|
Post by benshelpmeet on Aug 16, 2004 22:02:22 GMT -5
Dear Friends,
What is a headcovering baptist ? Maybe PreacherBen would like to expound on this. There are not too many of us out there but the numbers are growing!
Eagerly awaiting your response PreacherBen!!!
Blessings! ~ Darlene ~ Acts 6:4 kjv
|
|
|
Post by Brother Ben on Aug 17, 2004 13:37:27 GMT -5
As I approached this question it is apparent that there are a multitude of definitions to this question. Just as there are all kinds of Baptists out there, then naturally there are going to be all kinds of baptists who cover. However, the path that my family and I have been on for several years now has been one of refining and fine tuning.
Early in our covering experinece we were already very conservative in the areas of dress, entertainment (music, t.v./videos,) associations (evil communications corrupt good manners,) and our theology. We fell in among the Charity movement for four years until we realized that was a dead end if you had "real" convictions about doctrinal and practical issues. During this time we were anywhere from plain to very plain. I had a fascination with the Mennonite and Amish people. Four years gave me enough time to know that this was not a good direction for me, my family, my friends, or affiliations. We eventually came out with a strong word or warning to those in, associating with, or considering the Charity and anabaptist (plain people) movements. Jesus said, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:32 Because these groups have a very liberal stand on the preservation of the scriptures (they use corrupt bible versions) and they tamper with doctrine of salvation, they depart from truth thus departing from light and liberty. In other words, bondage. When we were away for a year we saw that they were binding us with cords of error. But, like Samson of old, we broke those cords, and trust me! we won't be going to them for a hair cut!!!
Realizing that God in His sovereignty and love lead us into the Christian life through a doctrinal path that was neither Calvinist or Arminian and fundamental in doctrinal and practice, we solidified our conviction. We were Baptists. We came home.
Looking at the compromise, disregard for the preserved word of God, vanity, immodesty, ecumenicalism, neo-evangelicalism, contemporary Christian music, (among supposed bible-believing Christians) and other troubling trends, we decided that the Head Covering Baptist is to be distinct in their deportment.
One may be a Baptist and cover and disagree with what I am about to say, but they are either untaught, or a disobedient Christian.
1. The bible is the pure preserved word of God for the English speaking people today. It has been kept for us in its purity in the Authorized Version of 1611, better known as the King James Version. This is based on a thorough examination of manuscript evidences and not personal preferences. 2. Salvation is through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and He will work in the life of a real believer. If there is never any fruit, then there never was true conversion to Christ. 3. Sanctification IS the will of God. To continue in questionable fashions, practices, behaviours, and associations, is disobedience and grevious to the Holy Spirit of God. 4. The covering is an outward testimony of inward submission to God and the husband of the married Christian lady. 5. No, those who call themselves Covering Baptist are not perfect, but an attitude of submission to God and His ways is a sure sign that one is under His divine covering.
Some who covers may disagree on this point, but if one is going to flirt with compromise, or be a bad testimony of the work of grace in the life of a believer, they might want to wait till they grow in their Christian walk before they cover. I was told of a woman who covered and smoked, with her covering on. It would be better to leave the covering off till maturity gave one the ability to live up to the testimony the world associates with the covering. Sure, there are Mennonites who smoke, cuss, and more, but that is NO reason to justify living the covered or plain life while not dealing with questionable areas.
This is what a covering baptist is to me and my family. In the words of that great man of the bible, Joshua said, "And if it seem evil unto you to serve the LORD, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that [were] on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD." Josh. 24:15
I may come back at a later time and revise and update my feelings on this issue, but for now, this is our heartbeat about the covering baptist.
Under the cover and care of Jesus, Bro. Ben
|
|
|
Post by benshelpmeet on Aug 17, 2004 16:48:53 GMT -5
Dear Bro Ben,
AMEN BRO BEN!!! I wholeheartedly agree alot of people out there are being swayed by friends and web sites to start covering and they do not understand that the covering is a symbol of, first and foremost submission to God and His principles ( being under Gods athority, and pleasing to God in word and deed ,even affiliations ) not just being submissive to there husbands, but honoring the Lord with there life. Covered ladies are not perfect, but they should want there life to be free from compromise with the world and its practices. When the world sees a covered lady they suppose there looking at an example of what a christian lady should be. The covering carries with it a strong testimony for the Lord. A servant of the Lord! ~ Darlene ~ Acts 6:4 KJV
|
|
|
Post by valientfortruth on Aug 17, 2004 17:27:43 GMT -5
AMEN! That was a very thorough explination PreacherBen. I agree.
