More guided or less guided ?

[RZehr]

"Because of the angels" is a text that has been given quite a range of interpretations many of which can be obtained on the Internet. It would seem in this verse that angels are observing our public worship services and if this is true I wonder what they think of such a wide range of worship music from uniform acapella to more popular, modern day worship bands with all kinds of musical instruments, sometimes with dancing and electronic sound systems. Something we can ask them when we get home.

Here is one of those explanations -

At 8:12: "They are watching those of us who have been redeemed live in rebellion against him" and two of the three people are rebelling against the very passage they are prophesying about.

Ah, the good old “ancient culture” reason for not covering. Albeit Christianity understood it, and practiced it for 1,900+ of the last 2,000 years. I guess 100 years ago is “ancient culture”.

[Soloist]

"Because of the angels" is a text that has been given quite a range of interpretations many of which can be obtained on the Internet. It would seem in this verse that angels are observing our public worship services and if this is true I wonder what they think of such a wide range of worship music from uniform acapella to more popular, modern day worship bands with all kinds of musical instruments, sometimes with dancing and electronic sound systems. Something we can ask them when we get home.

Here is one of those explanations -

At 8:12: "They are watching those of us who have been redeemed live in rebellion against him" and two of the three people are rebelling against the very passage they are prophesying about.

Ah, the good old “ancient culture” reason for not covering. Albeit Christianity understood it, and practiced it for 1,900+ of the last 2,000 years. I guess 100 years ago is “ancient culture”.

I've always been amused by the cultural argument that it was a way for the Christians in Corinth to distinguish themselves from the prostitutes to be flawed and revealed by one question. How do the Christians in Vegas distinguish themselves from the prostitutes? hint, the answer is most of them don't.

[Sudsy]

"Because of the angels" is a text that has been given quite a range of interpretations many of which can be obtained on the Internet. It would seem in this verse that angels are observing our public worship services and if this is true I wonder what they think of such a wide range of worship music from uniform acapella to more popular, modern day worship bands with all kinds of musical instruments, sometimes with dancing and electronic sound systems. Something we can ask them when we get home.

Here is one of those explanations -

At 8:12: "They are watching those of us who have been redeemed live in rebellion against him" and two of the three people are rebelling against the very passage they are prophesying about.

Ah, the good old “ancient culture” reason for not covering. Albeit Christianity understood it, and practiced it for 1,900+ of the last 2,000 years. I guess 100 years ago is “ancient culture”.

Could not the same be said regarding slavery ? Not trying to get into debates over this subject specifically but I think this is an example of what I was trying to get at in the OP. I agree that most Christians have changed the practise regarding headcoverings in the last 100 years but so have most changed their practise about slavery. Most Christians would see these as both improvements to what was done in the past but the point is often made just because most Christians change a practise does not mean they are more Spirit guided than those who maintain a long held practise.

So my OP question was regarding whether we are more Spirit guided today with all of us now having Bibles in our hands than people were prior to 1900 or so. My guess is that most would agree that there are more variations in what Christians believe is the guiding of the Spirit today than ever before in our Christian practises. I don't really want to start another debate on headcoverings but the "because of the angels" was mentioned in a previous post I wandered into the area of our practises having an affect on angels.

[Soloist]

Could not the same be said regarding slavery ? Not trying to get into debates over this subject specifically but I think this is an example of what I was trying to get at in the OP. I agree that most Christians have changed the practise regarding headcoverings in the last 100 years but so have most changed their practise about slavery. Most Christians would see these as both improvements to what was done in the past but the point is often made just because most Christians change a practise does not mean they are more Spirit guided than those who maintain a long held practise.

So my OP question was regarding whether we are more Spirit guided today with all of us now having Bibles in our hands than people were prior to 1900 or so. My guess is that most would agree that there are more variations in what Christians believe is the guiding of the Spirit today than ever before in our Christian practises. I don't really want to start another debate on headcoverings but the "because of the angels" was mentioned in a previous post I wandered into the area of our practises having an affect on angels.

