book_wirm

There is a thread already covering [no pun intended ] this topic. "women to keep silent". Perhaps you will find some answers there. Eric

Shiloh, I hope you don't think I am looking for a fight by continuing my part in this discussion. I have nothing but the utmost respect for you, specifically, having read a great deal of your posts over the years and I appreciate the things you say. Whether you and I have always agreed or not, I can honestly say I have never felt that you approached a subject flipantly or seemed completely off-base in your comments. I only respond because, at this point, the discussion still appears to be continuing peacefully. If no one on this board ever agrees with me concerning covering/uncovering, it is a small thing with me. We are saved through faith, by grace, in the shed blood of Christ...not because of a piece of cloth. Anyway... Well, there are alot of things relating to customs that Paul does not elaborate on because given his original audience, he didn't have to. That is a fair statement. However, while the prostitution issue is an allowable interpretation of this passage, it is by no means required. To simply assume that the issue must have been prostitution/homosexuality is as remiss as simply assuming this instruction was meant to be a universal command. I believe the passage guides us to see it as a universal command to all men [to be uncovered] and all women [covered]. The issue in the passage is never hinted to be specific [prostitution/homosexuality]. Rather, all points in it, from the instruction itself to the supporst on which it is built, are universal [headship, the image of God, nature, angels, the image of man, and the duty of men and women]. Yet Paul never address the sinfulness of the city nor the lifestyles that his Christian audience had been saved from in this passage. In fact, he first praises them for remembering him in all things and keeping [i would say "by and large"] the ordinances he had delivered to them. While it is possible that his instuction on covering/not covering is linked to temple prostitution and homosexuality, nothing in the passage requires us to assume that. In fact, the manner in which he gives the instruction suggests otherwise. I know that last part is merely my opinion, but we are discussing why I believe that so I won't belabor the point by restating all those reasons again. I don't see that as necessarily the case. Given the small amount of extant, written teaching from the apostles and other inspired NT writers, it can safely be held that the majority of what the individual congegrations initially received was oral. No one book, in other words, covers everything. But we do not believe, from this, that those congegrations were left without the full truth. It is our belief, or at least mine, that each body was given the full truth and then reminded of and/or admonished regarding specific doctrines/practices as needs arose. For example, Paul did not discuss the proper meaning and conduct of the Lord's supper in his letter to the Galatians. Surely we don't hold this to be because they were never taught it or were not expected to observe it. Rather, it may be reasonably held that they [the Galatians] simply did not require any correction/further teaching on the matter when Paul wrote to them. In like manner, Paul's instructions to the Corinthians regarding covering/uncovering may simply mean that they did require further teaching/admonishment regarding the practice. I agree with the first statement in full. If I did not, I would not be typing this post right now. I'd be too busy building an ark! I'd like to add, though, that I also agree with the second statement above. You see, the instruction regarding covering was directed at men and women...not Corinthian men and women. We can see this because Paul builds the instruction on the very universal doctrine of the headship of the woman being man, the headship of the man being Christ, and the headship of Christ being God. These are universal truths. They are not specific to Corinth. Anyway, I've enjoyed reading everyone's posts a great deal. Take care all, and God bless. Eric

Shiloh, I can appreciate your statement and I agree with the spirit of it so I hope you don't think I am being argumentative by replying. I'm only offering a different perspective. Like I've said before, this [head covering] is not a "faith breaking" issue for me and I have no interest in contention over it. I am familiar with the view that head covering and female silence were instructions from Paul to specific churches/people due to the social customs in which the lived. Obviously, since the women in my family do practice covering and silence, I do not see the commands relating to those things as tied to a specific time, region, and/or set of customs. This is because Paul defends/develops the instruction with universal supports, not geographically specific ones. What I mean is, Paul does not say women should cover because pagan women in the area of Corinth may go around shaved or so the Christian women in Corinth would not be confused with temple prostitutes. Rather, Paul defends the instruction by appealing to the honor due to a woman's head [the man, universal-regardless of region/time], the example of nature [again universal-regardless of region/time], and because of the angels [connected to no region/time]. In this manner, his instruction on covering differs greatly from the "holy kiss". Paul never develops that instruction into a teaching, defending and developing it. I agree with you wholeheartedly, the holy kiss was nothing more than the customary greeting for that time and place. Eric

