Any online versions available to read? What's it about? I'd love to read it but can't get it where I live overseas.
Yes available at the following link, as of today.
DEMONS IN THE CHURCH - by E. H. Skolfield
http://www.israelinbibleprophecy.com/demons_in_the_church.htm
I am working on getting a PDF of Sunset of the Western Church which was the book that Demons was a sequel to.
Thanks, I ended up reading it almost completely in one sitting last night!
Very interesting, and actually very relevant to this particular forum. The book is about the three ordinances of (1) water baptism and (2) communion, but in particular it focuses on (3) the ordinance of women remaining silent in church and covering their heads whilst praying or prophesying.
Mr Skolfield has a valid biblical argument that the wife is a "type" of the church (church being the bride of Christ the bridegroom), and thus observing the head covering shows to the spiritual realm the state of the church. He even discusses real life examples where Christian women who were having spiritual problems began to cover their heads during prayer (even at home in private) - and began noticing demons in their houses; even hearing screams - and were then able to gain release from spiritual bondage as they observed the head covering.
The book really does make a good case and point. As I said one thing that occurred to me is the relevance of the topic to Islam. We know that for everything God does Satan has a pretty good counterfeit. Thus we could almost look backwards to prove the relevance of the Christian head covering by noticing that headcovering of women is one of the most fundamental and universal concepts of Islam (and the single most obvious sign of Islam to the natural world that there is). Such a dominant counterfeit could indicate the importance of God's original (and true) ordinance.
Quote from: annazakiya on October 15, 2011, 08:01:11 PM
Thanks, I ended up reading it almost completely in one sitting last night!
Sorry it's still a little rough around the edges. The PDF didn't copy and paste without a lot of the characters changing, so it wasn't too complete last night. I'm about half-way through the second schmoozing now.
It is pretty hard to make an argument against head coverings for women, in light of the first 1950 years of universal practice of head-covering in the church, let alone the examples of demonic influence cited in the book.
A lot of head coverings on the women at this Billy Graham tent revival. Particularly on the older women. This was the period when the great falling away had just begun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njqj_e7ZomY
I sure remember all the women wearing head coverings at the church I attended as a child. Mostly pillbox kinds of shapes or like a disk with feathers around the edge, both styles with mesh veils attached.
Not surprisingly with the beginning of the falling away of the church through bible ignorance and doctrines avoiding the preaching of repentance, our once-great nation divorced herself from God, through the Everson decision in 1947 and it's spurious "separation of church and state", followed by the McCollum decision in 1948 that kicked God out of our schools.
So after hearing so many great things about this book, I was thrilled to find it available online. I began reading it last night and finished it up today. I have to say, I really respect Ellis and his love for the Lord and for Truth. I agree with a lot of what he says and admire his knowledge of scripture. Having said all that, the woman's head covering is just a hard pill to swallow. Not because it would be inconvenient to believe it. I have always prayed that I would be able to follow and walk in the Lord's truth despite how inconvenient, unpopular, etc, that it might be. So, that is not my problem. It is just hard for me to really believe the need for such a thing when one actually looks and understands the whole of scripture, the church and the christian life. I am in no way saying that I am right and he is wrong. But neither can I blindly embrace this practice simply because he says it's the truth. I will try to, as briefly as possible, point out my initial reservations with this teaching.
1. Ellis comes across as though his interpretation of scripture is the truth and everyone else's is wrong. This is a dangerous mentality. People who claim to "just do what the bible says", are in reality simply doing what they "believe" the bible says. All scripture requires interpretation and thus the millions of doctrinal and theological differences. The desire to interpret scripture exactly as God intended it to be interpreted is something that goes back as far as the ancient Rabbis. Their whole purpose was to fulfill God's Law as they felt He intended it to be fulfilled. Obviously, how one interprets a certain passage will differ from how another interprets it and naturally you get factions or differences. A rabbis' interpretation of scripture was known as his "yoke". To take a Rabbis' "yoke" upon you was to follow his particular interpretation of the scriptures and live it out accordingly. Jesus told us to come to him for his "yoke was easy and his burden was light". Jesus came to lessen the burden of the law and external manifestations that supposedly brought one closer to God. Under the New Covenant in Christ, the focus has shifted from the external to the internal. It's the heart that God looks at. He took the heart of stone and gave us a heart of flesh. Is Ellis truly suggesting that without a literal woman's head covering, we are doomed to deception, exposed to the enemy, and destined for satanic domination? What happened to the power of the Cross? The blood? The Name of Jesus?
I want to be clear that I am not suggesting that there is no absolute truth in the scriptures and that each person's interpretation make it so. That's not what I'm saying at all. The Word of God is absolutely true from beginning to end. The problem is that it can be interpreted incorrectly and misapplied and thus create doctrines that are defended as "truth" but not necessarily so. That is my point.
2. There is no biblical support that failing to accomplish one of the three ordinances can lead one into harm. We agree that baptism is biblical and good. That it should be done. Absolutely. But there is no support that if one fails to be baptized they are doomed in some way. One or two testimonies of people supposedly suffering prior to being baptized does not a biblical truth make. I agree with Ellis' teaching on the importance and power of baptism and that it should be done right away rather than after months of "baptism bible classes". That idea has always seemed so ridiculous to me. But again, if one isn't baptized right away or "properly" as Ellis would define it, there is no support, either biblically or practically that one will suffer untold harm and attack. Along the same lines, neither is there support that failing to partake of communion invites harm and disaster. What we have in the passages regarding communion is a correction for abuse. The believers were being selfish, not waiting for other believers to arrive before scarfing down all the food, leaving nothing for the poorer believers arriving late. On top of this, believers were getting drunk at the gatherings! It is this evil, selfish, and ungodly behavior that Paul is confronting and that is making many among them sick and weak. There is no evidence to support the idea that if the Supper wasn't observed at all, they would be attacked and harmed in some way. It was their ungodly behavior towards others and their drunkenness and irreverence that appears to be in view. To partake of the meal in a "worthy manner" means that they would wait for all to arrive, allow everyone to partake in the meal together, and refrain from inappropriate conduct such as drunkenness.
So, my point is simply that there is no evidence that if one fails to apply one of these ordinances altogether, one will be under attack. So, why would one conclude that a woman failing to cover her head would invite harmful demonic attacks? It doesn't pass the reality test OR the biblical test in my opinion.
3. Ellis goes to great detail to "expose" and critique the charismatics practicing their false signs and wonders, etc. Part of his argument is that people can be duped into believing something works, ie faith healing, when in actuality it is their own emotional or psychological vulnerability, or worse yet, demonic activity creating the supposed miracle. In other words, people can be duped into believing they received a miracle simply by psychology. Many of these false prophets work the crowd and are experts at creating environments were people are almost in a trance like state in order to "receive". My point regarding this is that by Ellis' own admission, people can be duped into believing something works by their own minds or emotions. So how is it not possible that all or some of the testimonies he shared about women covering their heads and then experiencing various changes were not simply due to the fact that these people put their faith in something, wanting it to work and so they made it work? If we can be duped one way, why not the other as well? We know for a fact that when someone wants to believe something and puts their faith in it, many times they will make it work simply by their faith. Look at diet pills or supplements that people stand by as having helped them lose 100 lbs only to find out that the supplement is a worthless sales gimmick....but they still lost weight! How? Faith is a powerful thing, even when it's misguided. Tithing is another example. Tithing is an old covenant practice not commanded or applicable for NT believers. However, millions of tithers swear up and down that once they began tithing all their finances turned around. But you can find a million others who tithed and never saw any difference at all. So who is right? Given the fact that tithing is not applicable for NT believers and is law based living, trusting in a work for blessing rather than in Christ though whom all blessing has been given to us, it would appear that some people's faith in tithing is so strong that it works for them despite not being biblical. My question is could the same principle be at work regarding the head covering?
4. Scripture seems to be clear that the church will endure massive deception no matter what. Many will fall away from the faith, false prophets will come, false teaching will invade the church, people will grow cold, and on and on. This has nothing to do with women covering or not covering their heads but rather it is God's prophetic order. Only a relatively small number of believers will remain faithful to him. Few are chosen. Etc. Deception in the church (as a phenomenon) is unavoidable. Head coverings will not stop this from happening.
5. Paul seems to already give us clear and specific details as to how to fight the enemy and do spiritual warfare. He makes no mention of head coverings in this context. He instead lays out what he calls "putting on the whole armor of God". His purpose for this is stated clearly, "that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil". Paul makes it clear that in order to stand against the attacks of the devil, we only need to put on the whole armor of God. Nothing is mentioned about head coverings. He then defines the armor of God and still no mention of head coverings. Interestingly, Paul does in fact mention the head and how to protect it against the enemy. It is not by a woman wearing a head covering but rather by all believers wearing the helmet of salvation. All of the "armor" appears to be spiritual analogies to different truths of the faith. The word, the spirit, righteousness, salvation, faith, etc. Paul is confident that when a believer applies these spiritual truths and remains in prayer, that they will be perfectly suited against the attacks of the enemy.
6. It fails the reality test. There are many believers around the world, who bare fruit unto God, walk in righteousness and truth, are surrendered to him fully, and glorify the Lord Jesus Christ above all, that do not wear head coverings. There are many healthy, vibrant churches, walking in truth, glorifying the Lord Jesus that do not practice wearing head coverings. If the head covering is the "golden key" and the secret to avoiding deception and demonic attack, then how is it that many believers get by just fine without it? And why is it that some women who cover their heads, still struggle with different attacks, temptations, tempers, unforgiveness, or whatever? It seems that there is no definitive pattern. Some are fine without it, some are not fine with it.