May the Lord bless....... Benjamin
|
|
|
Post by mommy2bp on Aug 17, 2004 22:37:57 GMT -5
A couple of questions:
1. Why KJV only? I really enjoy reading the KJV, but I don't understand how other translations can be corrupt. I have an NIV and I have found no problem with it.
2. What is ecumenicalism and neo-evangelicalism?
3. What is wrong with contemporary christian music?
Thank you!
Susie
|
|
|
Post by Brother Ben on Aug 17, 2004 22:55:59 GMT -5
Sister Susie, Thank you for your interest. Two of these need a more lengthy reply. I am going to start a new area of discussion to cover "fundament" issues. In regards to ecumenicalism, this is the practice of melting all lines of diferentiation between groups for the sake of unity. this is a violation many times regarding important doctrinal issues. Some even open the door for groups that teach down right heresy for the sake of unity and love. Unity and love are wonderful, but never when heresy is welcomed or embraced. Neoevangelicalism is a discription of the the state of the modern church in America. Cattle drive evangelism, no repentance, worldly entertainment to sway the masses, watered down doctrines, etc. These are almost twin sisters of biblical trouble. In this troubled hour even once fundamentally strong chruches have been influenced by these dangerous trends. As a result many good families have exited in search of a "pure body" of Christian believers. Pure, not perfect, but pure in doctrines and practice. Many have thrown practice out the door as "legalism." This is an attack on biblical holiness. I hope this has been discriptive. If I can further clarify anything I just said, please feel free to ask. I'll post on the KJV and CCM soon. Lord bless you, Bro. Ben The Dangers of Ecumenicalism www.jesus-is-savior.com/False%20Doctrines/dangers_of_ecumenicalism.htmThe Fruit of Neo-Evangelicalism www.wayoflife.org/fbns/fundamen2.htm
|
|
|
Post by hszoo on Aug 18, 2004 17:37:38 GMT -5
I humbly submit this: I was not fully convinced of head covering until I'd read the following...
1 Cor 11:16 16 But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God. NASU
1 Cor 11:15-16 16 If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice-nor do the churches of God. NIV
1 Cor 11:15-16 16 But if anyone wants to argue about this, all I can say is that we have no other custom than this, and all the churches of God feel the same way about it.
NLT
1 Cor 11:16 16 But if anyone wants to argue about this, all I can say is that we never teach anything else than this-that a woman should wear a covering when prophesying or praying publicly in the church, and all the churches feel the same way about it. TLB
1 Cor 11:16 16 If any one is disposed to be contentious, we recognize no other practice, nor do the churches of God. RSV === Up until I'd read those, all I had read was the KJV which says: 1 Cor 11:16
16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. KJV
This had lead me to believe that what most churches teach is right, since they nearly all use KJV around here. What they taught was that Paul, in essence, says headcovering is a non-issue and that neither he nor any other churches have this custom.
I am no Greek scholar and depend on what's taught to be the truth. I do have software now that helps me find out original meanings, and that has certainly been a huge blessing. But anyone who went solely on what the KJV said in this regard, and who had no further education in Greek, would certainly not believe a separate veiling was necessary; only the hair is the covering and Paul and the churches didn't have the women using veils at all.
Here are other verses and another translation along the same topic lines:
1 Cor 11:13-16
13 What do you yourselves really think about this? Is it right for a woman to pray in public without covering her head? 14 Doesn't even instinct itself teach us that women's heads should be covered? For women are proud of their long hair, while a man with long hair tends to be ashamed. TLB
I love my KJV and I make no bones about that. I love the power of the language that's used and the simplicity of the text. I believe the men who translated and gave us the KJV were scholarly and studious and loved the Lord. On the other hand, I don't believe that it's the one and only translation that God has had His hand on or that those are the only men in thousands of years the Holy Spirit indwelt and used to translate. I would have to wonder what happened prior to 1611? Was anyone saved? How, if the KJV didn't exist yet? And I'd have to wonder if since then, those who used other versions to come to a saving knowledge of the Lord are really not saved because of the non-Christian Bibles they used?
