Head Coverings???
- Thread starter christian_chick50109
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
A
I can explain it thoroughly for you; however, perhaps the bottom line is best for now: The purpose of worship is to glorify God. In contexts where cultural-religious norms and customs for proper attire and length of hair were understood as reflecting, at least to some extent, the order of “nature” (1 Cor 11:14–15), the rejection of those customs in the worship of the church in Corinth undermined the purpose of worship. A “covered” man or an “uncovered” woman would bring dishonor rather than glory. It is this concern which motivates Paul’s thought in this passage.
S
i'm a little confused from it too, i mean it tells women to, then it says that we should judge for ourselves, then it says that long hair is a covering for women. So maybe all you need to do is have long hair. i'm also confused by the last part of that passage that says: 16 But if anyone seems to be contentious (argumentative), we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. --- i mean, what does he mean, "we have no such custom"? is he refering to being argumentative or the wearing of coverings?
A
Corrective texts are those which clearly deal with special situations or problems or misunderstandings in the Christian communities which are addressed. Here it is particularly important to understand as much as possible the situation which made the corrective, authoritative, apostolic word necessary for that situation. The problem of heretical teaching, addressed in 1 Timothy, is such a situation. Paul’s instruction about the silence of women must be seen in this light. What we must guard against is the temptation to universalize instructions whose primary or exclusive focus was on the situation addressed.
A
Ok my brother. I apologize if I'm a bit wordy on the matter here but it's in response to a direct request so here we go and btw this is a very mainstream Protestant theological position on the matter:
The effort to discern between those things which are culturally and historically relative and those which are transcendent is in actuality engaged in by all Christians, in one way or another. At issue is only whether such discernment results from our likes and dislikes, our own cultural conditioning and prejudices, or whether it is the application of a clear principle that emerges from a proper understanding of the nature and purpose of Scripture.
Take, for example, the issue of head coverings we are discussing here in this thread. Most Christians have concluded that the “head covering” enjoined upon women during worship in the church in Corinth (1 Cor 11) is culturally relative, and its inspired authority is limited to that historical situation. Many of these same Christians have concluded, at the same time, that Paul’s instruction to these women to be silent in worship (1 Cor 14) is not culturally relative and is an authoritative word for all Christian women in all contexts of worship, both then and now.
On what basis is this distinction made? Arbitrariness in this critical and necessary area of biblical interpretation can to some extent be avoided when we recognize that there are different types of texts, and that these differences provide us with clues to discerning that which is relative to the situation and that which is authoritative for all time.
In an article in Essays on New Testament Christianity, S. Scott Bartchy gathers texts which deal directly or indirectly with the place and role of women in the ministry of Jesus and the early church into three broad categories: (1) normative (or instructive) texts, (2) descriptive texts and (3) problematic (or corrective) texts. These categories are extremely helpful for purposes of our discussion.
Instructive texts are those which declare the way things ought to be among the followers of Christ. They declare the vision or intention of the gospel without reference to particular problem situations. As such they transcend the contexts in which they are uttered and are normative for both individual and corporate Christian existence. The citation of Joel 2:28–32 in Peter’s Pentecost speech (Acts 2:17–21), stating that the Spirit of God was given to both men and women for proclaiming the good news, is such a text.
Descriptive texts describe practices or actions in the early churches without any commentary. The sense conveyed in such texts is that what is described is perfectly acceptable or normal. The writer does not question the practice but rather seems to assume it as appropriate. Thus Luke, in Acts 18:24–26, tells us that both Priscilla and Aquila instructed the learned Apollos in the Christian faith, and in Acts 21:9 mentions that the evangelist Philip had four daughters who were engaged in the prophetic ministry of the church. Women’s participation in ministry seems not to have been unusual.
Corrective texts are those which clearly deal with special situations or problems or misunderstandings in the Christian communities which are addressed as I have already noted in my previous post.
An important dimension of this threefold classification for the interpretation and understanding of a good number of our hard sayings is the matter of their interrelationships. If a corrective text’s admonition reflects the vision of the gospel articulated in instructive texts and is further confirmed by descriptive texts, then the particular teaching would undoubtedly be authoritative for the whole church in all times.
