Are We Hypocrites?

[old weatherd cross]

Fundamentalist believe in strict interpretation and practice of the word.
But, how many of us really do this?

For example, in the New Testament it states that women should pray with their heads covered and forbids the wearing of gold and jewelery.

There are many other examples and this is only one.

 

[a pilgrim]

Fundamentalist believe in strict interpretation and practice of the word.
But, how many of us really do this?

For example, in the New Testament it states that women should pray with their heads covered and forbids the wearing of gold and jewelery.

There are many other examples and this is only one.

Brother, my wife and girls cover their heads and don't wear gold jewelry. I don't know if that makes me a fundamentalist or not, but we try to be DOERS and not just HEARERS only.

 

[nChrist]

Fundamentalist believe in strict interpretation and practice of the word.
But, how many of us really do this?

For example, in the New Testament it states that women should pray with their heads covered and forbids the wearing of gold and jewelery.

There are many other examples and this is only one.

We're not under the 600+ laws of Moses. This is why Fundamentalists are not Legalists. As Christians, we live under the Grace of God and in the liberty of Christ. This does not hint that we have a license to sin.

Galatians 5:1-5 KJV Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. 2 Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3 For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. 4 Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. 5 For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

Colossians 2:13-17 (KJV) 13 And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses; 14 Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross; 15 [And] having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it. 16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath [days]: 17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body [is] of Christ.

Galatians 3:21-26 KJV Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law. 22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. 26 For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

 

[Paul1965]

Even fundamentalist don't agree on everything. You have to find what's best for you and your family. There are lots of denominations that consider themselves fundamentalists, and they don't all agree. I personally agree with the fundamentals, however, I also believe portions of scripture are open to different interpretations. That's why I call my self a liberal fundamentalist! LOL

 

[SoulBap6]

old weatherd cross
Fundamentalist believe in strict interpretation and practice of the word.
But, how many of us really do this?

The answer is no! try as we might, we still live in these fleshly bodies,and not one day goes by that sin doesn't enter in are lives. We are sinners saved by Grace, As Ephesians 2:8 tells us, it is Christ blood that atones for are sins, not anything that we have done, the Goal is to live the best we know how according to the scriptures. The only person in shoe leather that lived a pure and no sin life was Jesus Christ.

 

[tturt]

Paul 1965 I love it - liberal fundamentalist!

Also, Scripture doesn't say to shake hands but to "Greet ye one another with an holy kiss." I cor 16:20

Ever wonder if this might be one way to reduce conflict between church members if we did this? Yet even this could be done hypocritically.

 

[DeaconDean]

Paul also wrote that women were to keep silent in church for it is not permitte for them to speak.

Is this practiced now?

Because its not, does that disqualify us all from being a Fundamentalist?

Paul also observed the rules regarding slaves. You don't believe me, read Philemon.

If we're "Fundamentalists", is it alright to own slaves now?

Context and the historical background should always observed when reading the scriptures.

At the time of Christ and Paul, a woman's vote didn't count as much as a slaves. (1.5 to 1)

If you are fully convinced that women should cover their heads while praying, and women shoulf keep silent in church, then I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise.

However, I personally know of some churches that if the women kept silent as Paul directed, these would be the most silent churches in the world.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Living in the Light]

Possibly we could all use a little common sense, thoughfulness, and wisdom when interpreting the Holy Scriptures.

 

[lismore]

Psalm 119

9 How can a young person stay on the path of purity?
By living according to your word.
10 I seek you with all my heart;
do not let me stray from your commands.
11 I have hidden your word in my heart
that I might not sin against you.
12 Praise be to you, LORD;
teach me your decrees.
13 With my lips I recount
all the laws that come from your mouth.
14 I rejoice in following your statutes
as one rejoices in great riches.
15 I meditate on your precepts
and consider your ways.
16 I delight in your decrees;
I will not neglect your word.

 

[apache1]

Paul also wrote that women were to keep silent in church for it is not permitte for them to speak.

Is this practiced now?

Because its not, does that disqualify us all from being a Fundamentalist?

Paul also observed the rules regarding slaves. You don't believe me, read Philemon.

If we're "Fundamentalists", is it alright to own slaves now?

Context and the historical background should always observed when reading the scriptures.

At the time of Christ and Paul, a woman's vote didn't count as much as a slaves. (1.5 to 1)

If you are fully convinced that women should cover their heads while praying, and women shoulf keep silent in church, then I'm not going to try to convince you otherwise.

However, I personally know of some churches that if the women kept silent as Paul directed, these would be the most silent churches in the world.

God Bless
To me, I much more like the Gospels and their message of salvation and practical living than the Pauline epistles and Philemon or Deuteronomy. "For God So loved the World" and "Ask and it shall be given you, seek and ye shall find" beats head covering in church.

 

[Albion]

IMO it's time to review the fundamentals that constitutedfundamentalism in the first place. The whole idea is to demand unity, regardless of denomination, on the BASICS, the ESSENTIALS, i.e."Fundamentals."

Whether or not women should cover their heads is for sure not a fundamental!

IOW, it makes no sense to focus on a movement called "fundamental-ism" and wind up arguing over the non-essentials.

 

[SoulBap6]

fundamentals the Basic's of Christianity, Many people don't get the basic's and how can they understand anything else. When I went to school reading writing, math we had to get the fundamentals or basic's to move on to a higher understanding. Are we hypocrites if we take the scriptures, and don't use a little common sense, or interpret it better, we find that it seems foolish.

The women in Jesus day covered there heads. and in many Middle eastern countries the women do cover their heads. That is the custom, we live in the United States and it is not the custom, or tradition. The Bible tells us about what Apostle Paul in the 1st century was talking about, the guide lines are written, God looks on the heart not on the Appearance, does he care what you wear, I don't think so, Worship in him in spirit and truth yes.