We were instructed to have the women cover. We were never instructed to buy slaves.

[Sudsy]

Could not the same be said regarding slavery ? Not trying to get into debates over this subject specifically but I think this is an example of what I was trying to get at in the OP. I agree that most Christians have changed the practise regarding headcoverings in the last 100 years but so have most changed their practise about slavery. Most Christians would see these as both improvements to what was done in the past but the point is often made just because most Christians change a practise does not mean they are more Spirit guided than those who maintain a long held practise.

So my OP question was regarding whether we are more Spirit guided today with all of us now having Bibles in our hands than people were prior to 1900 or so. My guess is that most would agree that there are more variations in what Christians believe is the guiding of the Spirit today than ever before in our Christian practises. I don't really want to start another debate on headcoverings but the "because of the angels" was mentioned in a previous post I wandered into the area of our practises having an affect on angels.

We were instructed to have the women cover. We were never instructed to buy slaves.

And others would interpret scriptures as "we" are not the Corinthian church in that day and culture or that there was a specific reason in that culture for Paul's directions to them. "We" were never instructed to set all slaves free when becoming Christians either. Actually Jesus supported the system in that He gave specifics as to how both slave and slave owners conduct themselves toward each other.

To be clear, I, in no way, believe we should have continued with the slave system. What women chose to believe they should do today regarding a headcovering is their conviction and I believe should be respected if it is done unto the Lord.

We could debate foot washing, holy kisses, even if we should all be wearing the robes they wore in the early church and other early church practises but my question is does a more literal following of early church practises mean we are more Spirit guided today or not ? Or is it more important to understand the purpose of these practises and adapt a modern alternative to these that may be more helpful in growing the Kingdom ? What is the Holy Spirit saying to the churches today ? And trying to answer these questions we end up with the same problems that started in the early church on just whose teachings to follow.

Where I'm at with this is that we now 'see through a glass darkly'. We all only know in part and somethings we have wrong. The only solution I can see is to seek the Spirit's direction and be open to change if He guides us that way. If it comes to human reasonings and selecting what we think are the best arguments, we could still be far from the truth about somethings. But in our differences, are we maintaining love for God and one another.

Would love to hear more on what others believe about Holy Spirit guidance and why we have these various understandings in certain areas.

[Outsider]

To be clear, I, in no way, believe we should have continued with the slave system.

Slavery was instituted by man. The instructions on slavery are how to behave when one is under man's authority.

What women chose to believe they should do today regarding a headcovering is their conviction and I believe should be respected if it is done unto the Lord.

The headcovering is a command of the Lord. And you don't address Paul's final statement on the matter:

1 Cor 11:16
16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

How do you explain that away?

Overall, I think your views on scripture are like George Fox's. And that led to the Quaker General Conference, which apparently has even abandoned Christ as the sole redeemer. At least that's what I gathered from the "Evangelical Quakers" on the Quaker Theology mailing list.

You do away with scripture, on the grounds that it's not important to your modern sensibilities, and eventually you toss it all.

[Sudsy]

To be clear, I, in no way, believe we should have continued with the slave system.

Slavery was instituted by man. The instructions on slavery are how to behave when one is under man's authority.

What women chose to believe they should do today regarding a headcovering is their conviction and I believe should be respected if it is done unto the Lord.

The headcovering is a command of the Lord. And you don't address Paul's final statement on the matter:

1 Cor 11:16
16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.

How do you explain that away?

Overall, I think your views on scripture are like George Fox's. And that led to the Quaker General Conference, which apparently has even abandoned Christ as the sole redeemer. At least that's what I gathered from the "Evangelical Quakers" on the Quaker Theology mailing list.

You do away with scripture, on the grounds that it's not important to your modern sensibilities, and eventually you toss it all.

You can have strong opinions on an issue like headcoverings but be careful making judgements on my views and any linking them to possible heresy. Romans 14 warns us.