I think there are weak and poor translations and even those that skew the word of God to an extent that it's nothing like the original. (The feminist bible comes to mind right away. There are others.) And I find some fault with the RSV, although on the issue of covering they did very well. But by and large, the word of God is preserved through His power and grace, by the working of the Holy Spirit in men so inclined to take on such a task, and by the faithful rendering from Greek/Hebrew into English by those men.
Had it not been for the power of God, we'd have no text at all! He had preserved His Own Word down through the centuries and, in my heart, gets all the glory and credit for that. Not men. Not even godly men.
Because I do not want to be viewed as contentious or arrogant, I will leave the group if so asked. And, will do so with grace and praying God's greatest blessings on all. God is able to view my heart and is more than able to guide me whether I am part of an internet discussion group or not. Email me privately, if you want, and I will simply and quietly bow out.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Ben on Aug 18, 2004 18:12:42 GMT -5
Sister Ann, First of all let me say, that the KJV alone is not the issue, it is whether God was telling the truth when He said, "The words of the LORD [are] pure words: [as] silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Psalm 12:6,7 God has always had His pure word available to man in all ages. Prior to the KJV there were versions of the pure word available because we have God's word on it. Agian, I would have to say, if God promised to preserve His word pure and I asked you to hand me a copy of it, which edition would you hand me? I'm not being brash, sister, just honest with the conviction every bible believer says they believe, that the word of God is inerrent. Many do not believe it is pure and preserved that is the problem. Instead of taking God at His word, as mentioned in the above said verse, they trust the scholarship of "Dr. So-and so, and Professor I-see!" If I am guilty of anything, it is guilty of trusting that God has preserved His word like He said, and if you ask me to hand you a copy, I am going to hand you a KJV. Is there enough truth in the other version to teach truth or lead a soul to Christ? Certainly! Some of my favorite Bible teachers don't share my conviction on the KJV. I do not think they are wicked or unsaved, just unlearned or in some cases overlearned, in other words they put their trust in man. God said, "[It is] better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man." Psalm 118:8
Don't get your feathers wrinkled sister, give me the benefit of the doubt. I think, from what we have witnessed you are a sincere sister with a true heart for God and a desire to follow Him and dig into His word, Amen!!! And may there be many like you.
My only problem with the modern translations that come from the Wescott and Hort translation work is that they come from proven corrupt manuscripts. No one has done an honest translation from the Textus Receptus since 1611 (that was any good.) There has been revisions of the 1611 format in the area of changing some of the Old English type (font) and spelling, but the text is the same. The NKJV is a hybrid between the TR and the corrupt Wescott and Hort manuscripts, that is why I don't like the NKJV, otherwise I might use a newer translation.
Does that make sense? Regardless, I am not asking you to leave and the Mrs. and I have quite enjoyed your spirit.
The blessings of Christ to you.
Bro. Ben
|
|
|
Post by hszoo on Aug 18, 2004 18:13:45 GMT -5
Bro. Ben, thank you very much for your reasonable and sincere explanation. And mostly for extending grace to me. In all honesty, I have already fallen "in love" with this board because of the sincerity of conviction and the fearlessness of telling the truth. Something sorely lacking in most churches in this area since they are seeker sensitive for the most part. You know, "easy believism" and "greasy grace"? I know there are died-in-the-wool believers within those walls, but what comes from the pulpit is really disturbing. Or, what *doesn't* come from the pulpit! For, I'd say, 95% of my Bible study, I use the KJV. I cut my spiritual teeth on it as a new Christian and it's always the work I return to. It's my daily Bible study and it's my devotions and it's my "student text" and "answer key". I memorize from it, and I have my kids memorize from it. It's what my husband uses and when the Spirit prompts him, it's what he teaches us from. Have a wonderful evening in the Lord! Danny will be home soon and I'm heading to the kitchen.
|
|
|
Post by Brother Ben on Aug 18, 2004 18:18:17 GMT -5
"Blessed [are] the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God." Matt. 5:9
Thank you for the good spirit and having patients with an old fashioned preacher.
Bro. Ben
Now go fix them vittles! ;D
|
|