7. I do not agree with Ellis' interpretation of "a woman should learn in silence". He teaches that women should be silent in the assemblies. Really? Are we not all, male and female, priests unto God? Did Christ not purchase us all and make us ALL ministers and functioning priests? This is the fundamental doctrine of the "priesthood of all believers". Something no legitimate scholar argues. If we are all ministers and capable of sharing Christ with our brothers and sisters, then how can we accept that woman are completely shut out of participating in meetings?
I believe there is a better explanation of 1 Timothy 2. Here is an explanation:
Paul urges prayers for peaceful lives. Recorded in Acts 19:24-41 is Paul's violent conflict with Demetrius, a silver craftsmen making shrines to Diana and the city-wide riot that followed. Paul probably has this specific episode in mind when he urges church members at Ephesus to offer "prayers...that we may live peaceful and quiet lives..." 1Tim 2:1-2. The word he uses for peaceful, (heesuchion from hesuchios, Strong's 2272), is the male form of the word and it translates as "peaceful". The feminine form of the same word (hesuchia, hay-soo-khee'-ah, 2271); is used twice in 1 Tim. 2:11-12 describing the atmosphere in which a woman should learn and what Paul feels should be a woman's attitude. The same word used in the same chapter should have the same translation, "peaceful"â€"a peaceful learning atmosphereâ€"the same atmosphere Paul urges them to pray for so that they might have undisturbed lives! Instead of being translated as "peaceful" as it is in the male form, the female form of the same word was translated as "silence". There are many clues in the second chapter of 1Timothy that an angry dispute has occurred in church, and peacefulness is the exact attribute that Paul advocates for both women and men.
So in 1 Tim 2: 11 when Paul uses the female form of the same word, he is requesting a peaceful atmosphere free of anger and disputing.
"Paul does not command the women not to teach. He employs the present active indicative for "allow." The present tense in Greek principally denotes continuous present action. It can refer to present necessity and obligation and to potential action. Greek has its own imperative mood which is not here employed. Commands can also be phrased in the aorist or the future indicative. Neither of these tenses is here used. Nor does Paul use the perfect tense to denote an action in the past which has changed the state of affairs. Paul is saying: 'I am not presently allowing a woman to teach.'" Beyond the Curse, Aida Besancon Spencer, Pg. 84-85.
So, a fuller and more appropriate/literal translation would read something like this: ""A wife, in peacefulness, I let learn in all obedience (not causing angry disputes), but to teach (a) wife I am not allowing (present indicative tenseâ€"he is not presently allowing a wife to teach), not even to dominate (a) husband, but to be in peacefulness.""
The historical context shows that Paul was addressing a very specific problem of dominating women who were causing problems in the church. This was most likely caused by the false religion of Ephesus. They worshiped Diana, long story short, it was taught that women are superior to men. Paul is bringing correction to a specific false teaching and setting some guidelines to restore church order and peace. This also meshes perfectly with the next few verses about Adam being formed first and then the woman. Also, that Eve was the one deceived, not Adam. What is Paul doing? He's correcting the false teaching that women are superior. So, the whole passage is about a specific false teaching happening there at that time and Paul is giving specific instructions for them at that time as well.
So Ellis' claim that "a woman should not speak or teach in the church", based on these verses appears to be completely false bringing me back to my first point. Just because he says it's the truth, doesn't make it so. It's his interpretation and since he is fallible, maybe his interpretation is incorrect. If he is incorrect regarding this issue, could he be incorrect regarding the head covering issue as well? It's certainly possible and I believe it to be so.
8. The NT names by name several important women who Paul considered co-workers in Christ Jesus. To name a few: Priscilla, Phoebe, Junia, Nympha, etc. Some of these women were considered apostles (ie, Junia), and certainly capable of preaching the gospel and teaching the churches. There seems to be sufficient evidence of women teachers, co-workers in the early church that would seemingly refute Ellis' interpretation of 1 Tim 2.
9. Just as another practical observation. Paul seems to suggest that equal to the woman covering her head is the man NOT covering his head. So, is it sinful for men to wear hats? If I wear a baseball cap am I now open to demonic attack and deception because I "covered my head"? I think most people would say of course not. So how could we promote the female side of the coin but yet deny the male side? Paul seems to place them both on equal ground. If wearing a cap or hat causes me no spiritual harm, then it would stand to reason that a woman not wearing a covering would also not cause any spiritual harm.
10. Finally, I think it is a stretch for Ellis to claim that the consequences of failing to uphold this practice are delusion, deception and demonic attack. Ellis seems to go as far as to suggest that the reason the church is in such deception today is because of neglecting this sole practice. However, the passage itself reveals nothing, nor even hints at evidence of harmful consequences befalling someone if they fail to wear the head covering. There are no statements such as "if you fail to do this you will suffer x, y, and z". Or, "be careful to observe all these things so that you do not suffer x, y, z", etc. When speaking about the Lord's Supper, Paul clearly states that their improper behavior in regard to the Supper was causing them physical harm. There is no such warning or implication in the passage on head covering.
These are just some reservations and doubts I have about this doctrine/practice of the head covering. This is in no way intended to be an "I'm right, you're wrong" post. These are simply my initial reservations and I welcome feedback and correction as we pursue truth together. God bless!
Quote from: caracasmc on January 09, 2012, 07:51:55 PM
So after hearing so many great things about this book, I was thrilled to find it available online. I began reading it last night and finished it up today. I have to say, I really respect Ellis and his love for the Lord and for Truth. I agree with a lot of what he says and admire his knowledge of scripture. Having said all that, the woman's head covering is just a hard pill to swallow. Not because it would be inconvenient to believe it. I have always prayed that I would be able to follow and walk in the Lord's truth despite how inconvenient, unpopular, etc, that it might be. So, that is not my problem. It is just hard for me to really believe the need for such a thing when one actually looks and understands the whole of scripture, the church and the christian life. I am in no way saying that I am right and he is wrong. But neither can I blindly embrace this practice simply because he says it's the truth. I will try to, as briefly as possible, point out my initial reservations with this teaching.
1. Ellis comes across as though his interpretation of scripture is the truth and everyone else's is wrong. This is a dangerous mentality.
Was he supposed to preface every sentence with "In my opinion..." or "I believe"? He's never claimed God granted him a franchise on infallible doctrine. Did you Google the subject before making accusations against Ellis, as if he is the only one that teaches this?
head coverings in church (http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Ag9BN6U74IyW2uPC3sRqORybvZx4?p=head+coverings+in+church&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701)
http://www.biblicalresearchreports.com/headcoveringmyths.php
http://www.kingshouse.org/headcovering.htm
Regarding the examples that you want to dismiss of women recognizing personal benefit I quickly perused this and saw she had experience in a few churches. I think if you read it you might get a little more insight.
http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/headcoverings.aspx
As per the info in my prior post, can you explain why the ordinance of head covering was observed over the first 1950 years of church history, but to observe the same ordinance today would be to "blindly embrace this practice"?The women in the Presbyterian church I attended in the 1950s still wore head coverings, including my mom. Little feathery disk thing with an almost transparent veil on the front of it. Pill box styles were popular too. I would say head coverings were uniformly worn by the older women in that church, like my grandmother and her peers, that were born in the 19th century.
Personally, when it comes to these sorts of matters, I do everything in my power to err on the safe side - the conservative side. For example, in this case there are 2 options, to wear a head covering or not to wear a head covering.
1Cr 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.
1. could wearing a head covering be wrong?
2. could not wearing a head covering be wrong?
Unless you answer that you believe there is a better chance that wearing a head covering could be wrong, than not wearing one, then which choice would reflect greater obedience to God? Were all the women over those 19+ centuries wrong, and it wasn't until the second half of the 20th century that women became enlightened?
Set up the same scenario with women talking in church, not that it isn't the accidental practice in virtually every church, ever since "church" has been turned into a guy yakking at the congregation from a pulpit until it's time to go home.
Same with women exercising authority over men from the pulpit. Again mostly last half century.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordination_of_women#Christianity
Now look at what a mess the Episcopal church is, and female Pentecostal preachers and what they call "tongues". Regarding unclean spirits in "church" here's a personal experience I had in a "tongue" talking Pentecostal church.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/man_of_sin_revealed.htm
The assistant female pastor in an Episcopal Church I attended before I was saved was all for the ordination of Gene Robinson, a homosexual. It was a blessing in disguise because I left that church the Sunday after the ECUSA approved that ordination and was born again a few months later. I wasn't alone since it looks like the Episcopal Church U.S. is dying.
We probably both agree that we are not saved through the flesh, and I think that if a woman is (other than willfully) ignorant to the scriptures and/or tradition regarding head coverings, she may not be transgressing.
Rom 4:15 Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, [there is] no transgression.
But for women that believe they should, more likely than not, be wearing a head covering, then how would not wearing one not be disobedient?
About the same time as women abandoned head coverings and started being ordained into authority over men, Billy Graham popularized the "sinners prayer" that wound up taking the place of the doctrine of repentance, that also helped take the institutional "church" to where it is today. I believe the mid-20th century marked the beginning of the apostasy mentioned in Thessalonians.