Certainly, Isaiah43:4. Aside from being simple obedience to what my wife and I see as the clear instruction of God's Word, we also believe it is beneficial to: 1] women - it is a very "present" reminder to her of her need to be under subjection to her husband. I can't tell you the number of times my wife has conducted herself in Christ-like sumbission to me and later told me the only reason was because she sees herself as a "head-covering woman" [as she puts it] and she would have felt like a hypocrite if she had done otherwise only to put her cover on on Sunday morning. - there is a quote, attributed to Publius [the Bishop of Malta], though I do not know for a fact he is the original author. I recite it, rather, to continue my point. He says, "The obedience of a wife is a kind of command." Here I can attest to a definite affect on my own willingness to see my wife's desires fulfilled before mine when I routinely see her humble herself in Christ-like submission to me. How could I do any otherwise and still say I am loving her as Christ would have me to? 2] men - as it is a "present" reminder to women of their need to be under subjection to their husbands, it is an equally strong reminder to husbands that they ought to ensure they too are fully submitting to their head, Christ. I suppose you could say that in this manner, the woman acts as a model for the man. If they ought to submit to such a point, to what point ought husbands to submit to their head? - I also cannot tell you how joyful/pleasent/fulfilling a thing leading my family is when I have a family to lead that is very clear in their intention to follow me. I have no reservations about approaching my wife as her head when I am so often shown through her outward symbol of covering that I can expect to be received with respect and love. It frees me to a great extant, as I said above, to be able to think more about the needs and desires of my wife than my own because I am so rarely challenged in my position as head. 3] Children - as my daughters reach an age at which they can understand the practice and begin to cover as well [2 of my 3 daughters have reached that age] they become immersed in a culture of Christ-like submission to their head, be it father or, ultimately, their husband. I suppose you could say, then, that this is a service I am doing for my future son-in-laws as well. - but my sons are not left out of this. As they see their sisters and mother openly submit to me, they too are given a clear model for their own submission to their head [myself and, ultimately, Christ]. In this respect, even my sons' younger sisters are given the privilage of acting as role models for their older brothers. 4] daughters specifically - if you are a young man interested in one of my daughters, what might their head covering reveal to you? a] do you think young men will view them as the kind of young lady that will be an "easy" target? b] what sort of father will those young suiters take me to be, even before meeting me? Hopefully the kind who sees his daughters as HIS precious jewels that he will not allow to be abused and/or mistreated. 5] the church - I can personally attest to the increased order brought to the church by women who cover and maintain silence. And, in case I haven't said it enough, this is yet another example of a woman being a role model even for men. Now, none of this should be taken as the reasons "why" we believe and practice as we do. That is entirely because we believe it is a clear command of scripture. These are simply some of the many benefits of practicing head covering and female silence that I could think of in the few minutes it took me to type this out. Eric

First, I am not Jewish, so you can take my statements for what they're worth. But I am a Christian, a husband, and a father of six children. In my family women remain silent in church. We do not believe the passages commanding that means a woman cannot so much as have a conversation with a friend before service or offer a prayer request when they are taken. Passages commanding silence/covering relate to authority and teaching, not silence for the sake of silence. To take it to mean that a woman can not even say "Hello, how's your mother?" would be like literally cutting off your hand if it offended you. We also believe/practice that men ought not to have long hair and that women ought not to have short hair. I don't get dogmatic about what "long" and "short" mean, but in our family men keep their hair off their collars and women keep it to their shoulders or longer. Lastly, we also believe/practice head covering by women [my wife & daughters] during prayer, bible study, and church attendance. I am familiar with the opinions of those who do not but I think they fall short, obviously. I do not make the issue a contentious one, though one church suggested we might be more comfortable somewhere else where the church at large practices head covering of women. I am well aware that westernized, 21st century Christianity views the practices of silence and covering as demeaning to women or one which relegates them to a "second class" position, but I must present a clear conscience to God and we definitely do not see it that way. Like so many commandments, it is for our beneift, not detriment, that the Lord instructs us to do it.

