churches of God practice mandatory head covering. The fact is that per the New Testament instruction, one is entitled to say "Any church that does not practice mandatory head covering is not of God." Whatever the spiritual pretensions or aspirations of the congregation, it is God's rules that must be obeyed. I do not believe that there will be any lasting Christian restoration until Christians are willing to do what God commands, especially in their own congregations where they make the rules. If they won't obey God in the congregation, then what hope of obedience outside of it?

Recent Pentecostal Scandals
 
A blog called The Head Covering Movement quotes from Sproul on their homepage:

The wearing of fabric head coverings in worship was universally the practice of Christian women until the twentieth century. What happened? Did we suddenly find some biblical truth to which the saints for thousands of years were blind? Or were our biblical views of women gradually eroded by the modern feminist movement that has infiltrated the Church…? – R.C. Sproul​

RC Sproul Jr

I have never met a Christian husband or wife who regretted having his wife cover her head when gathered for corporate worship. I have met Christian husbands and wives who regret not having done so earlier.​

There are many churches that "do not have the full picture" but we have more than a little problem with head coverings, where the apostle said that the churches of God practice mandatory head covering. The fact is that per the New Testament instruction, one is entitled to say "Any church that does not practice mandatory head covering is not of God." Whatever the spiritual pretensions or aspirations of the congregation, it is God's rules that must be obeyed. I do not believe that there will be any lasting Christian restoration until Christians are willing to do what God commands, especially in their own congregations where they make the rules. If they won't obey God in the congregation, then what hope of obedience outside of it?

Recent Pentecostal Scandals
What do you mean by "Any church that does not practice mandatory head covering is not of God." Is it meant to say there’s a salvation issue or that the christians in these church are not Christ’s body?
 

outlawState

Deism is dead
What do you mean by "Any church that does not practice mandatory head covering is not of God." Is it meant to say there’s a salvation issue or that the christians in these church are not Christ’s body?
Neither. It does not deny the presence of real Christians in the church, or that they are not saved. It entails simply this: a God given license of other churches to excommunicate the eldership or presbytery for being heretical.

What God does with such churches is his business. He may judge them, he may not. I think you can see with your own eyes how God judges so many liberal churches by giving them over to false teaching or doctrines.

This is not well understood today, where the vast majority of churches do not practice mandatory head coverings and are froward. They don't understand that they are already judged by a loss of genuine spirituality cf, the churches of revelation that were judged cf. church of Ephesus that was threatened with having the candlestick removed out of its place where it had lost its first love. It later seems to have become addicted to the cult of imperialism, celibacy and romish teachings (cf. "Saint" Onesimus, bishop of Ephesus an advocate of celibacy). Also see Acts 20:29-31 for the judgement on Ephesus "I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciplesd after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three yearse I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears."
 
Neither. It does not deny the presence of real Christians in the church, or that they are not saved. It entails simply this: a God given license of other churches to excommunicate the eldership or presbytery for being heretical.

What God does with such churches is his business. He may judge them, he may not. I think you can see with your own eyes how God judges so many liberal churches by giving them over to false teaching or doctrines.

This is not well understood today, where the vast majority of churches do not practice mandatory head coverings and are froward. They don't understand that they are already judged by a loss of genuine spirituality cf, the churches of revelation that were judged cf. church of Ephesus that was threatened with having the candlestick removed out of its place where it had lost its first love. It later seems to have become addicted to the cult of imperialism, celibacy and romish teachings (cf. "Saint" Onesimus, bishop of Ephesus an advocate of celibacy). Also see Acts 20:29-31 for the judgement on Ephesus "I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciplesd after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three yearse I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears."
I wouldn’t think God would judge that church because the women don’t wear head covering when they pray or prophesy; unless to lead them to it. But from not obeying, that in it self causes consequences or at least lack of benefit; since the reason God tells us to do something is for our benefit, and it seems here in this tradition, that it has to do something with the angels.
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
One thing I know is that you can’t believe in both Islam and Christianity and be true to both, it’s just not possible. They’re contradictory to each other; if you really understand both, Islam is the complete antithesis of Christianity. It was as if that was the whole purpose of the forming of that religion, to oppose Jesus and deny Christianity’s fundemental values.
Muhammad was peacful in the beginning of his life when he had no power, but was not the case when he gained power in the last years of his life. Just look at surah 9, the last marching orders of Muhammad, it’s the most violent chapter in the Quran, this is what he left his followers, being an example himself, to kill and destroy.


Not to be insulting, I consider myself an Abrahamic Religionist, and that mostly from a historical point of view. I came OUT of uber conservative belief and am convinced that all those rules just make it so we can not encounter the Creator. If you actually studied Islam, and did not rely on some Pastor who blocks you having a real encounter with the Creator. you'd find that they had their encounter with Jesus (ISA PBUH). And, Jews are actually waiting for the Messian to come and he can tell them what happened. All those rules just make it impossible to love the Creator and others. Love others enough so that their beliefs do not feel threatening to you.
 

Ellen Brown

Well-Known Member
Enlightenment only comes via Christ. It's not mean spirited to tell the truth. Only truth can set you free. There is no freedom in Islam. You are a slave to legalism all the days of your life, and you never know freedom, because the truth remains veiled.

2Co 4:3
And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing.

article-2019547-0D076F6F00000578-268_233x423.jpg
 
Top