Elder brother Ellis has scoured the scriptures and served the Lord full-time for most of his 80+ years.
It wouldn't surprise me that if you did wear a head covering you would get harassed by other women like those examples in Ellis' book. What might that tell you? Now I don't intend for this to insult our brethren overseas that are being slaughtered for the witness of Jesus, I included it because of the specific reference to living Godly.
2 Timothy 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
Quote from: caracasmc on January 09, 2012, 07:51:55 PM
But neither can I blindly embrace this practice simply because he says it's the truth.
The thing is, it isn't Ellis who says its the truth, it is the Bible that says to practice headcovering.
Quote from: caracasmc on January 09, 2012, 07:51:55 PMPeople who claim to "just do what the bible says", are in reality simply doing what they "believe" the bible says. All scripture requires interpretation and thus the millions of doctrinal and theological differences. The desire to interpret scripture exactly as God intended it to be interpreted is something that goes back as far as the ancient Rabbis. Their whole purpose was to fulfill God's Law as they felt He intended it to be fulfilled. Obviously, how one interprets a certain passage will differ from how another interprets it and naturally you get factions or differences.
I agree with this, but clearly there is ONE correct interpretation, and if you do have the correct interpretation because through God's grace the Holy Spirit gave you the understanding, then yes it is the truth, and everyone else IS wrong.
I believe too that Jesus looks at a person's heart and is NOT going to condemn you for something you did or didn't do out of ignorance. BUT, that is not what Ellis is saying at all; as the book clearly emphasises, headcovering is
"because of the angels".
Quote from: caracasmc on January 09, 2012, 07:51:55 PMWe know for a fact that when someone wants to believe something and puts their faith in it, many times they will make it work simply by their faith. Look at diet pills or supplements that people stand by as having helped them lose 100 lbs only to find out that the supplement is a worthless sales gimmick....but they still lost weight! How?
This 'argument' is null and void and has nothing to do with headcovering. The ONLY way to lose weight is to use more energy than you intake. If someone unknowingly took a placebo diet pill and lost weight, then either their activity was higher than normal, their energy intake less than normal, or both.
Quote from: caracasmc on January 09, 2012, 07:51:55 PM
Head coverings will not stop this from happening.
It is too late, it already happened.
Quote from: caracasmc on January 09, 2012, 07:51:55 PM
9. Just as another practical observation. Paul seems to suggest that equal to the woman covering her head is the man NOT covering his head. So, is it sinful for men to wear hats? If I wear a baseball cap am I now open to demonic attack and deception because I "covered my head"? I think most people would say of course not.
I disagree. People remove their hats just to eat at the table don't they? Isn't prayer more important? Of course it is of equal weighting with women headcovering. "Most people" in my country would say we are crazy for believing in this God "nonsense" - does that make them right? Or "most people" in Saudi Arabia pray to Satan 5 times a day - does that make them right? Jesus said it was a narrow path.
Quote from: caracasmc on January 09, 2012, 07:51:55 PM
If wearing a cap or hat causes me no spiritual harm
How do you know it doesn't? Maybe it allowed you to become deceived into believing headcoverings aren't important?
Finally, I believe that women are much more susceptible to demonic influence than men. When satan works through deception, its just that - you have NO IDEA you are being deceived. If one believes they are cruising along in their faith never hindered by demonic attack, then chances are there is something very wrong. On the flipside, if a woman starts covering her head and begins to experience spiritual attack that she never felt before, then it probably means satan is VERY upset about it.
If it is for our own protection then isn't it safer for the individual person to do it than not?
Thanks for the discussion anyway.
Quote from: caracasmc on January 09, 2012, 07:51:55 PM
6. It fails the reality test. There are many believers around the world, who bare fruit unto God, walk in righteousness and truth, ........
Then why is it there is a thousand to one chance that the doctrine of the church you attend, necessarily precludes the flock from even considering that Muhammad could be the false prophet of the book of Revelation, without running afoul of church doctrine?
(I only allowed the one in a thousand for churches that have absolutely no doctrine whatsoever that is related to the book of Revelation)
Quote from: caracasmc on January 09, 2012, 07:51:55 PM....... are surrendered to him fully, and glorify the Lord Jesus Christ above all, that do not wear head coverings.
QuoteWas he supposed to preface every sentence with "In my opinion..." or "I believe"? He's never claimed God granted him a franchise on infallible doctrine. Did you Google the subject before making accusations against Ellis, as if he is the only one that teaches this?
I think you are missing the point I was making. I'm not suggesting Ellis is deliberately an arrogant person when it comes to his interpretation of scripture. I'm simply saying that Ellis makes statements in the book such as, "This book is about truth", but what he calls truth is not necessarily God's truth, but rather his interpretation of it. The 1 Timothy 2 verses are a perfect example. Ellis talks about just "doing" what God's word says, period. But yet I tried to show that a proper understanding of 1 Tim 2 shows that it was not about women being SILENT in church for ALL TIME. It was about women being peaceable and it was in reference to a specific group, for a specific time, regarding a specific problem. It wasn't meant as a law for all believers for all time. The original Greek bears this out as I tried to show.
So the point is that Ellis tells us that ALL women should remain SILENT in gatherings FOREVER because it's the TRUTH since it says so in God's Word. However, this is in fact not the truth but a misinterpretation of God's Word. So it puts an unnecessary law upon believers and worsens the burden of the law that Jesus came to lift and free us from. If he could be so wrong about women participating in gatherings, could he not be wrong in his interpretation of head coverings?
QuoteAs per the info in my prior post, can you explain why the ordinance of head covering was observed over the first 1950 years of church history, but to observe the same ordinance today would be to "blindly embrace this practice"?
Brother, the church has done A LOT of things wrong for hundreds of years. Just because something has been done for a long time doesn't make it right. Look at the institutional church structure. Since the 4th century the church has had hierarchical leadership structure (which Jesus condemned), turned the Lord's Supper into a ritual of a wafer and thimble of juice, made elders and deacons some sort of title and official position instead of simply older, mature believers who serve the body. I could go on and on. There have been literally limitless rituals, laws, practices, etc that the Church has maintained for centuries that are based in man rather than the truth of God's word. I fail to see how this proves anything. I'm not saying it's insignificant. Just that it doesn't necessarily make it right.
And when it comes to women who used to cover their heads, I actually find it quite humorous. Those little hats were more about fashion than about some sort of understanding of submission. The whole point of the whole covering in the context of Paul's writing was to illustrate God's order. I was born and raised in the Evangelical church. I'm a second generation "minister". I can trace my family's ministry back to the early 1900's. I have never heard a sister, at least in my experience, explain her little Sunday "hat" as being a sign of submission to her husband and an illustration of God's perfect order! It was a Sunday morning fashion accessory more than anything.
The other thing that I remember is that many of those old ladies with their little hats were some of the meanest and most bitter women you'd ever meet! Lol. That head covering sure didn't make them wonderful Godly ladies. Certainly, not all were like this. But many were.
QuotePersonally, when it comes to these sorts of matters, I do everything in my power to err on the safe side - the conservative side. For example, in this case there are 2 options, to wear a head covering or not to wear a head covering.
1Cr 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.
1. could wearing a head covering be wrong?
2. could not wearing a head covering be wrong?
Unless you answer that you believe there is a better chance that wearing a head covering could be wrong, than not wearing one, then which choice would reflect greater obedience to God? Were all the women over those 19+ centuries wrong, and it wasn't until the second half of the 20th century that women became enlightened?
This logic misses the point of what I'm suggesting. To me it's not about whether it's right or wrong to wear a head covering. Ignoring all factors and simply reading the verse as is, I would say, "sure a woman should wear a head covering". In the same way I would read 1 Tim 2 and say, "sure, a woman should keep quiet in gatherings". But the problem is that this is not a correct interpretation so I would be wrong in applying the verse that way. So again, my "argument" (really more of a doubt than an argument) is that the whole premise of the head covering might be wrong and is potentially being misapplied and misinterpreted. To me, it's not about whether a woman wearing the head covering is right or wrong, but whether that is even the point of the passage and if it's correct to interpret it as applicable for all believers for all time.
QuoteAbout the same time as women abandoned head coverings and started being ordained into authority over men, Billy Graham popularized the "sinners prayer" that wound up taking the place of the doctrine of repentance, that also helped take the institutional "church" to where it is today. I believe the mid-20th century marked the beginning of the apostasy mentioned in Thessalonians.
I think this proves just as easily that it was the watering down of the Gospel message of salvation and repentance that has brought us to where we are more so than head coverings. There are too many heresies and false teachings to fully discuss here that have played part in what has happened to the American church, but are you seriously trying to say that all of this is because of head coverings? I find that absurd especially since scripture prophetically tells us that "many will fall away" anyway. Not because they stop wearing head coverings, but because their hearts grow cold. Ellis seems to be teaching that the head covering is the REASON that all of this is happening and that by obeying this practice we can AVOID it. I think it makes more sense to say that IF the head covering really is a scriptural mandate for all believers for all time, then the great apostasy and deception has caused believers to stop obeying it rather than the other way around which is what Ellis seems to be advocating. Rather than not wearing head coverings causing the deception, doesn't it make more sense that the deception caused the not wearing of the head coverings? If so, then how is the head covering a protection from deception if people were deceived in the first place to stop wearing them? Seems backwards to me. There is simply no scriptural support to suggest head coverings provide some sort of spiritual protection or that not covering the head exposes one to spiritual harm.
