What's The Dangers Of Staying In A Church With Wrong Teachings

Then we could use your statment above to argue that following other parts of the bible is not necessary because it is out of date.

When did the Word go from being the Word that we should abide by to "Well, the world changed so now we change with it."?
 
No, one could not. I did not say what you are implying.
Not every statement in the Bible has universal scope. That is why you must look at all
statements made that concern a particular subject, and use some common sense.

Wearing a bikini at church would be terribly immodest, an obvious attempt at getting attention and offending the sensibilities of the people there. Wearing a bikini at the beach would be completely acceptible.

Paul was stating that woman should be respectful of those in authority. Not that they should "keep their mouths shut".

This all smacks of legalism, which I despise with my very soul.
Regardless of all the mind numbing rules and regulations, both obvious and hidden to be found in the Bible,
remeber that to "love God with all your heart and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself" is the some totality
of all the law and prophets. Do that, and God will not care in the least what haircut you have or which kind of pants you have on.
 
The Bible does teach women to be subject too and submitted too their husband.

Likewise, men are to be subject too and submitted too the head of the Church which is Christ (through the man of God/ Pastor-Preacher). Men are also to uphold the virtue and honor of their wife's position. I think both sexes get a big 'FAIL' for the majority nowadays.

Most people can't digest the structured organization of the family unit as given by God-which is why it is failing miserably.

That's why kindergartners get to hear books read to them like "Heather has two Mommies".

If we all obeyed the Lord-I don't think we would be in the mess we are in currently-in my opinion.

Whether or not the 'patriarchal' system is considered politically incorrect makes no difference if we are disobeying the Lord. If we are "loving" one another in the Lord-there wouldn't even be a debate about it. Does the Word of God conform to popular culture, or do the children of God conform to the Word?

You either obey the Lord-or you don't; no grey area. If Christ is first in our lives-we say "yes Lord" and move on.

There is a design, a structure, a purpose, a Godly intent to God's instruction. It's your choice to follow or not. It truly is up to the individual. Your treasure will be measured in quantities by your obedience to the Word in my opinion. Don't get mad when others are blessed for obeying. And don't get mad when you are rebuked by those who are obeying in an area you are disobedient in.

The Bible teaches if you are a child of God, you will have trials and tribulations and persecutions and chastening by the Lord. For HIS sake-not our own. Truly living for god on this Earth is a sacrifice.

If we cannot accept the 'babies milk' of doctrines; we will never be able to digest the heavier meals.
 
EMTGAL25 said:
Hi,

I attend a very strict teaching pentecostal church. Many teachings I don't agree with, as the Bible doesn't match with some teachings spoken, such as women not being aloud to cut their hair, and not being able to wear pants. If I attend this church, which I have for nearly 10 years, what dangers could arise for it. Most of my family attends this church, and I am over the youth outreach. Should I leave all of that, and find a new church? I've been praying about it, and I am aware that the church should all be in one mind and one accord, and not being so can be a hindrance. I don't want my relationship with God to become stalled in the church area because of this. Thanks for your advice.
Click to expand...

I see absolutely nothing wrong with woman being highly encouraged to wear dresses and have long hair. At my church woman are also not allowed to teach and must wear head coverings at meetings.

It concerns me more when someone opposes Paul's teaching. Why would you? Paul was not sexist. He was not confused about the strengths and weaknesses of both sexes as so many are today!
 
KingJ said:
I see absolutely nothing wrong with woman being highly encouraged to wear dresses and have long hair. At my church woman are also not allowed to teach and must wear head coverings at meetings.

It concerns me more when someone opposes Paul's teaching. Why would you? Paul was not sexist. He was not confused about the strengths and weaknesses of both sexes as so many are today!
Click to expand...
The thing that really gets my dander up though KJ is the issue of women wearing head coverings ie scarfs, burkas, hats and so on.
Paul says what?????
1 Cor 11:15 but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
I don't see scarf, burka, hat, beret
He goes on to silence all argument by saying 1 Cor 11:16 If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.
 
Calvin is right on-again!

Somewhere between scripture and life there is a disconnect from the spiritual aspect of what God's will is. Our Church follows the Word to best of our ability and interpretation. Women are not discouraged from dressing comfortably-HOWEVER there is an expectation and understanding for our members verses visitors. All visitors are welcome to any event at any time in any dress-(unless so inappropriate they are asked to change-which I have yet to see happen).

Our Pastor spent this last Thursday through Saturday at "Youth Ablaze" with a couple members of our Church and the Teen Group: at our Sunday evening service-he honored his wife on the platform expounding on her beauty and how he loves her, and how she is the head example for the ladies of our Church. It was a very touching and emotional segment. His wife is extremely active in ministry and Church work-as are many other women in the Church. Quite frankly without them; our Church would be a disaster.

That being said-women still don't preach in the pulpit. Testimonies, praise, witness, worship, singing, Sunday school teaching, bus ministry, office work, etc...YES! But not in the pulpit-and no scarves or burkas...
 
calvin said:
The thing that really gets my dander up though KJ is the issue of women wearing head coverings ie scarfs, burkas, hats and so on.
Paul says what?????
but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.
I don't see scarf, burka, hat, beret
He goes on to silence all argument by saying If anyone is inclined to be contentious, we have no such practice, nor do the churches of God.
Click to expand...