On the other hand, if an apostolic word addressed to a particular setting does not conform to the way things ought to be (as revealed in instructive texts) and the way things normally are (as revealed in descriptive texts), then the inspired, authoritative word may very well be intended to deal exclusively with a specific problem and thus be limited to that and similar problems.
The foregoing reflections on the nature, purpose and context of biblical texts provide the parameters to explore the hard sayings of Paul.
A good resource on this for more comprehensive study of biblical interpretation is 'How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth' by Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart.
The effort to discern between those things which are culturally and historically relative and those which are transcendent is in actuality engaged in by all Christians, in one way or another. At issue is only whether such discernment results from our likes and dislikes, our own cultural conditioning and prejudices, or whether it is the application of a clear principle that emerges from a proper understanding of the nature and purpose of Scripture.
Take, for example, the issue of head coverings we are discussing here in this thread. Most Christians have concluded that the “head covering” enjoined upon women during worship in the church in Corinth (1 Cor 11) is culturally relative, and its inspired authority is limited to that historical situation. Many of these same Christians have concluded, at the same time, that Paul’s instruction to these women to be silent in worship (1 Cor 14) is not culturally relative and is an authoritative word for all Christian women in all contexts of worship, both then and now.
On what basis is this distinction made? Arbitrariness in this critical and necessary area of biblical interpretation can to some extent be avoided when we recognize that there are different types of texts, and that these differences provide us with clues to discerning that which is relative to the situation and that which is authoritative for all time.
In an article in Essays on New Testament Christianity, S. Scott Bartchy gathers texts which deal directly or indirectly with the place and role of women in the ministry of Jesus and the early church into three broad categories: (1) normative (or instructive) texts, (2) descriptive texts and (3) problematic (or corrective) texts. These categories are extremely helpful for purposes of our discussion.
Instructive texts are those which declare the way things ought to be among the followers of Christ. They declare the vision or intention of the gospel without reference to particular problem situations. As such they transcend the contexts in which they are uttered and are normative for both individual and corporate Christian existence. The citation of Joel 2:28–32 in Peter’s Pentecost speech (Acts 2:17–21), stating that the Spirit of God was given to both men and women for proclaiming the good news, is such a text.
Descriptive texts describe practices or actions in the early churches without any commentary. The sense conveyed in such texts is that what is described is perfectly acceptable or normal. The writer does not question the practice but rather seems to assume it as appropriate. Thus Luke, in Acts 18:24–26, tells us that both Priscilla and Aquila instructed the learned Apollos in the Christian faith, and in Acts 21:9 mentions that the evangelist Philip had four daughters who were engaged in the prophetic ministry of the church. Women’s participation in ministry seems not to have been unusual.
Corrective texts are those which clearly deal with special situations or problems or misunderstandings in the Christian communities which are addressed as I have already noted in my previous post.
An important dimension of this threefold classification for the interpretation and understanding of a good number of our hard sayings is the matter of their interrelationships. If a corrective text’s admonition reflects the vision of the gospel articulated in instructive texts and is further confirmed by descriptive texts, then the particular teaching would undoubtedly be authoritative for the whole church in all times.
On the other hand, if an apostolic word addressed to a particular setting does not conform to the way things ought to be (as revealed in instructive texts) and the way things normally are (as revealed in descriptive texts), then the inspired, authoritative word may very well be intended to deal exclusively with a specific problem and thus be limited to that and similar problems.
The foregoing reflections on the nature, purpose and context of biblical texts provide the parameters to explore the hard sayings of Paul.
A good resource on this for more comprehensive study of biblical interpretation is 'How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth' by Gordon D. Fee and Douglas Stuart.
S
Now you see, this is why I like you, ageofknowledge, you are perfectly willing to give long explanations, instead of saying, "i don't have time for this" Truly God is in you. And your reply was logical, precise, and very helpful. Thank you for this, very much, it makes understanding the Bible much easier. The Lord has truly blessed you with knowledge and wisdom.
B
No, you are not in sin for not wearing a headveil; nonetheless, should you be in fellowship where all the sisters (females 12 yrs and older) do wear one, you should wear one in order to keep the peace.