By the way...I am a man, just so you know.
QuoteThe thing is, it isn't Ellis who says its the truth, it is the Bible that says to practice headcovering.
Umm, this is exactly the point I was making. No it's not. It's your interpretation that says it is so. Just as 1 Tim 2 does NOT say that woman should be "silent", it is possible that the head covering is NOT a command for all Christians for all time. but is simply being misinterpreted and misapplied.
Quote
I agree with this, but clearly there is ONE correct interpretation, and if you do have the correct interpretation because through God's grace the Holy Spirit gave you the understanding, then yes it is the truth, and everyone else IS wrong.
I don't agree that just because the Holy Spirit convicts YOU of a certain "truth" that it makes everyone else "wrong". That is self righteous attitude that Paul certainly does not advocate in passages such as Romans 14 or 1 Corinthians 8. His attitude is one of respecting what the spirit reveals to our brothers and sisters even if we do not share the same conviction. What is ok for you may be a sin to your brother or sister in Christ. Neither should judge the other. Those are Pauls instructions regarding such matters.
QuoteThis 'argument' is null and void and has nothing to do with headcovering. The ONLY way to lose weight is to use more energy than you intake. If someone unknowingly took a placebo diet pill and lost weight, then either their activity was higher than normal, their energy intake less than normal, or both.
I think you missed the point I was making here. The point was that there is enormous power in faith. When a person believes something works, they can convince themselves that it works even if it is proven to be false. Like tithing for example. Many people swear that tithing is a requirement and that they can prove it because once they started tithing their finances improved. That's their proof. My point is that whether their finances improved or not makes no difference, tithing is not required for believers today. So, why does it supposedly "work" for some people? I would suggest that God honors their faith and their giving despite following an Old Testament Law that places faith in their work (tithing) rather than in God alone. So I was simply suggesting that positive results don't necessarily make head covering true.
QuoteQuote from: caracasmc on January 09, 2012, 07:51:55 PM
9. Just as another practical observation. Paul seems to suggest that equal to the woman covering her head is the man NOT covering his head. So, is it sinful for men to wear hats? If I wear a baseball cap am I now open to demonic attack and deception because I "covered my head"? I think most people would say of course not.
I disagree. People remove their hats just to eat at the table don't they? Isn't prayer more important? Of course it is of equal weighting with women headcovering. "Most people" in my country would say we are crazy for believing in this God "nonsense" - does that make them right? Or "most people" in Saudi Arabia pray to Satan 5 times a day - does that make them right? Jesus said it was a narrow path.
I'm not sure I understand your counter argument. I agree that just because someone does or says something doesn't make it true. I have prayed many times with a baseball cap on and have full confidence that God hears me and answers me. Those times of prayer were just as productive and special to me as any other time. And in fact, in recent years God has opened my eyes to many false things I was believing previously from my childhood and has set me free from them. So again, if it doesn't hold true one way, why would it the other way.
QuoteQuote from: caracasmc on January 09, 2012, 07:51:55 PM
If wearing a cap or hat causes me no spiritual harm
How do you know it doesn't? Maybe it allowed you to become deceived into believing headcoverings aren't important?
I suppose I simply trust in the cross of the Lord Jesus and rely on his Spirit to lead me into all truth (which is Him).
QuoteFinally, I believe that women are much more susceptible to demonic influence than men. When satan works through deception, its just that - you have NO IDEA you are being deceived. If one believes they are cruising along in their faith never hindered by demonic attack, then chances are there is something very wrong. On the flipside, if a woman starts covering her head and begins to experience spiritual attack that she never felt before, then it probably means satan is VERY upset about it.
Maybe Satan's attacks have nothing to do with the head covering but with simply advancing the Gospel of the Kingdom and the fact that Christ said that ALL who profess him would suffer persecution. Just a thought.
Thank you for your reply and for your thoughts. God bless!
Quote from: Peter on January 10, 2012, 08:55:20 AM
Quote from: caracasmc on January 09, 2012, 07:51:55 PM
6. It fails the reality test. There are many believers around the world, who bare fruit unto God, walk in righteousness and truth, ........
Then why is it there is a thousand to one chance that the doctrine of the church you attend, necessarily precludes the flock from even considering that Muhammad could be the false prophet of the book of Revelation, without running afoul of church doctrine?
(I only allowed the one in a thousand for churches that have absolutely no doctrine whatsoever that is related to the book of Revelation)
Quote from: caracasmc on January 09, 2012, 07:51:55 PM....... are surrendered to him fully, and glorify the Lord Jesus Christ above all, that do not wear head coverings.
Brother, a person's eschatology means absolutely nothing in relation to their fruit, godliness, etc. All of us, you included, believe things about the bible that are most likely wrong. That doesn't make us evil, fruitless, godless heathens. Many people love the Lord, serve him to the best of their ability, produce the fruit of the spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness and self control) and bear witness to Christ, and yet do not practice head coverings. That is just a fact brother. If you want to believe that the only "good" believers are those who practice head covering, then that is your prerogative. But you would be alienating your brothers and sisters over doctrinal practice (denominationalism) and doing a great disservice to not only Paul's teachings but the whole of scripture as well.
There will be millions of believers in heaven who didn't have perfect doctrine or theology but yet trusted in the Lord Jesus and his work on the cross for their salvation by faith through grace. That is enough.
Quote from: caracasmc on January 10, 2012, 05:26:58 PM
I think this proves just as easily that it was the watering down of the Gospel message of salvation and repentance that has brought us to where we are more so than head coverings. There are too many heresies and false teachings to fully discuss here that have played part in what has happened to the American church, but are you seriously trying to say that all of this is because of head coverings?
And you concluded that I was "...seriously trying to say that all of this is because of head coverings?" based on what I wrote previously in this thread, let alone elsewhere?
Quote from: caracasmc on January 10, 2012, 06:17:44 PM
Brother, a person's eschatology means absolutely nothing in relation to their fruit, godliness, etc.
Not an uncommon suggestion for futurists and preterists that have been shown the difficulty of what they have been taught. But is truth really irrelevant? What about adolescents that pop into church once a week, that live of the world the rest of the week, that are waiting for their parents to get 'raptured" so they can then know they will have seven years after that to knuckle down and repent? I entertained that view when I was in my 40s.
Quote from: Peter on January 10, 2012, 06:30:45 PM
Quote from: caracasmc on January 10, 2012, 05:26:58 PM
I think this proves just as easily that it was the watering down of the Gospel message of salvation and repentance that has brought us to where we are more so than head coverings. There are too many heresies and false teachings to fully discuss here that have played part in what has happened to the American church, but are you seriously trying to say that all of this is because of head coverings?
And you concluded that I was "...seriously trying to say that all of this is because of head coverings?" based on what I wrote previously in this thread, let alone elsewhere?
Fair enough. Maybe it's not what you are suggesting but its seems to be what Ellis is suggesting in his book. He says the reason the Church is so deceived is because women are covering their heads. Hmmm..really?
Quote from: caracasmc on January 10, 2012, 06:50:04 PM
Quote from: Peter on January 10, 2012, 06:30:45 PM
Quote from: caracasmc on January 10, 2012, 05:26:58 PM
I think this proves just as easily that it was the watering down of the Gospel message of salvation and repentance that has brought us to where we are more so than head coverings. There are too many heresies and false teachings to fully discuss here that have played part in what has happened to the American church, but are you seriously trying to say that all of this is because of head coverings?
And you concluded that I was "...seriously trying to say that all of this is because of head coverings?" based on what I wrote previously in this thread, let alone elsewhere?
Fair enough. Maybe it's not what you are suggesting but its seems to be what Ellis is suggesting in his book. He says the reason the Church is so deceived is because women are covering their heads. Hmmm..really?
So then you aren't aware of Ellis' book "The False Prophet"?
Quote from: Peter on January 10, 2012, 06:46:37 PM
Quote from: caracasmc on January 10, 2012, 06:17:44 PM
Brother, a person's eschatology means absolutely nothing in relation to their fruit, godliness, etc.
Not an uncommon suggestion for futurists and preterists that have been shown the difficulty of what they have been taught. But is truth really irrelevant? What about adolescents that pop into church once a week, that live of the world the rest of the week, that are waiting for their parents to get 'raptured" so they can then know they will have seven years after that to knuckle down and repent? I entertained that view when I was in my 40s.
Well first of all I do not hold to those views myself so I can't be categorized as such. But even still, I stand by that statement. Your "interpretation" of end time events and every little type and symbol means nothing in regards to your position in Christ. You are either in Christ or not. Eschatology need not apply. God sees us through the righteousness of his Son Jesus Christ, not by our eschatological correctness/incorrectness. I'm actually shocked to see you suggesting such a thing.
And just so you know. You do not have it all figured out brother. There are things you believe about the bible that when you stand before our Lord God you will realize were wrong. You will be thanking your lucky stars that God's acceptance of His children is not based on their wisdom or understanding of end time events, but rather on His love and mercy and the unbreakable power of of Christ's blood to redeem and sanctify us before the Father.