:) Calvin, I doubt we are going to agree on this. There are two clearly different interpretations of the original Greek. Some versions say veil, some say covered.

King James Version 1 Cor 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

Bible in Basic English
But every woman who does so with her head unveiled, puts shame on her head: for it is the same as if her hair was cut off.

Then there is verse 6, which I am curious to hear how you interpret.

King James Version 1 Cor 11:6 For 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

Bible in Basic English
For if a woman is not veiled, let her hair be cut off; but if it is a shame to a woman to have her hair cut off, let her be veiled.

1 Cor 11 however will not be the verses I would give my daughter (if I had one). Rather, 1 Tim 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array.

I see head coverings as a practical means of bringing modesty to woman. I highly recommend woman to dress attractively. It is clearly impractical to remove a fancy perm just for a church meeting, hence a head covering. Not to mention for gold earrings :). I am also curious as to your take on 1 Cor 11:10. I have heard that because of this verse it is wise to err on the side of veiled (head covering) and not covered (as in only hair).
 
KingJ, I see head coverings ie. scarfs and burkas and the like only as a means of stopping the spread of head lice.:cautious::)
I think the whole argument can be settled with the realization and agreement that there were no Milliners in the Garden of Eden. Eve was taken from Adam and until the fall, ran around in the nuddie.
I'm not gunna suggest women should go quite that far.........I don't wanna die before sunset:rolleyes:
But seriously, womankind was given a full head of hair right from day dot, no tinting, no colour streaks, just hair for a covering of her head. That is where Paul's argument goes in his overall argument does it not......back to basics?
The difference between 'uncovered' and 'unveiled' is only one of semantics. To 'unveil' a painting, is to 'uncover it'....yes?
To expose something that was previously, or otherwise hidden from view.

To my mind, to say that a woman should wear a scarf or a crash helmet or whatever is to call into question the competence of the Lord.
The word in verse 15 'given' sums up Paul's discussion on the matter. A woman's hair is given...ask yourself "who gave her her hair? It is really that simple.
 
King James Version 1 Cor 11:6 For 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

This is an interesting scripture because in a round about way, it's basically and clearly stating to not shave your head and keep your hair covered. It says if the hair is not covered, have it shaved. If it's shaved, have it covered.


3 But 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.

If this is saying that the man is above the woman, it is saying God is above Jesus, correct? Then I pose the trinity question again.

Also, I find it interesting that it says: "dishonoureth his head" and "dishonoureth her head" and not God. I guess means the same thing.

Anyhow, my question again, is why are we as Christians abiding by some things in the bible and not others merely because of the way we are interpreting/viewing the scriptures? As the scriptures state above, it is quite clear of how a woman and man should dress and have their hair. Yet, some are hemming and hawing about how it's outdated or out of context (sure doesn't seem like it to me), but then you profess to abide by Gods ten commandments. How on earth does this make sense? Who are we to determine what parts of the bible are outdated and not? We need to show non Christians that we are not hypocrites. Everything I've mentioned is this forum as well as the responses would make an atheist very, very happy. IMO.

This needs to be addressed ASAP.
 
Glomung said:
Wearing a bikini at the beach would be completely acceptible.
Click to expand...


Not according to the scripture!! Why do you interpret it the way you want to? As Dirty said, "God hasn't changed" The Word hasn't changed.

I'm trying to get this Christianity thing right. I have worn bikinis my entire life (well after I was a teen). I've prayed and gone to church without covering my head, etc, etc, etc... Yet these scriptures have yet to be brought up in the churches I've gone to.

I think a lot of churches today want the masses to follow and know that if they truly stuck with the Word, most people wouldn't give Jesus a chance. I for one am torn on the issue.
 
Lifeasweknowit said:
Anyhow, my question again, is why are we as Christians abiding by some things in the bible and not others merely because of the way we are interpreting/viewing the scriptures? As the scriptures state above, it is quite clear of how a woman and man should dress and have their hair. Yet, some are hemming and hawing about how it's outdated or out of context (sure doesn't seem like it to me), but then you profess to abide by Gods ten commandments. How on earth does this make sense? Who are we to determine what parts of the bible are outdated and not? We need to show non Christians that we are not hypocrites. Everything I've mentioned is this forum as well as the responses would make an atheist very, very happy. IMO.

This needs to be addressed ASAP.
Click to expand...
You are stressing too much in this post. You have to realize that there is unity amongst the many denominations in Christianity. Unity in Christ and Him crucified (1 Cor 2:2). There is to be absolutely no debate on this. No debate on Christ being deity. No debate on Christ being the sacrifice for our sins. As for everything else. We just need to differentiate / judge the severity. All scripture is for us, OT and NT. None of it is outdated! God does not waste His time writing something. We have to see His heart behind everything written in scripture and because of our new covenant with Him through Jesus, we can. So lets discern as Paul does. Paul says 'In my opinion, as one entrusted by God to give an opinion'. All the OT law was nailed to the cross (Col 2:14). We need to acknowledge the extreme importance of Phil 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

Getting together and discussing / reasoning amongst ourselves is important. If something is not rational, another brother or sister may point it out and the Holy Spirit who teaches us all things will use it to open our eyes. We must and can judge all things. On head coverings, both Calvin and I will pass a judgement session of fear and trembling before God. How much more someone who never even knew that portion of scripture?