When I read about the rules that the Pharisees made he called them hypocrites, and blind fools. Jesus Condemned them there is seven woes out of the Matthew 23.

1. Matthew 23:13 Not letting others enter into the Kingdom of Heaven and
not entering yourself
2. 23:15 Converting people away from God to be like yourself
3. 23:16-22 following Manmade traditions instead of the word of God
4. 23:23,24 get involved in things insignificant and ignoring what is really important Justice, Grace, Mercy, and Faith
5. 23:25,26 Appearing Good when private world is Corrupt
6. 23:27,28 Acting spiritual to cover up sin
7. 23:29-36 Acting like you have learned from past History, present behavior
shows you have learned nothing

Jesus himself pointed this out to the Scribes and Pharisees, if we act the way that these Pharisees did, then yes we can be called hypocrites.

 

[a pilgrim]

The women in Jesus day covered there heads. and in many Middle eastern countries the women do cover their heads. That is the custom, we live in the United States and it is not the custom, or tradition. The Bible tells us about what Apostle Paul in the 1st century was talking about, the guide lines are written. . .

Corinth was Europe, not the Middle East.

It wasn't merely a custom or Paul wouldn't have commanded Christian women to cover.

1 Cor. 11
[4] Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
[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.
[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.

Just in case scripture is not enough, check history, it supports the widespread use of the head covering on Christian sisters.

Also, the Epistle to the Corinthians was to be read and headed by Christians in all places:

1 Cor. 1
[2] Unto the church of God which is at Corinth, to them that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all that in every place call upon the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:

To all in every place. How inclusive is that? When does that stop? This crosses cultural bounderies.

God looks on the heart not on the Appearance, does he care what you wear, I don't think so, Worship in him in spirit and truth yes.

Then you think amiss. Read the whole counsel, brother:

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;
[10] But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

1 Peter 3
[1] Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
[2] While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
[3] Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
[4] But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.

That's counsel on outward appearance. And before some liberal skeptic jumps in NO Peter was not saying don't wear apparel, but let not the attraction be based on over emphasis on outward apparel, but let it be because of a meek and quiet spirit.

 

[Albion]

Let's review the Fundamentals that made Fundamentalism what it is. They do not include every last thing that can be argued about from Scripture.

 

[desmalia]

God Bless
To me, I much more like the Gospels and their message of salvation and practical living than the Pauline epistles and Philemon or Deuteronomy. "For God So loved the World" and "Ask and it shall be given you, seek and ye shall find" beats head covering in church.

The whole Bible is equally the word of God. Personal preference has nothing to do with it. Yes, the Gospel is the central message and should never be forgotten. But all of God's word is intimately tied to the Gospel.

As far as head covering goes, well that's been discussed here at length in the past. Definitely it's not a fundamental, and therefore not something to divide over. I will say that the heart of the head covering issue is that of submission (and yes, modestly too), which is often overlooked, replaced with detailed focus on cultural traditions and how they have changed. Head covering showed a clear order of authority and submission that is largely rejected in our liberal society today. What I think is better to look at is how we as women can show that submission and modesty in our culture today as we are commanded to. In some ways covering our heads would actually be the easiest and most simplistic way to do that.

 

[VCViking]

The whole Bible is equally the word of God. Personal preference has nothing to do with it. Yes, the Gospel is the central message and should never be forgotten. But all of God's word is intimately tied to the Gospel.

As far as head covering goes, well that's been discussed here at length in the past. Definitely it's not a fundamental, and therefore not something to divide over. I will say that the heart of the head covering issue is that of submission (and yes, modestly too), which is often overlooked, replaced with detailed focus on cultural traditions and how they have changed. Head covering showed a clear order of authority and submission that is largely rejected in our liberal society today. What I think is better to look at is how we as women can show that submission and modesty in our culture today as we are commanded to. In some ways covering our heads would actually be the easiest and most simplistic way to do that.

 

[a pilgrim]

Alas, I digress. I agree head covering, modesty, etc., is not a "fundamental." I just get my hackles up when people miss the teaching of modesty, (which is for BROTHERS, as well as sisters.)

I would think a simple/modest testimony in the life of a believer would be a good "window" into a life that believes and lives the "fundamentals" of the faith.

As we look at the great (written) works of the past, it is "usually" written by people who did not live on the extravagant side of life, but the humble followers of Christ.

 

[VCViking]

...the teaching of modesty, (which is for BROTHERS, as well as sisters.)

If only this was taught and practiced more.

 

[SoulBap6]

teaching of modesty, (which is for BROTHERS, as well as sisters.)
A Pilgrim,what is it that troubles you about Modesty?

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;
[10] But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works

what is your disagreement? with the way a person dresses? Men and women?

If Jesus Christ himself showed up at Church; in His Normal dress of the time he lived, on this earth, I dare say, I don't think they would let him in the Church.

 

[a pilgrim]

teaching of modesty, (which is for BROTHERS, as well as sisters.)
A Pilgrim,what is it that troubles you about Modesty?

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;
[10] But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works

what is your disagreement? with the way a person dresses? Men and women?

I don't have a disagreement. . . with the bible, just erroneous assertions like:

God looks on the heart not on the Appearance, does he care what you wear, I don't think so, Worship in him in spirit and truth yes.

It really doesn't matter what you and I "think," but, "What saith the Lord?"

If Jesus Christ himself showed up at Church; in His Normal dress of the time he lived, on this earth, I dare say, I don't think they would let him in the Church.

This is not relavent, at least to me.