Quote from: Peter on January 10, 2012, 06:53:08 PM
Quote from: caracasmc on January 10, 2012, 06:50:04 PM
Quote from: Peter on January 10, 2012, 06:30:45 PM
Quote from: caracasmc on January 10, 2012, 05:26:58 PM
I think this proves just as easily that it was the watering down of the Gospel message of salvation and repentance that has brought us to where we are more so than head coverings. There are too many heresies and false teachings to fully discuss here that have played part in what has happened to the American church, but are you seriously trying to say that all of this is because of head coverings?
And you concluded that I was "...seriously trying to say that all of this is because of head coverings?" based on what I wrote previously in this thread, let alone elsewhere?
Fair enough. Maybe it's not what you are suggesting but its seems to be what Ellis is suggesting in his book. He says the reason the Church is so deceived is because women are covering their heads. Hmmm..really?
So then you aren't aware of Ellis' book "The False Prophet"?
Am I missing something? I'm not understanding the relevance? We're talking about Demons in the Church and the fact that in this book Ellis suggests that the reason for the deception in the church is because women aren't wearing head coverings. Not sure where the False Prophet comes into play in this context? And yes, I have read it and enjoyed it immensely.
Quote from: caracasmc on January 10, 2012, 06:57:03 PM
Quote from: Peter on January 10, 2012, 06:46:37 PM
Quote from: caracasmc on January 10, 2012, 06:17:44 PM
Brother, a person's eschatology means absolutely nothing in relation to their fruit, godliness, etc.
Not an uncommon suggestion for futurists and preterists that have been shown the difficulty of what they have been taught. But is truth really irrelevant? What about adolescents that pop into church once a week, that live of the world the rest of the week, that are waiting for their parents to get 'raptured" so they can then know they will have seven years after that to knuckle down and repent? I entertained that view when I was in my 40s.
Well first of all I do not hold to those views myself so I can't be categorized as such.
Nor did I suggest you did. But while we are on the subject what church do you attend? What eschatology does your church ascribe to?
Quote from: caracasmc on January 10, 2012, 06:57:03 PMBut even still, I stand by that statement. Your "interpretation" of end time events and every little type and symbol means nothing in regards to your position in Christ. You are either in Christ or not. Eschatology need not apply.
Even as I just illustrated how a teenager that was deferring repentance, counting on judgment deferred for 7 years because of a pre-trib rapture doctrine, would be lost forever if he died in a car wreck today.
Quote from: caracasmc on January 10, 2012, 06:57:03 PMGod sees us through the righteousness of his Son Jesus Christ, not by our eschatological correctness/incorrectness. I'm actually shocked to see you suggesting such a thing.
And just so you know. You do not have it all figured out brother.
And you drew that conclusion because so many of my web pages are prefaced:
"This, as in all subjects in this web site, is not intended to convey any pretense of authority, but rather provide seed and evidence, for further additional personal bible study."
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/temple_of_god.htm
Quote from: caracasmc on January 10, 2012, 06:57:03 PMThere are things you believe about the bible that when you stand before our Lord God you will realize were wrong. You will be thanking your lucky stars that God's acceptance of His children is not based on their wisdom or understanding of end time events, but rather on His love and mercy and the unbreakable power of of Christ's blood to redeem and sanctify us before the Father.
Quote from: caracasmc on January 10, 2012, 07:00:30 PM
Quote from: Peter on January 10, 2012, 06:53:08 PM
Quote from: caracasmc on January 10, 2012, 06:50:04 PM
Quote from: Peter on January 10, 2012, 06:30:45 PM
Quote from: caracasmc on January 10, 2012, 05:26:58 PM
I think this proves just as easily that it was the watering down of the Gospel message of salvation and repentance that has brought us to where we are more so than head coverings. There are too many heresies and false teachings to fully discuss here that have played part in what has happened to the American church, but are you seriously trying to say that all of this is because of head coverings?
And you concluded that I was "...seriously trying to say that all of this is because of head coverings?" based on what I wrote previously in this thread, let alone elsewhere?
Fair enough. Maybe it's not what you are suggesting but its seems to be what Ellis is suggesting in his book. He says the reason the Church is so deceived is because women are covering their heads. Hmmm..really?
So then you aren't aware of Ellis' book "The False Prophet"?
Am I missing something? I'm not understanding the relevance?
It goes to your earlier false accusation against Ellis.
"Maybe it's not what you are suggesting but its seems to be what Ellis is suggesting in his book. He says the reason the Church is so deceived is because women are covering their heads. Hmmm..really?"
Since false eschatology is the biggest deception in the "church" that Ellis wrote about before and after "Demons", is the issue of women's head coverings why the "church" can't recognize Muhammad as THE false prophet, or because of a couple of 15th and 16th century Catholic Jesuits that created the doctrines in an anti-reformation effort?
Bear in mind that in the beginning of the 20th century when the church began to buy into pop-eschatology women were still wearing head coverings in church.
Quote from: caracasmc on January 10, 2012, 07:00:30 PMWe're talking about Demons in the Church and the fact that in this book Ellis suggests that the reason for the deception in the church is because women aren't wearing head coverings. Not sure where the False Prophet comes into play in this context? And yes, I have read it and enjoyed it immensely.
QuoteEven as I just illustrated how a teenager that was deferring repentance, counting on judgment deferred for 7 years because of a pre-trib rapture doctrine, would be lost forever if he died in a car wreck today.
That teenager will not be judged based upon their belief of the rapture or whatever other doctrine you want to add to the mix. That teenager will be judged based on their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, period. If they were unrepentant, then they would be judged accordingly. But it would be because of their sin and lack of repentance, not their eschatology.
QuoteAnd you drew that conclusion because so many of my web pages are prefaced:
"This, as in all subjects in this web site, is not intended to convey any pretense of authority, but rather provide seed and evidence, for further additional personal bible study."
No. I drew that conclusion based on your ludicrous assertion that a person's eschatology affects their position in Christ and that people who don't believe in "your" interpretation of end time events (one that we share) can't bare fruit unto God or be godly believers.
Quote from: caracasmc on January 10, 2012, 06:00:52 PM
QuoteQuote from: caracasmc on January 09, 2012, 07:51:55 PM
If wearing a cap or hat causes me no spiritual harm
How do you know it doesn't? Maybe it allowed you to become deceived into believing headcoverings aren't important?
I suppose I simply trust in the cross of the Lord Jesus and rely on his Spirit to lead me into all truth (which is Him).
No shortage of folks in Christian forums proclaiming that as well. I suppose that's why there are thousands of denominations. But is that what we are exhorted to do?
1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Jeremiah 17:9 The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it?
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1364.0
QuoteSince false eschatology is the biggest deception in the "church" that Ellis wrote about before and after "Demons", is the issue of women's head coverings why the "church" can't recognize Muhammad as THE false prophet, or because of a couple of 15th and 16th century Catholic Jesuits that created the doctrines in an anti-reformation effort?
Bear in mind that in the beginning of the 20th century when the church began to buy into pop-eschatology women were still wearing head coverings in church.
Well that question is impossible to answer. It's pure speculation. The head covering passage mentions absolutely NOTHING about harmful consequences for not wearing the covering. All it says is that it illustrates God's divine order. To suggest that not doing it invites harm, deception, attacks, etc is to make the passage say something it does not.
If you want to talk about speculative scenarios, what if a woman has nothing with which to cover her head? Is she prohibited from praying? Is she now under demonic attack and deception because she was unable to cover her head? What if a sister is caught in a muslim country and thrown naked into a prison? Is she unable to pray since she has no head covering? Is she now deceived?
The head covering issue seems to be the LEAST of the churches problems. As I already mentioned, and as you yourself affirm, women were covering their heads until only recently. So, women were covering their heads in the midst of massive deception in the church starting from the 3rd and 4th centuries including; instituting a false clergy/laity divide, ritualizing the Lord's Supper, creating religious Titles and Offices, etc. Why were believers not protected from such heresies and false doctrines as these if they were covering their heads at this time? Heck, practically all of Paul's letters were written to churches in crises, deception, false teaching, false prophets, and according to Paul, they were all practicing the wearing of head coverings! Why weren't they protected.
The idea that the massive deception in the Church is from failing to practice head covering is completely without scriptural merit and as shown above is not even historically possible as many heresies were already in the church from the very beginning despite women covering their heads.
Quote from: caracasmc on January 10, 2012, 07:37:47 PM
QuoteEven as I just illustrated how a teenager that was deferring repentance, counting on judgment deferred for 7 years because of a pre-trib rapture doctrine, would be lost forever if he died in a car wreck today.
That teenager will not be judged based upon their belief of the rapture or whatever other doctrine you want to add to the mix. That teenager will be judged based on their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, period. If they were unrepentant, then they would be judged accordingly. But it would be because of their sin and lack of repentance, not their eschatology.
The point was that
the reason for that teen's failure to repent was the eschatology they were taughht.
Quote from: caracasmc on January 10, 2012, 07:37:47 PM
QuoteAnd you drew that conclusion because so many of my web pages are prefaced:
"This, as in all subjects in this web site, is not intended to convey any pretense of authority, but rather provide seed and evidence, for further additional personal bible study."
No. I drew that conclusion based on your ludicrous assertion that a person's eschatology affects their position in Christ .......
No I explained how it does, and confessed my former self as prime example of how it inspires betting on judgment deferred, even decades beyond teen years.
Quote from: caracasmc on January 10, 2012, 07:37:47 PM....... and that people who don't believe in "your" interpretation of end time events (one that we share) can't bare fruit unto God or be godly believers.