So, in closing, we can see ourselves as engaged or married to Christ. None of us should need to be told that adultery is wrong. But if we do, can we blame some for thinking we are not married / engaged / in love? Some will dress extra modestly at church, some will cover themselves to be modest. It is so important to judge the severity of inner rebellion! We need to judge severity of sins! I will not question the salvation of a lady who doesn't wear a head covering. But would you question the salvation of someone who calls themself a Christian and consistently hates all black people?

1 Cor 6:3 Know you not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
 
Lifeasweknowit said:
King James Version 1 Cor 11:6 For 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

This is an interesting scripture because in a round about way, it's basically and clearly stating to not shave your head and keep your hair covered. It says if the hair is not covered, have it shaved. If it's shaved, have it covered.
Snip
Click to expand...
Tink, I think you are not understanding Paul's argument style.
Look again closely at Paul's argument.
For (therefore) if the woman is not covered (as she should be), she is so far into the error regions, she might as well be shaved. But if it is error to be shaved, then she ought to let her hair grow as it is intended.
I believe there is not much real difference between a shaved 'skin head' and a close cropped 'butch' hairdo, as far as being rightly groomed is concerned. So if a woman wants to look butch, she might as well shave her hair off completely. But if she understands that to be wrong, she should let her hair grow to its natural beauty. No half measures.
Well that is my understanding anyway.
 
#1: Love the Lord your God with all your heart...

#2: Love your neighbor as yourself/ Love one another as I loved you...

All the rest of the 'law' hangs on these two commandments

- Jesus Christ

(The answer is between Genesis 1:1 and Revelation 22:21)
 
No one answered my question. I understand all of this and what you are saying KingJ. Thanks for clarifying the scripture, Calv. I agree with the commandments, Dirty. No problem, Rusty.

Thing is, I can understand that we are to trust that Chris is our savior and redeemer and that's the whole point. However, non Christians do not understand this and the reasoning you provide, King, will do nothing to sway an unbeliever, IMO. Will someone please address my question as if I knew very little about God and has questions as such?
 
Lifeasweknowit said:
Anyhow, my question again, is why are we as Christians abiding by some things in the bible and not others merely because of the way we are interpreting/viewing the scriptures? As the scriptures state above, it is quite clear of how a woman and man should dress and have their hair. Yet, some are hemming and hawing about how it's outdated or out of context (sure doesn't seem like it to me), but then you profess to abide by Gods ten commandments. How on earth does this make sense? Who are we to determine what parts of the bible are outdated and not? We need to show non Christians that we are not hypocrites. Everything I've mentioned is this forum as well as the responses would make an atheist very, very happy. IMO.

This needs to be addressed ASAP.
Click to expand...
 
Anyhow, my question again, is why are we as Christians abiding by some things in the bible and not others merely because of the way we are interpreting/viewing the scriptures? As the scriptures state above, it is quite clear of how a woman and man should dress and have their hair. Yet, some are hemming and hawing about how it's outdated or out of context (sure doesn't seem like it to me), but then you profess to abide by Gods ten commandments. How on earth does this make sense? Who are we to determine what parts of the bible are outdated and not? We need to show non Christians that we are not hypocrites. Everything I've mentioned is this forum as well as the responses would make an atheist very, very happy. IMO.
Click to expand...
Three Questions.
First Question: Anyhow, my question again, is why are we as Christians abiding by some things in the bible and not others.?
Answer: merely because of the way we are interpreting/viewing the scriptures.


Second Question: As the scriptures state above, it is quite clear of how a woman and man should dress and have their hair. Yet, some are hemming and hawing about how it's outdated or out of context (sure doesn't seem like it to me), but then you profess to abide by Gods ten commandments.

Answer: The ten commandments say nothing about hair styles. Paul was addressing some specific concerns that applied to the Church at Corinth. While Paul's teaching on these things goes way beyond the specific situation at Corinth, many people Just see those teachings as a local ethnic issue and not binding on the rest of the Church.
The real issue must be, not what a person is doing with their hair, but what they are doing with the shed blood of Christ. On the day of accounting, the question most likely to be asked by the judge will be "what did you do with my offer of salvation?" Not"what was your favorite hairdo?"

Third Question:
Who are we to determine what parts of the bible are outdated and not?

Answer: We have no right to determine what parts of the Bible have no relevance for today. However I think any reasonable person would agree that trying to apply most of the Bible to their lives and situation would be better than totally ignoring the Bible altogether, and more importantly ignoring Jesus' rightful claim on their life.

Jesus is Lord and we will all be judged on what we do with God's only Son. Don't you be one who will go down for rejecting the author of life.

That is probably how I would answer Tink.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top