Otherwise, you will be out-of-place there, and you will draw attention to yourself, which is not what worship is about. The practice of headcoverings is usually a way of surrendering one's control/autonomy/one's head to the control of Christ. The history behind this practice is cultural and does date back to the original church.
Also, congregations which do encourage headveils may also have other submission-type of doctrines, which you should first become familiar with to assure the overall fellowship is not a cult.
As a sister, I wore one for years during prayer only. I carried a veil in the car and one at home. Again, this is cultural since my great-grandmother, grandmother, aunts wore one too. My mother did not wear one.
You enjoy the Lord in sincerity during prayer, which is by far more important than a headcovering. Come to the Lord with thanksgiving in your heart and a willingness to renew your mind, and you will have the Lord's favor too.
Otherwise, you will be out-of-place there, and you will draw attention to yourself, which is not what worship is about. The practice of headcoverings is usually a way of surrendering one's control/autonomy/one's head to the control of Christ. The history behind this practice is cultural and does date back to the original church.
Also, congregations which do encourage headveils may also have other submission-type of doctrines, which you should first become familiar with to assure the overall fellowship is not a cult.
As a sister, I wore one for years during prayer only. I carried a veil in the car and one at home. Again, this is cultural since my great-grandmother, grandmother, aunts wore one too. My mother did not wear one.
You enjoy the Lord in sincerity during prayer, which is by far more important than a headcovering. Come to the Lord with thanksgiving in your heart and a willingness to renew your mind, and you will have the Lord's favor too.
I believe that 1 Tim 2 is pretty clear about women not teaching or having authority over men in the church, but rather being in submission by just listening and learning in the church or church meeting, which is a very formal setting of instruction with order and appointed authority. Paul's basis for women being in submission in the church is creation (and the fall). I do believe it's universal, regardless of what many modern scholars may say (and there are also respected scholarly teachers who would agree). Besides his universal basis ("for Adam was created first"), even his wording seems universal, the way he says "but I do not allow a woman to ..." as if he is referring to a general principle that he applies everywhere rather than just Timothy's situation. And again he bases it on creation.
But the head covering passage is a difficult one. I heard a unique view on that one once that I had never heard before and it really really fit well. But sorry it's too much to type
But the head covering passage is a difficult one. I heard a unique view on that one once that I had never heard before and it really really fit well. But sorry it's too much to type
S
The term rendered "covered" is katakalupto = something down the head. It is a reference to the hair as shown many other clues in the context. Uncovered refers to having the hair short enough that it does not truly cover the whole head... not hanging down.
The text is not establishing that women MUST be covered/veiled/long hair; it is discussing a custom of identity in the culture of Corinth.
1. the language of the context uses disgraceful not sinful
2. it speaks of propriety, not requirement to please God
3. it says to judge among yourselves
4. it speaks of nature... but cannot mean the nature of things universally, because there is nothing universally seen in the physical world that clearly defines what is long for men or short for women.
5. its says that those who want to contentious about it can't because the church has no such practice
This context teaches us how to handle local customs that do not violate biblical morality or doctrinal purity. It is something that should be judged locally and not cause offense or confusion to those in that setting.
Notice also that the text teaches that a woman's hair is given to her precisely instead of a material covering/veil.
The text is not establishing that women MUST be covered/veiled/long hair; it is discussing a custom of identity in the culture of Corinth.
1. the language of the context uses disgraceful not sinful
2. it speaks of propriety, not requirement to please God
3. it says to judge among yourselves
4. it speaks of nature... but cannot mean the nature of things universally, because there is nothing universally seen in the physical world that clearly defines what is long for men or short for women.
5. its says that those who want to contentious about it can't because the church has no such practice
This context teaches us how to handle local customs that do not violate biblical morality or doctrinal purity. It is something that should be judged locally and not cause offense or confusion to those in that setting.
Notice also that the text teaches that a woman's hair is given to her precisely instead of a material covering/veil.
A
I believe that 1 Tim 2 is pretty clear about women not teaching or having authority over men in the church, but rather being in submission by just listening and learning in the church or church meeting, which is a very formal setting of instruction with order and appointed authority. Paul's basis for women being in submission in the church is creation (and the fall). I do believe it's universal, regardless of what many modern scholars may say (and there are also respected scholarly teachers who would agree). Besides his universal basis ("for Adam was created first"), even his wording seems universal, the way he says "but I do not allow a woman to ..." as if he is referring to a general principle that he applies everywhere rather than just Timothy's situation. And again he bases it on creation.
