Is there a HAIR difference?

One of many....

 

He INSPIRED the Bible, he did not DICTATE it. God inspired it, Paul dictated it. It's important for us to find out what God is telling us via the words Paul wrote. Hence, the need for discernment.

Let's not forget, we worship God, not the Bible. The two are not interchangeable. I don't think it is disrespectful to God for us to remember that. </font>[/QUOTE]So what is YOUR source of extra-biblical reference YOU use to determine what is of God and what is dictated?

The Holy Ghost inspired/dictated the Word of God.

Methinks thou havest thy problems discerning the things of the Spirit as indicated by YOUR problem calling the Apostle Paul a dictator. </font>[/QUOTE]Nice twist on words, there. I think you know what he meant when he said Paul dictated it.
Or are you calling the Holy Ghost a dictator now?

 

e. The many paintings on the walls of the catacombs reveal that the uniform
dress of women in worship was to cover the head and hair (not the face) with some type of cloth.


2. Irenaeus (120-202 a.d)
a. Irenaeus translates 1 Corinthians 11:10 as follows: "A woman ought to
have a veil [kalumma] upon her head, because of the angels."5
b. This is significant in that Irenaeus apparently understood the "power" on
a woman's head in 1 Corinthians 11:10 to be a veil of some kind and not a
woman's hair.


4. Clement of Alexandria (153-217 a.d.)

a. Clement also understands the words in 1 Corinthians 11:5 to refer to a
veil of fabric and not to a woman's hair.

b. "And she will never fall, who puts before her eyes modesty, and her
shawl; nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face.
For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray
veiled" [1 Corinthians 11:5 GLP].8


10. John Calvin (1509-1564)

a. The great theologian of the Reformation preached three sermons from 1
Corinthians 11:2-16 from which the following excerpts are taken. "So if
women are thus permitted to have their heads uncovered and to show their
hair, they will eventually be allowed to expose their entire breasts, and
they will come to make their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show; they
will become so brazen that modesty and shame will be no more; in short they will forget the duty of nature. . . . So, when it is permissible for the
women to uncover their heads, one will say, 'Well, what harm in uncovering
the stomach also?' And then after that one will plead [for] something else:
'Now if the women go bareheaded, why not also [bare] this and [bare] that?' Then the men, for their part, will break loose too. In short, there will be no decency left, unless people contain themselves and respect what is proper and fitting, so as not to go headlong overboard."17

b. "When he says 'her hair is for a covering [1 Corinthians 11:15 GLP],' he
does not mean that as long as a woman has hair, that should be enough for
her. He rather teaches that our Lord is giving a directive that He desires
to have observed and maintained. If a woman has long hair, this is
equivalent to saying to her, 'Use your head covering, use your hat, use your
hood; do not expose yourself in that way!"18



her. He rather teaches that our Lord is giving a directive or b




13. Matthew Henry (in his Commentary on the Whole Bible, published in 1706)

a. "The woman, on the other hand, who prays or prophesies with her head
uncovered dishonoureth her head [1 Corinthians 11:5-6 GLP], namely, the man, v.3. She appears in the dress of her superior, and throws off the token of her subjection. She might, with equal decency, cut her hair short, or cut it
close, which was the custom of the man in that age. This would be in a
manner to declare that she was desirous of changing sexes, a manifest
affectation of that superiority which God had conferred on the other sex."22

b. "She ought to have power on her head, because of the angels [1
Corinthians 11:10]. Power, that is, a veil, the token, not of her having the
power or superiority, but being under the power of her husband, subjected to
him, and inferior to the other sex."23

c. "It was the common usage of the churches for women to appear in public
assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was manifestly decent
that they should do so. Those must be very contentious indeed who would
quarrel with this, or lay it aside" [1 Corinthians 11:16].24



16. Robert Lewis Dabney (1820-1898)

a. "Two principles, then, are laid down: first, verse 4, that the man should
preach (or pray) with head uncovered, because he then stands forth a God's
herald and representative; and to assume at that time the emblem of
subordination, a covered head, is a dishonor to the office and God it
represents; secondly, verses 5,13, that, on the contrary, for a woman to
appear or to perform any public religious function in the Christian
assembly, unveiled, is a glaring impropriety. . . . The woman, then, has a
right to the privileges of public worship and sacraments; she may join
audibly in the praises and prayers of the public assembly, where the usages
of the body encourage responsive prayer; but she must always do this veiled
or covered."30