I do not agree that I am trying to 'explain away' 1 Cor 11:16 but rather consider that when Paul speaks of all the churches of God, he was addressing those churches in that culture at that time and not speaking for all churches of God that would ever come to exist. Those things Paul was talking about had a cultural setting very unlike the one I live in today and many bible scholars point this out in considering it's applications today.

Various Anabaptist churches do not take what Paul said here to be applied the same in our culture. For instance the MB church I attended does not promote head coverings. I believe Paul was again seeking to keep from an issue being contentious amongst the churches at that time. Paul tried different times to get churches to be more unified in their beliefs in following the Lord but even back then Christians were aligning with other teachers in the church.

I don't take issue with those who feel convicted to wear a symbolic head covering although what once referred to as a covering of the head is now often as small as a little see through cap worn on the back of the head. It would seem as long as it is a symbol, the size and shape don't matter regardless of what it was in Paul's day. But I have my doubts this symbol has any meaning to most people looking on today.

I believe God wants us to relate to our culture. Paul himself said he became all things to all men so that some would be saved. 1 Cor 9:20-23. If I was to literally return to all the practises and clothing styles of the early church, imo, I would creating more stumbling blocks to others becoming Christians than stepping stones. YMMV.

[Outsider]

You can have strong opinions on an issue like headcoverings but be careful making judgements on my views and any linking them to possible heresy. Romans 14 warns us.

I do not agree that I am trying to 'explain away' 1 Cor 11:16 but rather consider that when Paul speaks of all the churches of God, he was addressing those churches in that culture at that time and not speaking for all churches of God that would ever come to exist. Those things Paul was talking about had a cultural setting very unlike the one I live in today and many bible scholars point this out in considering it's applications today.

As I've said many times, I'm not saying you're going to hell for not following the ritual commandments. They are not the "weightier matters of the law", I'm just saying that there are genuine, spiritual reasons to obey them.

Did Moses ask why or demurr when God told him to remove his shoes because he was on holy ground? Christ had no sin, yet he was baptised- and received a benediction from the Father for it.

I don't think you would go to hell for not being baptized, but I have no idea why anyone wouldn't be baptized if they are believers, but if you have faith in Christ and pursue the "weightier matters", who am I to judge? But you are missing a great blessing from on-high. It is for the sake of the blessing, and for the help of the Messengers of God in this world against the very real spiritual forces working on the minds of men in this world that you should perform the rituals.

Eph 6:12
12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

Dan 19:
12 Then he continued, “Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them. 13 But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia.

I really do think that ignoring the easy parts of the law (what is so onerous about a man uncovering his head, and a woman covering her's in prayer and prophesy?) is a "slippery slope".

Not to imply that you, personally are sliding down it, nor your congregation as a whole at this time.

But as the Quaker movement (which in origins is not worlds removed from where my understanding of where you stand now) over a few hundred years became one with the world, rather than with Christ, started with rejection of baptism and communion as "literal" necessities.

Baptism and Quakers:
https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/cg ... ontext=ccs

4 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

And even George Fox, the founder of the Quaker movement, believed in the headcovering (which he refused to remove for any mere mortal):

Hats were also at the heart of an incident among early Friends that illustrates George Fox’s character. John Perrot was one of the early traveling Quaker ministers who were so important in the rapid spread of the Quaker message throughout Great Britain, Europe, and the British colonies in America. In 1661, John Perrot wrote a letter in which he protested the practice of Quaker men removing their hats when prayers were offered in meet-ing for worship. He declared his basis for the protest to be direct revelation—one that none of the other leading Friends of the day had shared.

Modern Friends would almost certainly be tolerant of this personal eccentricity. What difference does it make if some people wear their hats during prayers and others don’t?