But the head covering passage is a difficult one. I heard a unique view on that one once that I had never heard before and it really really fit well. But sorry it's too much to type
But the head covering passage is a difficult one. I heard a unique view on that one once that I had never heard before and it really really fit well. But sorry it's too much to type
If you quote the beginning of the passage as a universal...i.e. husbands have authority over their wives, then you also must say that women should pray with their heads covered. There is no legitimate hermeneutical reason for saying one is universal and the other local. They are either both universal or both local. So which is it? "None of the other churches have any other practice"....that should probably be a big enough hint as to which.
B
Yes, good point.
In general, churches practicing headveils are also big on husbands have authority over their wives, wives submit to your husbands, women remain silent in the church and only men are preachers/teachers.
Over the centuries, Jews, Catholics, the Early Church and some protestants have practiced these teachings, which made it "universal" practice. In other words, nobody turned their head when a sister wearing a headveil pass by; there was nothing weird about her.
Of course, these practices have demised in light of women suffrage movment, women's rights, and the anemic opinions of the Supreme Court during the 70's and onward.
Yes, the Bible is still morally universal, ethically universal and universally healthy for our relationships with one another. The question is, are we willing to surrender 100% regardless of what Joe Jr. or Becky Sue are teaching over there?
The Lord bless you sweetly.
In general, churches practicing headveils are also big on husbands have authority over their wives, wives submit to your husbands, women remain silent in the church and only men are preachers/teachers.
Over the centuries, Jews, Catholics, the Early Church and some protestants have practiced these teachings, which made it "universal" practice. In other words, nobody turned their head when a sister wearing a headveil pass by; there was nothing weird about her.
Of course, these practices have demised in light of women suffrage movment, women's rights, and the anemic opinions of the Supreme Court during the 70's and onward.
Yes, the Bible is still morally universal, ethically universal and universally healthy for our relationships with one another. The question is, are we willing to surrender 100% regardless of what Joe Jr. or Becky Sue are teaching over there?
The Lord bless you sweetly.
Pie- thank you for your blessings.
I think the issue of submission to scripture 100% is really what is going on here. I recognize matters of interpretation and so forth, and particularly the need to be aware of language, culture, and history while doing the work of interpretation, but the truth is...if you don't open your copy of the scriptures with a heart already prepared to obey no matter how hard...then you are reading with the worst kind of bias of all...the fleshly mind that seeks what is easy, comfortable, etc. If you are not willing to obey 100%, then you deny the authority of the scriptures or you are sinning willfully. Both are very bad positions to be in.
I think the issue of submission to scripture 100% is really what is going on here. I recognize matters of interpretation and so forth, and particularly the need to be aware of language, culture, and history while doing the work of interpretation, but the truth is...if you don't open your copy of the scriptures with a heart already prepared to obey no matter how hard...then you are reading with the worst kind of bias of all...the fleshly mind that seeks what is easy, comfortable, etc. If you are not willing to obey 100%, then you deny the authority of the scriptures or you are sinning willfully. Both are very bad positions to be in.
B
Amen, my brother. Now you know how difficult it is for sisters to submit to the authority of the brethren... when both are lacking. (Some are easily verifiable cults even.)
Yet, when both parties are in obedience to the authority of Christ, then we know we are sons and daughters of the Kingdom of God. I'm encouraged that's where you want to be. Praise the Lord.
Yet, when both parties are in obedience to the authority of Christ, then we know we are sons and daughters of the Kingdom of God. I'm encouraged that's where you want to be. Praise the Lord.
The head being covered on a woman is talking about uncut hair which they should have because they have authority above the angels.If you read all the verses you can see it is talking about hair because if a woman cuts her hair even an inch it is the same as if she has short hair like a man and she is out of order in God's chain of command.
1Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
This is God's chain of command.God,Christ,man,woman.God has to have a chain of command on earth so that things get done and without disputing over whose in charge.This does make a woman inferior for in Christ a man and a woman is equal.In heaven a man and a woman is equal for the only thing that separates a man and a woman is the flesh,the spirit and soul is the same.