20. G. G. Findlay (no specific date cited for his work on 1 Corinthians in The Expositor's Greek New Testament, but it was written in the late 19th century)

a. "For a woman to discard the veil means to cast off masculine authority,
which is a fixed part of the Divine order, like man's subordination to
Christ (3 f.)."37

b. In 1 Corinthians 11:4-5 "the high doctrine just asserted applied to the
matter of feminine attire. Since man is man has no head but Christ, before
whom they worship in common, while woman has man to own for her head, he must not and she must be veiled. The regulation is not limited to those of
either sex who 'pray or prophesy'; but such activity called attention to the
apparel, and doubtless it was amongst the more demonstrative women that the impropriety occurred; in the excitement of public speaking the shawl might unconsciously be thrown back."38

c. "And this 'glory' [that is the glory of the woman's long hair in 1
Corinthians 11:15 GLP] is grounded upon her humility: 'because her hair to
serve as a hood (anti perilolaiou) has been given her not as a substitute
for [the GLP] head-dress (this would be to stultify Paul's contention), but
in the nature of a covering, thus to match the veil."39


21. A. T. Robertson (His Word Pictures in the New Testament was published in 1931)

a. In commenting on 1 Corinthians 11:4 ("having his head covered"), he
points out, "Literally, having a veil (kalumma understood) down from the
head."40

b. Paul declares in 1 Corinthians 11:6, "Let her be veiled. . . . Let her
cover up herself with the veil (down, kata, the Greek says, the veil hanging
down from the head)."41

c. ". . . . it is the sign of authority of the man over the woman. The veil
on the woman's head is the symbol of the authority that the man with the
uncovered head has over her [1 Corinthians 11:10]."42





25. J. Vernon McGee (1904-1990)
a. "Apparently some of the women in the church at Corinth were saying, 'All things are lawful for me, therefore, I won't cover my head.' Paul says this should not be done because the veil is a mark of subjection."49




27. Charles Caldwell Ryrie (The Role of Women in the Church was published in 1958)

a. "If angels desire to look into things pertaining to salvation, then they
should see as they look at veiled women in the assembly of Christians the
voluntary submission of a woman to her head. Thus the early church (for this was the custom of the churches generally) while offering religious equality in spiritual privilege insisted on showing in public worship the principle of subordination of women by their being veiled."51


32. Noel Weeks (The Sufficiency of Scripture was published in 1988)

a. "There is something ludicrous about being the head or authority while one
at the same time hides one's physical head. It follows therefore that
praying and prophesying are authoritative functions which call for an
unveiled head, unshrouded head. Hence any woman engaging in those activities must also be bare-headed. Consequently Paul turns to what such unveiling must mean for the woman. In contrast to the man, when she prays or prophesies, the unveiling of her head must be dishonorable to her. What does it mean for a woman to be bare-headed? As Paul says, it is equivalent to being shaved or having her hair shorn off. That of course is dishonouring
for a woman. Hence she should not uncover her head."58


35. George E. Meisinger (no date given for The Hat: God's Visual of Headship in Creation )

a. "The term 'uncovered' [in 1 Cor. 11:5 GLP] consistently refers to taking
off some item of clothing, the term 'covered,' [in 1 Cor. 11:6 GLP] on the
other hand, consistently is used of putting on an article of clothing.
Either way, when one's head was in view, it was normally used in connection with the ancient veil being a sign of feminine subordination."61

b. "This verse [1 Cor. 11:6 GLP] shows that the apostle is not talking about
the woman growing hair as opposed to putting on an actual head covering of
some sort. The verse says that she is without a cover already. Now, if her
cover is her hair, it is nonsense to tell her to take off what is already
off. If her cover is a hat or veil, however, then it makes sense to tell her
to take of her hair, too!"62


37. R.C. Sproul (this is added to the article by F.Chin)

The problem in Corinth, however, was not that men were prophesying in
the public assemblies with their heads covered, but that women were
appearing in public assemblies with their heads uncovered. One's
dress reflects the principles that one lives by, and that even our
exterior must conform to the order that God has established,
especially in matters pertaining to public worship.