False accusation upon false accusation will about do it for me. Even after you quoted, what I quoted from my site.
Have you ever had any exposure to the Pentecostal Church?
Quote from: Peter on January 10, 2012, 07:48:38 PM
Quote from: caracasmc on January 10, 2012, 06:00:52 PM
QuoteQuote from: caracasmc on January 09, 2012, 07:51:55 PM
If wearing a cap or hat causes me no spiritual harm
How do you know it doesn't? Maybe it allowed you to become deceived into believing headcoverings aren't important?
I suppose I simply trust in the cross of the Lord Jesus and rely on his Spirit to lead me into all truth (which is Him).
No shortage of folks in Christian forums proclaiming that as well. I suppose that's why there are thousands of denominations. But is that what we are exhorted to do?
1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
Jeremiah 17:9 The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it?
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1364.0
The reason there are thousands of denominations is because everyone claims to follow an exclusive truth regarding the Bible and refuse to accept other believers whose views may differ.
1 Cor 3:4 "For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men?"
QuoteThe point was that the reason for that teen's failure to repent was the eschatology they were taughht.
I would suggest the reason for that teen's failure to repent was rebellion towards God. Any true follower of God will repent and live a Godly life despite their eschatological views.
Quote from: caracasmc on January 10, 2012, 07:37:47 PM....... and that people who don't believe in "your" interpretation of end time events (one that we share) can't bare fruit unto God or be godly believers.
False accusations upon false accusation will about do it for me.
[/quote]
Sorry, but I don't see how this is a false accusation. Is this not an accurate statement based on your previous comments?
I said :"Brother, a person's eschatology means absolutely nothing in relation to their fruit, godliness, etc."
You replied: "Not an uncommon suggestion for futurists and preterists that have been shown the difficulty of what they have been taught."
So, if I'm understanding correctly, you are saying that someone who doesn't believe in our interpretation of end time events is unable to produce good fruit? And then you support that by providing an abstract example of someone using rapture theology to not repent? How about people that don't repent for other reasons? Or how about those who believe in our view of end times events but fail God in other areas of their life and don't repent?
All of this just seems to be made up hearsay and speculation. Let's get back to the topic at hand which was Demons in the Church, 1 Cor 11 and head coverings....not Eschatology.
Quote from: caracasmc on January 10, 2012, 08:11:22 PM
QuoteThe point was that the reason for that teen's failure to repent was the eschatology they were taughht.
I would suggest the reason for that teen's failure to repent was rebellion towards God.
Rather than "rebellion" I view it simply as preferring to live in and of the world in the present. Living for the day. Like I did until into my 50s. Really the opposite of rebellion, since I knew what I needed to do, and even felt a little bit of guilt about not getting around to it.
Quote from: caracasmc on January 10, 2012, 08:11:22 PMAny true follower of God will repent and live a Godly life despite their eschatological views.
Quote from: caracasmc on January 10, 2012, 07:37:47 PM....... and that people who don't believe in "your" interpretation of end time events (one that we share) can't bare fruit unto God or be godly believers.
False accusations upon false accusation will about do it for me.
Quote from: caracasmc on January 10, 2012, 08:11:22 PMSorry, but I don't see how this is a false accusation.
You said:
"I drew that conclusion based on your ludicrous assertion that a person's eschatology affects their position in Christ and that people who don't believe in "your" interpretation of end time events (one that we share) can't bare fruit unto God or be godly believers."
Where did I make the "ludicrous assertion" "...that people who don't believe in "your" interpretation of end time events (one that we share) can't bare fruit unto God or be godly believers."?
That is what I consider to be a very serious accusation, because it's about the last thing I would assert. Please show me where I made such an assertion, and please do not leave this unanswered.
Quote from: caracasmc on January 10, 2012, 08:11:22 PMIs this not an accurate statement based on your previous comments?
I said :"Brother, a person's eschatology means absolutely nothing in relation to their fruit, godliness, etc."
You replied: "Not an uncommon suggestion for futurists and preterists that have been shown the difficulty of what they have been taught."
So, if I'm understanding correctly, you are saying that someone who doesn't believe in our interpretation of end time events is unable to produce good fruit?
How on earth could you misconstrue something that bizarre from what I said? I said what I wanted to communicate. I said what I said. I illustrated the danger inherent in false eschatology. There is a reason the enemy put those false eschatologies in the church. Was it to lead people to heaven or to hell?
Futurists, like my literal brother and large Christian fruit producer - bible study leader during the week, when asked a question like "Where is the temple of God (http://www.beholdthebeast.com/temple_of_god.htm)", upon realizing that his church's Darby view of "that man of sin" as "The" "Antichrist" sitting in Darby's rebuilt temple, is unsupportable, will, instead of trying to figure it out, say "well it isn't a salvation issue anyway", rather than putting in some effort to "prove all things".
Kinda like when Muslims say "only Allah knows" or "to you your religion and to me mine" rather than seeking out the truth (which Muhammad discouraged because he was so often caught in contradition).
My brother even read The False Prophet, and a light went on at first, but he is so married to his church that he teaches Darby at his bible studies. He believes he needs to be under the "covering" of those in authority - that is - usurped authority of Jesus Christ as you and I understand it. So he propagates church disseminated carefully scripted heresy to newbies. To folks seeking the truth of God.
Over the years ministers have told Ellis they believe 100% of what he teaches, but when he asks them if they want him to bring the message to the congregation, the minister will say "Oh no I couldn't let you do that because it's contrary to our church doctrine." This even though when a whole body
is brought his teaching it sets the whole congregation on fire for the Lord.
So what happens to some of the more fragile fruit of easily demonstrably false eschatology? For many, after they later realize that the eschatology they hold is basically 100% in error, they leave the church and the Lord. No false doctrine is more tenaciously clung to than the pre-tribulation rapture. In chats with many it would seem the pre-trib rapture
IS their faith. If you don't believe it go to a Christian forum and look at the huge number of thread views and posts on the pre-trib rapture, and the broken fellowship, rancor and animus created over that heresy.
That's a victory for Satan and his angels. If you aren't a former futurist it will be hard for you to understand the extent of the influence this pre-trib rapture doctrine has on the body, but 70 million dollars in sales for the "Left Behind" series might help. "Gee, I said my sinner's prayer so I get raptured, you didn't so you get left behind, nanner, nanner!". This guy believes he is led by the Holy Spirit. He's even a self-proclaimed "prophet".
http://www.youtube.com/user/MinWilliamJosephWWM#p/u/84/0hUhY5eSSuI
If you are a former preterist or Orthodox you've likely seen some of your brethren's minds poisoned against Jews by that doctrine. The enemy succeeds, with Jews not infrequently blamed and vilified as a group, for the crucifixion of Christ. The opposite of the love futurists hold for Jews.
MANY, MANY, MANY have told Ellis that discovering that a doctrine they have held for years is false, IS EXACTLY why they left the church and the Lord, and then after many years or decades, have returned to the Lord after reading his book.
Other of the fruit being led into false doctrine, as I already illustrated, may put off repentance thinking they will have an opportunity to get a second bite at the apple after the rapture.
These are the kinds of reasons the enemy put those false eschatologies in the "church". Carting off Jesus' goods.
Quote from: caracasmc on January 10, 2012, 08:11:22 PMAnd then you support that by providing an abstract example of someone using rapture theology to not repent? How about people that don't repent for other reasons? Or how about those who believe in our view of end times events but fail God in other areas of their life and don't repent?
All of this just seems to be made up hearsay and speculation. Let's get back to the topic at hand which was Demons in the Church, 1 Cor 11 and head coverings....not Eschatology.
I already shared my views. Then you made it increasingly difficult for me to discuss, because I was stuck spending my time defending myself and Ellis, from a steady stream of mischaracterization and false accusation, rather than discussing the topic. I can't afford to spend my time that way.
Why did my last post not show up?
Brother Peter, it seems we are going around in circles in a "he said, she said" kind of way. Let me try to simplify the conversation by actually confirming what is being argued. And I don't agree with your last statement that I made it difficult for you to carry on the conversation. Brother, that is childish. I was directly countering your exact statements. If I misinterpreted something you said, just tell me. I will try to understand you better.
Original arguments aside, it seems our posts are now revolving around:
1. Whether you believe that the majority of deception in the church today is due to a failure to obey the supposed head covering ordinance.
2. Whether you believe that believers are unable to produce good fruit and be godly while having an eschatological view that differs from yours.
Those are the two points we seem to be going in circles over. I will try to address each one below.
Regarding issue number one. You wrote:
QuoteAnd you concluded that I was "...seriously trying to say that all of this is because of head coverings?" based on what I wrote previously in this thread, let alone elsewhere?
I guess I kind of just assumed that you believed this since it is the premise of Ellis' book, "Demons in the Church" and you began our interaction by countering my original reservations about this doctrine and defending the book. To me, if someone presents a doubt or argument AGAINST something and then someone presents a counter argument FOR something, then naturally one would assume that they believe what they are defending. It was based off of your own statements that I responded to you by saying that I felt it was absurd for you to suggest that the majority of the deception in the church could be due to failure of women to wear a head covering. This is Ellis' whole point in the book! A point you seem to be defending. You have repeated several times that the great eschatological deception happened around the time women stopped wearing head coverings. What other conclusion am I supposed to draw from that statement? Are you not trying to prove a connection between failure to use head coverings and deception in the church?