A man is only to lead if it is in the will of God,not for his own purpose,and not out of line.The woman is also a helpmate and can participate in what is going on.
4Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
A man that has long hair is out of line.A man should have cut short hair.
5But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
If a woman cuts her hair she is out of line and is the same as if she has short hair like a man even if she has 2 feet of hair and she has cuts it an inch.A woman should have uncut hair.A man should have short hair.If a woman cuts her hair she is out of order in God's chain of command.
6For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
It is obvious it is talking about hair.
7For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
A man should have short hair because He is the image and glory of God.Jesus came in the image of God so Jesus would have short hair.Jesus had a beard but He did not have long hair.
8For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
9Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
Woman should have uncut hair because they have the authority above the angels.
Angels are ministering spirits sent to minister to all people who shall receive salvation.Angels are the servants of the saints.
The Bible says the angels desire to look in to the salvation of the saints because the saints will have a higher position in heaven than the angels.
The saints will have a glorified body like God's glorified body and rule with Jesus on earth,a privilege the angels will never have.
A woman should have uncut hair because she is the authority above the angels.If she cuts her hair then she loses her authority above the angels and is out of line.
11Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
In the Lord a man and a woman is equal for the flesh is the only thing that separates a man and a woman,the spirit and soul is the same.
12For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
13Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
It is obvious that these verses are talking about hair.
Even nature testifies that it is a shame for a man to have long hair.Even in the natural world,people that do not know God,it teaches that it is a shame for a man to have long hair,how much more should people who are spiritual know that it is a shame for a man to have long hair,but not every one that claims Christ is spiritual,but some are still a natural man.
15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God(1 Corinthians 11:1-16).
If any man believes that it is alright for a man to have long hair and a woman to have short hair,there is no such custom,neither in the churches of God.
God's authority structure is God,Christ,man,woman,and angels.
Christ had short hair for He came in the image of God as well as all men who are in the image of God should have short hair.
A man should have short hair.A woman should have long hair.Christ had short hair.It is a shame for a man to have long hair and a woman dishonors herself by cutting her hair and loses her authority above the angels and is out of line.
We have to stay in God's chain of command.
I know that not everyone that claims Christ likes to hear certain things for some prefer their hair like they want it,but they must abandon their style,and get in line with God's word.
Matt
1Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
3But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
This is God's chain of command.God,Christ,man,woman.God has to have a chain of command on earth so that things get done and without disputing over whose in charge.This does make a woman inferior for in Christ a man and a woman is equal.In heaven a man and a woman is equal for the only thing that separates a man and a woman is the flesh,the spirit and soul is the same.
A man is only to lead if it is in the will of God,not for his own purpose,and not out of line.The woman is also a helpmate and can participate in what is going on.
4Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
A man that has long hair is out of line.A man should have cut short hair.
5But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
If a woman cuts her hair she is out of line and is the same as if she has short hair like a man even if she has 2 feet of hair and she has cuts it an inch.A woman should have uncut hair.A man should have short hair.If a woman cuts her hair she is out of order in God's chain of command.
6For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
It is obvious it is talking about hair.
7For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
A man should have short hair because He is the image and glory of God.Jesus came in the image of God so Jesus would have short hair.Jesus had a beard but He did not have long hair.
8For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.
9Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
10For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.
Woman should have uncut hair because they have the authority above the angels.
Angels are ministering spirits sent to minister to all people who shall receive salvation.Angels are the servants of the saints.
The Bible says the angels desire to look in to the salvation of the saints because the saints will have a higher position in heaven than the angels.
The saints will have a glorified body like God's glorified body and rule with Jesus on earth,a privilege the angels will never have.
A woman should have uncut hair because she is the authority above the angels.If she cuts her hair then she loses her authority above the angels and is out of line.
11Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
In the Lord a man and a woman is equal for the flesh is the only thing that separates a man and a woman,the spirit and soul is the same.
12For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God.
13Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?
14Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?
It is obvious that these verses are talking about hair.
Even nature testifies that it is a shame for a man to have long hair.Even in the natural world,people that do not know God,it teaches that it is a shame for a man to have long hair,how much more should people who are spiritual know that it is a shame for a man to have long hair,but not every one that claims Christ is spiritual,but some are still a natural man.