George Fox didn’t see things this way. John Perrot’s claim was that ultimately each individual is a free agent, dealing directly with God, and bound only by the inspiration that he or she received. This flew in the face of Friends’ belief that God’s revelations to humanity are consistent—not leading us one way sometimes and another way at others. Rather than advising the “hat men” to wear their hats as long as they could, George Fox and other leading Quakers confronted and labored with them. In the end, nearly all acknowledged their error.

from:
https://www.friendsjournal.org/2003142/

The point being that men have found reasons to follow the "wisdom of men" rather than the word of God, it is the "wisdom of men" that separates the congregation of Christ from each other, and from the Most High.

1 Cor 1:25
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

BTW:
As someone also pointed out, the practice of headcovering was a Jewish practice- and Orthodox women practice it with wigs to this day. And Christianity is a Jewish religion.

[Sudsy]

You can have strong opinions on an issue like headcoverings but be careful making judgements on my views and any linking them to possible heresy. Romans 14 warns us.

I do not agree that I am trying to 'explain away' 1 Cor 11:16 but rather consider that when Paul speaks of all the churches of God, he was addressing those churches in that culture at that time and not speaking for all churches of God that would ever come to exist. Those things Paul was talking about had a cultural setting very unlike the one I live in today and many bible scholars point this out in considering it's applications today.

As I've said many times, I'm not saying you're going to hell for not following the ritual commandments. They are not the "weightier matters of the law", I'm just saying that there are genuine, spiritual reasons to obey them.

Did Moses ask why or demurr when God told him to remove his shoes because he was on holy ground? Christ had no sin, yet he was baptised- and received a benediction from the Father for it.

I don't think you would go to hell for not being baptized, but I have no idea why anyone wouldn't be baptized if they are believers, but if you have faith in Christ and pursue the "weightier matters", who am I to judge? But you are missing a great blessing from on-high. It is for the sake of the blessing, and for the help of the Messengers of God in this world against the very real spiritual forces working on the minds of men in this world that you should perform the rituals.

Eph 6:12
12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.

Dan 19:
12 Then he continued, “Do not be afraid, Daniel. Since the first day that you set your mind to gain understanding and to humble yourself before your God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to them. 13 But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia.

I really do think that ignoring the easy parts of the law (what is so onerous about a man uncovering his head, and a woman covering her's in prayer and prophesy?) is a "slippery slope".

Not to imply that you, personally are sliding down it, nor your congregation as a whole at this time.

But as the Quaker movement (which in origins is not worlds removed from where my understanding of where you stand now) over a few hundred years became one with the world, rather than with Christ, started with rejection of baptism and communion as "literal" necessities.

Baptism and Quakers:
https://digitalcommons.georgefox.edu/cg ... ontext=ccs

4 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

And even George Fox, the founder of the Quaker movement, believed in the headcovering (which he refused to remove for any mere mortal):

Hats were also at the heart of an incident among early Friends that illustrates George Fox’s character. John Perrot was one of the early traveling Quaker ministers who were so important in the rapid spread of the Quaker message throughout Great Britain, Europe, and the British colonies in America. In 1661, John Perrot wrote a letter in which he protested the practice of Quaker men removing their hats when prayers were offered in meet-ing for worship. He declared his basis for the protest to be direct revelation—one that none of the other leading Friends of the day had shared.

Modern Friends would almost certainly be tolerant of this personal eccentricity. What difference does it make if some people wear their hats during prayers and others don’t?

George Fox didn’t see things this way. John Perrot’s claim was that ultimately each individual is a free agent, dealing directly with God, and bound only by the inspiration that he or she received. This flew in the face of Friends’ belief that God’s revelations to humanity are consistent—not leading us one way sometimes and another way at others. Rather than advising the “hat men” to wear their hats as long as they could, George Fox and other leading Quakers confronted and labored with them. In the end, nearly all acknowledged their error.

from:
https://www.friendsjournal.org/2003142/

The point being that men have found reasons to follow the "wisdom of men" rather than the word of God, it is the "wisdom of men" that separates the congregation of Christ from each other, and from the Most High.

