Interesting Site!

[ILG]

There was a time when Catholic women were required to wear hats to church. I believe that changed with Vatican II.

[pelathais]

I guess I'm a bit confused here...

This site is owned by a church in Singapore of the "Open Brethren" movement. The Brethren movement includes "Exclusive Brethren," "Plymouth Brethren" and other "Christian" Brethren groups. The man who first developed the Dispensational approach to Bible prophecy, John Nelson Darby, was a member of the Plymouth Brethren until he had a falling out and formed another Brethren assembly.

Most of the articles appear to have been written by F.F. Bruce, an outstanding Biblical writer and theologian, and a member of the Open Brethren. The "Open" group are more inclusive and embrace other Christian groups. They most decidedly are NOT Pentecostal, however, and not even remotely related to the Assemblies of God, except through the Dispensationalist link.

In this article, the writer is gently exhorting all Christian women to wear a "head covering", specifically a veil and NOT a "covering" of their own hair. Visitors to this church are specifically told to bring a head covering to wear over their hair when visiting so as to "glorify God" with the other women in the congregation.

I am confused by the endorsements for this practice. For me, it's not a big deal if someone wants to follow this custom. But you don't usually see a lot of endorsements for the cloth veil on AFF. Maybe I missed something?

[Falla39]

Present Infinitive Passive:
katakaluptesthai = to be covered (v.7)

In verse 16 only is a veil mentioned, but a different word entirely is used - the word is peribolaion in the phrase anti peribolaiou (instead of a veil). This refers to the long hair of a woman given her as a covering. Some think that this "veil" is a covering for the whole body, so that a woman's long hair is like a covering for the whole body. So we see in these verses that the head of a woman is to be covered (vv. 5 6,13), the head of a man is not to be covered (vv. 4, 7) and the hair of a woman is given to her for a covering or veil (v.16).

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Falla39

Present Infinitive Passive:
katakaluptesthai = to be covered (v.7)

In verse 16 only is a veil mentioned, but a different word entirely is used - the word is peribolaion in the phrase anti peribolaiou (instead of a veil). This refers to the long hair of a woman given her as a covering. Some think that this "veil" is a covering for the whole body, so that a woman's long hair is like a covering for the whole body. So we see in these verses that the head of a woman is to be covered (vv. 5 6,13), the head of a man is not to be covered (vv. 4, 7) and the hair of a woman is given to her for a covering or veil (v.16).

The question is this. Since you reject the teaching of the veil and therefore the author of the teaching on the link.....why did you endorse the site?

[Falla39]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

The question is this. Since you reject the teaching of the veil and therefore the author of the teaching on the link.....why did you endorse the site?

Did I say I endorsed it. What is the name of the thread! I said it was an
"Interesting Site". I still say it has some good points. Maybe I found good points because I look for good in things. It is possible that you being a man would not see what I might see, as a woman, having the "spirit of truth" inside me for over 50 yrs. I mean no disrespect at all. Just making a point. You men are told to do some things, like being uncovered and "lifting holy hands without wrath and doubting". You all have your hands full doing what you are supposed to obey!

Please I mean no offense nor disrespect.

Blessings,

Falla39

[Falla39]

Originally Posted by Falla39

Bro.Mike,

The headcovering to me is what has been growing on my head since I
received the Holy Ghost at age 18., 51 yrs. ago. I love those who feel they
want to add the additional covering just as much as those who feel adequete
with the hair covering alone. We have some liberty there. If someone desires
or observes to observe Saturday as the Sabbath instead of Sunday, I love
them just as much. We have some liberty here. If someone does not want or
feels it is wrong to eat hog meat, that is their liberty. We just don't need to
condemn our brother or sister if they choose the opposite.

I am not speaking of the plan of salvation. To me that is a given.

Blessings to all,

Falla39

Bro. Mike the D. Did you read the bolded!

[Sept5SavedTeen]

There is an assembly like this in my town, it is called a "Gospel Hall." I went one time, not knowing it was a headcovering assembly, and then I turned and looked over at a women who I had seen come into the hall with her head uncovered and she had a white veil on her head all of a sudden, and I started to look around and a girl a few rows in front of me had a veil on, and the rest of the women were in hats. I thought it was a bit strange, the mixture of hats and veils, and I asked a "brother" of that assembly about their denominational affiliation, and he just said, "Oh we're just another Christian assembly." I later found out they were Plymouth Brethren- nothing wrong with being Plymouth Brethren (except that it's not apostolic), I just wished he would have said it, rather than make me have to investigate their affiliation.

-Bro. Alex

[Falla39]

After my grandmother, the first of our family to hear, search out, believe and
obey the
apostolic message in 1933, there were a lot of different teachings men and women were
going and spreading around the country in every little church who would allow them to
do so. There was a lady going around teaching things like headcoverings, eating pork,
Saturday sabbeth, etc. Many embraced these teachings and built works on them. My
late grandmother and her young son, my late father, searched the scriptues year after
year and came to the conclusion, after searching the scriptures and seeking the leading
of the Spirit in regard to these matters. That there was liberty in these things. They
came to believe that IF someone felt that they needed or desired to embrace these
things, they had the liberty to do so, but don't try to condemn those who didn't see it
in the Word as necessary. That's how I see it today. I am not speaking of the plan of
salvation as I believe that is a given.

We, as adults can do as we please. Dad would say, "Adults do not want to be treated
like children! They will resent it". And my thoughts are that parents should train up and
discipline their children. God disciplines adults! He is well able to do so. The Word tells
children to obey their fathers and mothers in the Lord. If they do not obey, they will reap
what they have sown. We all reap according to what we have sown. We need not be de-
ceived. God's Word is true and forever settled in heaven.

If we seek to please God with all of our heart, we will have confidence when we pray that
He will hear. If we do not and if we know in our hearts we have not been obedient to Him, we will doubt and lack confidence when we need HIM desperately.

Blessings,

Falla39

[Michael The Disciple]

Originally Posted by Falla39

Bro. Mike the D. Did you read the bolded!

Yes I read it. That was after I read the article you said was interesting giving me the notion you agreed with it. I was surprised when you then turned out to reject the very message it was proclaiming.

Anyway sure I love all the Brotherhood also. But I wish "Apostolics" would be more "Apostolic" in their beliefs!

[shawndell]

This thing is hard to swallow for me.A mans head uncoverd to reprisent the glory of Christ?The womans head coverd to reprisent the fallen nature of man?Almost sounds like the redeemed woman is not redeemed at all.It sounds like all sin stays with the woman and she must cover it in order to worship God!!Whether her hair or a vail is her covering to hide the sin of all man.