15But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering.
16But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God(1 Corinthians 11:1-16).
If any man believes that it is alright for a man to have long hair and a woman to have short hair,there is no such custom,neither in the churches of God.
God's authority structure is God,Christ,man,woman,and angels.
Christ had short hair for He came in the image of God as well as all men who are in the image of God should have short hair.
A man should have short hair.A woman should have long hair.Christ had short hair.It is a shame for a man to have long hair and a woman dishonors herself by cutting her hair and loses her authority above the angels and is out of line.
We have to stay in God's chain of command.
I know that not everyone that claims Christ likes to hear certain things for some prefer their hair like they want it,but they must abandon their style,and get in line with God's word.
Matt
Last edited:
A
Our Oneness member missed the point obviously. When obvious Corrective texts (those which clearly deal with special situations or problems or misunderstandings in the Christian communities which are addressed) become requirements for acceptance in a church, it is legalistic.
Legalism leads to bondage and the requirements of keeping the law or the cult heresy to maintain salvation. It then becomes a means by which a person's spirituality is judged. Oneness churches strongly imply that if you go to movies, or have a TV, or wear makeup, etc., then you are not "really" a Christian.
There is one thing that most of these Christian legalists have in common:
They all assume that any others that do not see things their way are not even Christian. They claim to be in the body of Christ but their doctrine and their actions attack people that are actually in the body of Christ.
All of these legalistic groups have at least some knowledge of the scriptures and some have a great deal of knowledge of what the Bible says. So what is the problem here? The problem is they can read scripture but they cannot comprehend it. They cannot correlate what they read with other passages of Scripture in their black light. That is true of the world in general because light from the Holy Spirit is required to properly discern scripture passages. The reason they do not have light is they want to be acceptable to God by obedience and their works instead of by the Law of Faith. If they came to Jesus this way they have never been saved.
Those who find themselves in these groups would be very wise to try to find out for themselves why Christians say they teach a doctrine of works and they are legalistic. Arguing a position from the doctrine that you were spoon-fed will not bring you enlightenment. It will only bring further bondage. If your doctrine can stand in the light it will stand, but if the doctrine of your sect is darkness, that will be discovered in the true light. If you are open to truth, you will then be able to see the way out. However, if you wish to be wise in your own eyes and teach people the same path to Hell, you will bring upon yourself a harsher judgment.
Christians who find themselves in a legalistic church or under legalistic teachers really need to leave. There is almost no chance that you can change them but there can be a few exceptions in those churches where the doctrine is not well established.
Legalism leads to bondage and the requirements of keeping the law or the cult heresy to maintain salvation. It then becomes a means by which a person's spirituality is judged. Oneness churches strongly imply that if you go to movies, or have a TV, or wear makeup, etc., then you are not "really" a Christian.
There is one thing that most of these Christian legalists have in common:
They all assume that any others that do not see things their way are not even Christian. They claim to be in the body of Christ but their doctrine and their actions attack people that are actually in the body of Christ.
All of these legalistic groups have at least some knowledge of the scriptures and some have a great deal of knowledge of what the Bible says. So what is the problem here? The problem is they can read scripture but they cannot comprehend it. They cannot correlate what they read with other passages of Scripture in their black light. That is true of the world in general because light from the Holy Spirit is required to properly discern scripture passages. The reason they do not have light is they want to be acceptable to God by obedience and their works instead of by the Law of Faith. If they came to Jesus this way they have never been saved.
Those who find themselves in these groups would be very wise to try to find out for themselves why Christians say they teach a doctrine of works and they are legalistic. Arguing a position from the doctrine that you were spoon-fed will not bring you enlightenment. It will only bring further bondage. If your doctrine can stand in the light it will stand, but if the doctrine of your sect is darkness, that will be discovered in the true light. If you are open to truth, you will then be able to see the way out. However, if you wish to be wise in your own eyes and teach people the same path to Hell, you will bring upon yourself a harsher judgment.
Christians who find themselves in a legalistic church or under legalistic teachers really need to leave. There is almost no chance that you can change them but there can be a few exceptions in those churches where the doctrine is not well established.