So why are you trying to say now that you don't believe that? Do you or do you not agree with Ellis' doctrine regarding the head covering that he shares in the book? If you do agree, then you readily admit that Ellis is blaming the failure to wear the head covering for most of the deception in the church. You yourself are trying to connect eschatological deception in the church to the not wearing of the head covering! It appears to me that you in fact DO believe that this deception is because of the head covering issue. So what other conclusion am I to make other than you believe that the majority of deception in the church is due to a failure of women to wear the head covering? If I am drawing a wrong conclusion please correct this and then explain how you make the statements you have made while NOT believing this to be true.
Regarding issue number two:
This whole issue started from my original statement where I shared my reservations about the book and the doctrine of head coverings. From that original post I said:
QuoteIt fails the reality test. There are many believers around the world, who bare fruit unto God, walk in righteousness and truth, are surrendered to him fully, and glorify the Lord Jesus Christ above all, that do not wear head coverings.
You COUNTERED this statement. By countering a statement and presenting a "counter-argument", is it unreasonable to assume that you disagree with the original statement? Of course not.
You responded to my statement by saying:
QuoteThen why is it there is a thousand to one chance that the doctrine of the church you attend, necessarily precludes the flock from even considering that Muhammad could be the false prophet of the book of Revelation, without running afoul of church doctrine?
(I only allowed the one in a thousand for churches that have absolutely no doctrine whatsoever that is related to the book of Revelation)
Now, I may be wrong here. But my interpretation of that statement is that you are saying that since almost ALL (your whole point was that it is a MASSIVE deception) of the church believes in a false eschatology, they are therefore NOT bearing good fruit. Is this a correct understanding of your statement? If not please correct.
It seems to me you are trying to show that since there is so much deception regarding end-times theology, that my original statement is not true. In other words, according to you, it is not true that there are believer bearing good fruit, etc since the majority of the church is deceived in regard to eschatology. Again, am I misinterpreting that?
So, I then confronted you about this "assertion". I said:
QuoteBrother, a person's eschatology means absolutely nothing in relation to their fruit, godliness, etc.
And what was your reply to that? You said:
QuoteNot an uncommon suggestion for futurists and preterists that have been shown the difficulty of what they have been taught. But is truth really irrelevant?
Brother, again, I simply don't see how I can come to any other conclusion. You consistently countered my "good fruit" statement with statements of your own about his this was false.
Let's move on to the "ludicrous assertion" statements. I hope to show you that the way you responded to my statements always led one to believe your were countering it and defending your own, opposite belief. This is why I made the "ludicrous assertion" statement in the first place. Here is the statement I made:
QuoteBut even still, I stand by that statement. Your "interpretation" of end time events and every little type and symbol means nothing in regards to your position in Christ. You are either in Christ or not. Eschatology need not apply.
It is obvious from the above statement that I am saying that a person's eschatology means nothing in regards to their position in Christ. Here would have been a great moment for you to say something like, "I agree!", or "I never said it that it did". But instead, you said the following:
QuoteEven as I just illustrated how a teenager that was deferring repentance, counting on judgment deferred for 7 years because of a pre-trib rapture doctrine, would be lost forever if he died in a car wreck today.
What other conclusion am I to draw brother! I make a plain and direct statement and you still attempted to affirm the opposite and counter my point! What am I supposed to think? Lol. There is no other conclusion to draw except that you disagree with my statements. So in other words, you disagree with what I said because you are countering the statement. What did I say? That a person's eschatology in no way affects their position in Christ. There is no other conclusion to draw except that maybe you are saying one thing and believing another. But why would I believe that? It is much more logical to believe you mean what you say. Thus why I drew the conclusions that I drew and interpreted your statements as I did.
You could have said at any time, "I do believe that people can bear good fruit despite not wearing a head covering", but you didn't. Which leads me to believe that you do not believe this to be true. I completely and totally disagree on the basis of what I have already said.
There are many believers around the world who are bearing glorious fruit unto God and testifying of Him that do not wear head coverings. There are many churches(people, not organizations) that do not practice this doctrine when they gather and yet their meetings are glorious. They exalt Christ above all, exhort one another, gifts flow as the spirit leads, and the Lord is glorified. So I stand by my statement that it doesn't pass the reality test. And the opposite is also true. There are churches that practice head coverings that are neck deep in legalism, hierarchy deception, clergy/laity divide deception, etc. Just doesn't seem to work like Ellis is suggesting.
Quote from: caracasmc on January 11, 2012, 01:35:14 PM
Why did my last post not show up?
If you are still having trouble posting I have noticed that the forum may be acting a
little stickier than normal today. Our forum is hosted by DDoS attack specialists, so sometimes even other sites on the same server that are under attack, can effect the performance of ours until the host gets it sorted. ALWAYS copy and paste your post into a word document before posting, in case something weird happens. Also, if you forget to do this, you can hit your back button, and everything you have typed and tried to post
should reappear, and you can then copy and paste it into a word document, then hit your refresh button, and try posting again by copy and pasting it in.
Quote from: caracasmc on January 11, 2012, 02:06:51 PM
You have repeated several times that the great eschatological deception happened around the time women stopped wearing head coverings. What other conclusion am I supposed to draw from that statement?
You can't seem to help yourself. This is another example of why I disengaged. I don't have time to waste in continuously being occupied with refuting things, that are being falsely attributed to me, that I never said.
For example at the following link I wrote:
"Bear in mind that in the beginning of the 20th century when the church began to buy into pop-eschatology women were still wearing head coverings in church."
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1284.msg12009#msg12009
Which is exactly contrary to what you claimed "I repeated several times". The false eschatology began to be embraced by the church near the beginning of the 20th century, while women didn't abandon head coverings in earnest until after the middle of the 20th century.
My opinions have already been sufficiently presented. I'm not going to continue in this conversation except to repeat a question that I asked of you, that you ignored.
Have you ever had any exposure to the Pentecostal Church?
QuoteHave you ever had any exposure to the Pentecostal Church?
I was born and raised Pentecostal. I'm a third generation Assemblies of God minister. Second generation A/G missionary. Pentecostalism is all I've ever known and I still believe in many aspects of it. Gifts, miracles, true tongues according to 1 Cor 14, etc.
What changed for me started in 2005. I was a full time missionary with the A/G. But the Lord began to speak to me about things that I may be believing that were not viewing him as he truly is. I remember the Holy Spirit quickening Matthew 16 to me regarding "this was not revealed to you by man but by my Father". Peter had a revelation of Christ and saw Him as He really was, not just as others had told him. I began pursuing the Lord in this manner, that I may see him as he is and obviously the Lord began confronting a lot of my doctrine. Tithing was the first to go. Then slowly over the course of a couple years the Lord began to show me how the entire structure of the Church and the system we know today as the Institutional Church was the invention of man rather than God. It had it's origins beginning with Constantine (some say even before) but it was during this time that major changes in church structure began to take place. The "temple" or "holy place of worship" was brought back. Men were placed "over" congregations and charged with all the spiritual responsibility of the body. They made the decisions, married, buried, and pretty much ruled over the people. These drastic changes from what God birthed in the NT church weaved their way through history and are still with us to this day. The modern "pastor". The clergy/laity distinction. Tithing. Sunday "service". Dressing up for church. Pulpits, Pews, Sunday school, and on and on. It's a man-made system.
Now don't get me wrong. God can and has used many of these things despite the fact that they are unbiblical and in the end actually hurt and stunt the growth and maturity of the body. But that doesn't mean it's God's will. He is merciful and continues to minister to us despite our shortcomings but he has chosen a better way.
The church is not a building or a place to worship, or even something to "go to". The church is the people of God and they gather in homes or other convenient spaces for their "meetings". The meetings are only a portion of their lives together. They share their lives and live by the indwelling Lord together. Meetings are open for all to participate since all are priests and ministers to God and to each other. The meeting is spontaneous (not disorderly) and the Lord is the Head, not man. There are no official titles given to anyone or any special class of minister that "leads" the meetings or directs the people. The Lord himself does this through His Holy Spirit and all are free to share, participate, sing, read, teach, etc. The Lord has given elders and servants(deacons/diakonos) to serve as those who watch over and help protect and gently lead the church. These do not rule over but are simply servants "among" everyone else. They are recognized by their fruit and by their maturity and deep relationship with the Lord. They are usually older believers. They are the ones who "pray with their eyes open" so to speak. They do not dominate, direct, lead, or take over the meetings or affairs of the church. They simply serve and give their life for the body as brothers and sisters among us.
This is the "church" that I belong to now. I am still overseas at the moment but one group of these brothers and sisters live in Florida. They ooze Jesus from their very skin. They love Him and glorify Him and live to serve him and please Him in all they do. He is our Head. He is our Lord. It is by his indwelling presence that we live and have our being. These brothers and sisters come from all walks of life and from many different religious backgrounds. Our personal doctrines vary and cross many different denominational lines. But none of that matters. It is Christ who brings us together and unites us as One Body. We lay these ideals and doctrines on the cross and allow the Lord to resurrect them as he intended them to be, in a natural, organic way rather than filtered by a system. When Christ becomes the focus and the purpose, what a brother or sister believes about the end times doesn't seem so important.
Jesus would have condemned his disciples for making things such as theological stances and doctrinal views of such importance. Not that they aren't important, but that they are not the "weightier matters" as he told the Pharisees. Jesus is our Purpose. He is our goal. He is the Truth and the Life. He is All in All and the spirit testifies of Him and points to Him. Everything else will fall by the way side. As Paul so beautifully put it:
"But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known."