1 Cor 1:25
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

BTW:
As someone also pointed out, the practice of headcovering was a Jewish practice- and Orthodox women practice it with wigs to this day. And Christianity is a Jewish religion.

So are you saying that if someone does not agree with your interpretation and/or application of certain scriptural texts that they are relying on their human wisdom whereas your interpretations and applications do not follow the wisdom of man but rather the wisdom of God ? Am I misunderstanding you here ?

One thing that scholars look into is the historical settings and circumstances when Paul and others wrote the epistles. Some conclude that these letters where instructions given to specific situations and do not feel led of the Holy Spirit that they were literally meant for Christians for all time. Others have tried to practise these instructions as if Paul was writing to guide all Christians for all time and settings. And this is the issue - who are really the ones being Spirit led ?

I think this problem was happening back when Paul wrote these letters. Some were following Appollos, some Peter, some Paul and others thought they were the ones following Christ - 1 Cor 1:12. I think since the Bible has been assembled and made available to most everyone in both translations and paraphrases in the past few centuries that there are more varied understandings about Christian faith and practise than ever before. And yet my guess is that most think their understandings and applications are Spirit guided. But how many are from man's wisdom not guided by the Spirit and how many are truly Spirit guided ?

I would lean toward what you posted of John Perrot's claim. I believe we each will be judged on the understandings we have and what we did with these understandings in following the two greatest commandments. I believe we have been given the Holy Spirit as our guide into truth and need to seek His guidance and regardless of all the varied understandings of scriptures, we will be accountable for how we lived out the two all encompassing commandments as the Spirit guides us.

[Outsider]

So are you saying that if someone does not agree with your interpretation and/or application of certain scriptural texts that they are relying on their human wisdom whereas your interpretations and applications do not follow the wisdom of man but rather the wisdom of God ? Am I misunderstanding you here ?

I am saying that if people prefer the opinions of "scholars" over the plain commandments of God in scripture they surely are following the wisdom of men. Why would Paul tell the church to be conformed to the customs of heathens?

Romans 12:
2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

One thing that scholars look into is the historical settings and circumstances when Paul and others wrote the epistles. Some conclude that these letters where instructions given to specific situations and do not feel led of the Holy Spirit that they were literally meant for Christians for all time. Others have tried to practise these instructions as if Paul was writing to guide all Christians for all time and settings. And this is the issue - who are really the ones being Spirit led ?

Not the ones who are following "scholars" who undermine the authority of scripture. If the passages we are discussing are invalid, what about the passages immediately following?

16

But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God.

17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse.

18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.

19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper.

21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken.

22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? what shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not.

Why is the teachings on head coverings just for Corinth, (though Paul says "the churches" plural hold to this teaching) and this one for the wider church? Do you agree this next topic for the wider church? Do you think it was for today?

Just because you have the Holy Spirit does not mean you are always correct. Scripture is for

I think this problem was happening back when Paul wrote these letters. Some were following Appollos, some Peter, some Paul and others thought they were the ones following Christ - 1 Cor 1:12. I think since the Bible has been assembled and made available to most everyone in both translations and paraphrases in the past few centuries that there are more varied understandings about Christian faith and practise than ever before. And yet my guess is that most think their understandings and applications are Spirit guided. But how many are from man's wisdom not guided by the Spirit and how many are truly Spirit guided ?

I would lean toward what you posted of John Perrot's claim. I believe we each will be judged on the understandings we have and what we did with these understandings in following the two greatest commandments. I believe we have been given the Holy Spirit as our guide into truth and need to seek His guidance and regardless of all the varied understandings of scriptures, we will be accountable for how we lived out the two all encompassing commandments as the Spirit guides us.

And John Perrot's beliefs are what has led to a modern church which "has no definition of a woman". If anyone can say anything is "of the Spirit", and scripture has no authority to rebuke those who are after their own hearts, and not the Spirit of God, who can say nay?