I have to agree with Nebula. "son of God" is a term used in the O.T. to refer to angels [with the exception of Adam, I believe]. And trying to understand the statement from the perspective of the speaker is the best policy. How likely is it that King Neb would be making a very N.T., very trinitarian statement at that time? It is similar to the statement made by the Roman soldier at the foot of the cross. The Greek allows for all of the following to be possible translations of his statement: 1] truly this man was the son of God. 2] truly this man was a son of God. 3] truly this man was a son of a god. Which is the most probable, coming from a polytheistic Roman soldier?

It is a testimony. I guess I don't see it as "alive" or or how I draw near to God, as some have posted. Maybe I'm just misunderstanding what they are getting at.

3. The Holy Spirit

The book of Job is a great book and there are a lot of lessons to be learned from it. Would you care to elaborate as to your points from Job on the issue? Just because someone is suffering doesn't always mean it is a punishment from God...ie. Job's "friends". Exactly why I give him the "Eliphaz Award". Pat spoke what he does not know as if it were fact. Perhaps God is punishing Sharon, perhaps not. The point has never been whether God is punishing him or not, but whether Pat has any business claiming so on his television show. Some of us here here feel he did not. In Christ, Eric

Romans 9:19-24 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay, but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? Job 4:17 Shall mortal man be more just than God? Shall a man be more pure than his maker? Justice is judgement without partiality. What was it about you that caused God to choose you over another, or what made you a more fitting son than another? Nothing. There was nothing worthy of His salvation in you. Yet He loved you and sent His only begotten son to die for sin in your stead, and called you to the adoption of His sons. God saved you without impratiality because all, including you and I, were unworthy to begin with. Should God have exhibited the "justice" you seem to hint at He would have left all in their sin and punished all. It is toward the saved that a man may say God dealt "unfairly" because He has provided them an escape from the end which they deserve. In Christ, Eric

Who is "not of His family"? Non-believers? That is correct. Only the new birth makes us children of God. John 1:12 Bus as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: *There is, then, a time when we were not the sons of God. John 8:44b Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. *Had the pharisees two fathers? God and Satan? Galatians 4:5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons. *A father has no need to adopt children that are already his. Hebrews 12:8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then ye are bastards, and not sons. In Christ, Eric

Well, some of us take personal offense at that..... In Christ, Eric

Your question is flawed. God is not the Father of us all (relationally speaking). To all of His children He has given eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord, but to those not of His family, He has promised the certainty of eternal punishment. This, then, is not a case of a father being overly harsh toward his son, but rather the Most Holy God dealing Justly toward a created thing. In Christ, Eric

Allow me to gain some clarification before I give any answers. You speak of two "justices". One being God's and the other being man's. Is this a correct understanding? And I gather that you are asking how can we call both "justice" if they are different from one another? Is this a correct understanding of your question? In Christ, Eric

I don't think we are. We at once agree with your reminder that we are to forgive and love even our enemies, but also remind you that God says vengeance is His. While we are taught to live out certain qualities of our LORD's (love, mercy, forgiveness, etc) we are witheld from practicing other qualities of His (vengeance, wrath, judgement, etc) These belong wholly to God. The fact that God will exercise them while requiring us to maintain the former is a testament to His postition, not an example of contradiction. Too little to stake a doctrine on it. In Christ, Eric

Also directed toward 2thepoint: What binds heaven and hell? If the experience of heaven is eternal, why must the experience of hell also be eternal? It seems that some posters here assume a connection between the two--I guess viewing them as polar opposites. On the issue of "sleep", nonexistence is the polar opposite of existence--right? My point was not that because the peace of heaven is to be experienced consiously then the tortures of hell must be also. What I showed is that even while Lazarus and Abraham enjoyed the peace of paradise the rich man simultaneously suffered the torture of hell, consiously. This post was aimed more at tha idea of "soul sleep" raised by some than at the consiousness of eternal punishment in general. In Christ, Eric

Please refer to the rich man and Lazarus. Along with Abraham, all are quite consious well after their first death. And what comfort does Christ's comment to the thief on the cross bring if by it he only means that they will "sleep". He says today you shall be with me in paradise. If they are not conscious then how is it paradise? In Christ, Eric

Sometimes. And yet other times it is depicted as being a place with unquenchable fire. Let the context dictate the usage. No contradiction at all. I too referred to scripture to support that at times hell is referrencing a specific place of fire and torment. Mark 9:43-44 & Luke 16:228). It is irresponsible interpreting to apply a word's usage in one (or a few) passages to every time the word is used. Let the context dictate the usage. In Christ, Eric