We are limited and will never ever ever figure out the bible completely until we see Jesus. We do not see perfectly clear now. But then, we will see and know clearly. It is not the highest way to quibble over doctrinal issues such as claiming to hold to the perfect eschatological view. It IS important. But not the MOST important thing. Christ is the most important thing. He is all in all. And though we may fail in our understanding and interpretation of scripture, knowing Christ and him crucified was good enough for Paul and should be good enough for us.
Bless you brother.
Quote from: caracasmc on January 12, 2012, 01:03:41 AM
QuoteHave you ever had any exposure to the Pentecostal Church?
I was born and raised Pentecostal. I'm a third generation Assemblies of God minister. Second generation A/G missionary. Pentecostalism is all I've ever known and I still believe in many aspects of it. Gifts, miracles, true tongues according to 1 Cor 14, etc.
Did/do you "try the spirits" every time one gave/gives an utterance?
QuoteDid/do you "try the spirits" every time one gave/gives an utterance?
Nope. And yet here we all are loving Jesus and growing in Him and producing fruit unto Him. Of course any brother or sister has the right and responsibility to address any issue they feel might not line up with the Word of God. So if a word or utterance is given and someone discerns that it. Might not be from the Lord, there is already a format whe it can be addressed. In addition to this, the Lord has also given His Church the elders/deacons to give oversight from among the body. So, they also are in place to help guard against falsehood.
I think it's important to note that most heresies do not come up from the people but rather down from the leadership. When you fix the unbiblical leadership structure in the church and return to the NT model, God has put measures in place to help protect the church from heresy. And yes of course we are also to test the spirits.
Quote from: caracasmc on January 12, 2012, 01:03:48 PM
QuoteDid/do you "try the spirits" every time one gave/gives an utterance?
Nope. And yet here we all are loving Jesus and growing in Him and producing fruit unto Him. Of course any brother or sister has the right and responsibility to address any issue they feel might not line up with the Word of God. So if a word or utterance is given and someone discerns that it. Might not be from the Lord, there is already a format whe it can be addressed. In addition to this, the Lord has also given His Church the elders/deacons to give oversight from among the body. So, they also are in place to help guard against falsehood.
I think it's important to note that most heresies do not come up from the people but rather down from the leadership. When you fix the unbiblical leadership structure in the church and return to the NT model, God has put measures in place to help protect the church from heresy. And yes of course we are also to test the spirits.
About what percentage of adults in your assembly, would you guess, speak in tongues?
When someone speaks in a tongue, what kind of message does the spirit proclaim, through the interpreter of the tongue?
QuoteAbout what percentage of adults in your assembly, would you guess, speak in tongues?
When someone speaks in a tongue, what kind of message does the spirit proclaim, through the interpreter of the tongue?
I have no idea what percentage of the people speak in tongues. Everyone comes from diverse backgrounds so it would be difficult to guess.
As to your other question, I hope I didn't give the impression that in our gatherings everyone is constantly giving utterances and that this is something that marks our gatherings. That is not the case. Utterances are not given all the time or even at every gathering. It is much more common, at least in these kinds of gatherings I'm referring to, to see exhortation from the Word, encouragement, songs, hymns, someone sharing something the Lord showed them, etc. When an utterance is given it will mainly speak of the Lord Jesus, since the Spirit testifies of him. In some cases it may bring comfort or encouragement to a brother or sister who is struggling. If something were to be said that didn't line up with the word, either a discerning brother or sister, or an elder would address it.
In any case, this is not something dry and static and ritualistic. It's the life and spirit of the Lord directing His people through life. We are learning to live by the indwelling presence of the Lord together as a community of believers rather than by religious programs and works. There is great freedom in the Lord and when he is truly allowed to be the head of his church, he is perfectly capable of leading it and growing it. The problem seems to be when man attempts to be the head of the church and control the life, direction, teaching, and ministry of the body of Christ. This is how most false doctrine gets started, because the natural system of checks and balances so to speak that God has given his church is being neglected. So, men's ideas, whether right or wrong, go unquestioned and untested. In my opinion, the greatest heresy in the church is not eschatological, but rather ecclesiological. It's the false church structure that has created more apathy and immaturity among believers than any one false doctrine. If the church would return to it's organic, NT roots regarding how to gather, live and express Christ together as His corporate body, a lot of these false doctrines would be taken care of. Sadly, men carrying unbiblical authority over the churches continue to propagate much false doctrine and remain unquestioned, unchallenged and unaccountable to anyone.
1. It must be a large assembly to not have an idea what percentage of adults speak in tongues, but I just meant very generally. Like do you suppose it's closer to 25 50 or 75%?
2. Does a person other than the person giving utterance interpret the tongue?
3. Of the utterances what percentage do you suppose are spoken through women?
4. Do you usually have unbelievers in your assembly when this occurs?
5. Or visitors that don't speak English?
6. About how long has it been since your assembly last tried a spirit, and what did you ask it, and what did reply in response?
Quote from: caracasmc on January 13, 2012, 11:28:56 AMIn some cases it may bring comfort or encouragement to a brother or sister who is struggling. If something were to be said that didn't line up with the word, either a discerning brother or sister, or an elder would address it.
We seem to have lost you for a little bit, so I'll just add this. While I have only had one experience with this, in a church that I attended for the express purpose of seeing it first hand and perhaps being given the gift, my prior questions are intended to help me see how differently things are done in your assembly. I have however discussed this subject at length with my elders, who have had a lot of experience with it, as well as with casting out unclean spirits and demons. Your description of how you discern the spirits seems to fall somewhat short of what scripture prescribes.
1Jo 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but
try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. 2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God:
Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 3 And
every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
Pretty serious stuff. One or the other.
Quote from: caracasmc on January 13, 2012, 11:28:56 AM
In any case, this is not something dry and static and ritualistic. It's the life and spirit of the Lord directing His people through life.
Shouldn't that throw up the first red flag among those that you depend on to discern these things?
1Cr 14:22 Wherefore
tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying [serveth] not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.
Since earlier you said
Quote from: caracasmc on January 12, 2012, 01:03:41 AM
QuoteHave you ever had any exposure to the Pentecostal Church?
I was born and raised Pentecostal. I'm a third generation Assemblies of God minister. Second generation A/G missionary. Pentecostalism is all I've ever known and I still believe in many aspects of it. Gifts, miracles, true tongues according to 1 Cor 14, etc.
My elders also inform me that unclean spirits can give very tricky, elusive and comforting false answers in order to obfuscate so they aren't discovered.
How do your "discerning brother or sister, or an elder", discern such things, unless another brother or sister is interpreting the tongue as it is giving utterance, but then only after "trying the spirit"? Particularly since 1Cr 14:22 should have raised a red flag for any utterances that you suggest are for the benefit of believers in the assembly.
I was interested to see a discussion of head coverings develop from out of this topic.
I have spent a lot of time in study of this, but to cut to the point; Paul states:
But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
The word used "for" actually means "instead of" it is the word "anti" the same as in anti-christ not "gar", "eis" or "huper"
Then the next verse:
But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God
We have No such custom neither the churches.
So from plain scripture - No such custom
why? hair is given INSTEAD of a covering.
As for the not teaching - the social and cultural background, in this centre of Goddess worship, was that it used to be mostly the female temple prostitutes who were well educated, entertaining their "worshippers" with their stimulating talk as well as carnal pleasure.
The situation was, women were usurping authority probably due to their high standing and education.
But the main thing to get out of this? we are not to be contentious about this. So according to Paul, it's not a point to lose any sleep over.
Quote from: nicerperson on June 29, 2012, 05:30:08 PM
I was interested to see a discussion of head coverings develop from out of this topic.
It actually is
the subject, in part, of the book this thread is about.
Quote from: nicerperson on June 29, 2012, 05:30:08 PM
I have spent a lot of time in study of this, but to cut to the point; Paul states:
But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
The word used "for" actually means "instead of" it is the word "anti" the same as in anti-christ not "gar", "eis" or "huper"
Then the next verse:
But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God
We have No such custom neither the churches.
So from plain scripture - No such custom
why? hair is given INSTEAD of a covering.
As for the not teaching - the social and cultural background, in this centre of Goddess worship, was that it used to be mostly the female temple prostitutes who were well educated, entertaining their "worshippers" with their stimulating talk as well as carnal pleasure.
The situation was, women were usurping authority probably due to their high standing and education.
But the main thing to get out of this? we are not to be contentious about this. So according to Paul, it's not a point to lose any sleep over.
Ellis let the book go out of print because he didn't want it distracting folks from his more important message in The False Prophet. I recommend you read The False Prophet first.
Contention began in this thread in the post at the following link, in what I considered to be mischaracterization and uncalled for accusation.
http://www.islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=1284.msg11991#msg11991
Having been exposed to that type of initial response before, and seeing such staunch aversion to ordinances that were fairly universal a half-century ago, I was pretty convinced early on that the poster was Penticostal. You can see how the chat developed from there.
By the way, if you get a "session timed out" error when you post, don't let it scare you, just hit your post button again.
This is an important video regarding the Assemblies of God church and the spirit driving the so-called "movements" that have spun off from it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBpw2oQrvMM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCcGaTRwG_4