Did the first death eliminate consciousness? No. Then why do we assume the second death will? We can't, unless we read into it what we wish to see there. In Christ, Eric

Matthew 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment... Mark 9:43-44 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. Luke 16:28 ...send him (Lazarus) to my father's house: For I (the rich man) have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Revelation 20:10, 15 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. And whomsoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. I won't continue at this point... Sometimes. And yet other times it is depicted as being a place with unquenchable fire. Let the context dictate the usage. True, but we do not define what is "Just" and what is abusive. We learn from God that our ways are not His ways. The scriptures teach of a place of torment. We would be wise to accept God's word over our understanding. In Christ, Eric

How is it that "God's unofficial mouth-piece" (read Pat Robertson) still manages to suprise me with his continual barage of verbal shock and awe? He gets the "Eliphaz Award" for this one.

John 5:17-18 But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work. Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. *Those who heard him speak understood the implication of his statements John 8:57-58 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty yearld old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I Am. *Moses asks God, at the burning bush, whom he shall say sent him. God replies: Exodus 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I Am that I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Isreal, I Am hath sent me unto you. Thus Jesus claims for himself a name of God. Mark 2:5-11 When Jesus saw their faith, he said unto the sick of the palsy, Son, thy sins be forgiven thee. But there were certain of the scribes sitting there, and reasoning in their hearts, Why doth this man thus speak blasphemies? Who can fogive sins but God only? And immediately when Jesus perceived in his spirit that they so reasoned within themselves, he said unto them, Why reason ye these things in your hearts? Whether is it easier to say to the sick of the palsy, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and take up thy bed, and walk? But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy bed, and go thy way into thine house. *Jesus claims rights attributal only to God Matthew 12:6-8 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day. *Jesus claims Lordship of the sabbath...God's sanctified day Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: *Jesus claims the name and equality of authority with the Father But none of this should surprise or confuse us. It is what we were told to expect in the Old Testament. Isaiah, prophecying of the coming Messiah, says: Isa. 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. In Christ, Eric

You make a good point in that we must define marriage or else it becomes anything we wish to make it, however... You make quite a jump when you say it is "only logical to define marriage as...". We have record of marriages which today we would find taboo, or even vulgar, yet there exists nothing in their nature to make them so. Consider polygamy in the scripture. Not only does God regulate it (thus implying allowance) but He chastises David for his affair with Bathsheba, saying the He would have given him more wives Himself. Consider also that in time past the age differences between a bride and groom would today lead to legal trouble for one of the spouses. Certainly, 10 years old is improper, but we do know that at times it has not been thought ill of for a 25-30 year old man to marry a 15 or 16 year old girl. This is where we must be careful to ensure our "definition of marriage" is based on God's word and moral absolution rather than current cultural norms. In Christ, Eric

Apoth, Let me begin by saying that I whole heartedly accept the doctine of the Trinity. It is too plainly taught in the scriptures to deny. I wonder, though, if we are not going beyond what we know in this discussion of Angels. My point is in regards to this statement: Yet we do read of Angels who have sinned: II Peter 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned... *Also Jude 1:6 Also, there at least appears to be an element of "free will" in Lucifers rebellion and the subsequent falling of those angels who followed him. Apart from this we are told only that they do not marry (Mat 22:30) and that they are for the ministering of the heirs of salvation (Heb 1:14). As to their ability to create, have emotions, or need for fellowship we are told nothing and should speculate about such things with humility. I do not say any of this to detract from your sound defense of the Trinity nor to imply that we are like the angels. Why, then, would we be told that Christ took not on him the nature of angels, but of the seed of Abraham (Heb 2:16)? We are different. Again, I firmly agree with the doctrine. But we are told too little of the nature of Angels to make very many conclusions about them. That they are a creation of God's and thus below Him is evident. That man is not created in their image, but in the image of God, is clear. Whatever the fundamental difference between men and angels, though, it is that which at once pronounces us made a little lower than they (Psa 8:4-5) and yet affords us that thing witheld from them, which is salvation (II Pet 2:4, Heb 1:13-14; 2:5). We shall even judge them (I Cor 6:3). In Christ, Eric