The apostle makes the point that the veil, as a symbol of authority,
is inconsistent with the position of the man, but it is required for
women, who are subordinate to men. If they appear in the public
assemblies with their heads uncovered, then they are acting in such a
way that challenges the authority of men because they have removed
the symbol that they are under masculine authority.

It is obvious from this comparison between men having their heads
uncovered and women having their heads covered, that the covering is
not hair. For if the covering in this context were hair, verse 6
would make no sense in the context of this passage.

Though the many authors cited above differ on various issues associated with headcoverings, one important issue upon which they are all agreed is that Paul was not commanding the women in Corinth either to let their hair grow long so as to use their long hair as a headcovering in worship, or to neatly place their hair upon their heads as a headcovering in worship, but rather to place upon their heads a fabric headcovering when they worship before the Lord. This conclusion is reached by scholars from various denominational backgrounds, from different geographical locations, and from many periods of church history. The wearing of fabric head coverings in worship was universally the practice of Christian women until the twentieth century. What happened? Did we suddenly find some biblical truth to which the saints for thousands of years were blind? Or were our biblical views of women gradually eroded by the modern feminist movement that has infiltrated the Church of Jesus Christ which is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15)?


The complete article may be viewed at: http://users.bigpond.net.au/joeflorence/hc.htm



I guess all of these men were unskilled in proper hermeneutics

[ June 14, 2003, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: Headcoveredlady ]

 

Here is a good link that explains the purpose of the headship veiling:http://users.bigpond.net.au/joeflorence/heads.html

"THE TWO COVERINGS (v.5-6;15)
The best commentators see two coverings - one which is put on the head over the hair, and the other being the hair itself. The woman’s long hair is her personal glory. But when the saints meet for some purpose, she then places a covering on her head, thus not only veiling man’s glory, which she represents, but also her own personal glory."

"For this cause ought the woman have power (authority) on her head BECAUSE OF THE ANGELS." v.10. This is deeply significant for it reminds us that the angels of God are interested spectators of what goes on in the assembly. None know divine order and headship better than the angels. How they must watch in amazement, beholding the silent ministry of veiled head and the loving obedience of a devoted heart."



****"There is a passage in the New Testament which has been ignored, neglected and regarded as not worthy of attention, partly because of fear of the controversy that it might provoke and partly because this passage is not considered to be of any relevance today. Women may object to the passage on the ground that it implies women's subjugation and inferiority to men. Some elders and other leaders would rather avoid this passage or treat it as non-existent than discuss it frankly. Others have their private reservations on the validity of this passage. Yet this passage is an integral part of Scripture, written by Paul through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit for a purpose which has great significance in gatherings of God's people."*****


"This is a personal matter between the sisters of the assembly and the Lord. If they are convicted of the necessity to cover their heads, let them do so by all means. If not convinced, let their heads be uncovered!

Here we see the danger of selecting Scripture to suit our theology, instead of letting Scripture guide us. This wilful choosing of Scripture passages, picking out what one believes should be followed and rejecting what one thinks to be wrong (!), is reminiscent of two errors of the past. Marcion in the 2nd Century AD dissected Scripture according to his own liking, keeping only Luke's writings and some of Paul's epistles, discarding everything else! The Holy Scripture then comes under one's own personal judgment which is put above Scripture itself! One becomes God's judge!"

Taken from:
http://sunflower.singnet.com.sg/~syeec/literature/headcover.html

"As we study the issue of head coverings the modern Christian's first response might be that it's archaic, or "of the first century." However, it's in the Scriptures and is taught to those true believers of the common faith of our Lord Jesus Christ."


Fact #1 It is in the Holy Scriptures, whether it was for the first century or not, it is there and must be addressed.

Fact #2 If we single this topic out with the acceptation of it being only for the primitive Church, does that give us the license to do that with other genre of Scriptures?

Fact #3 Seeing it's the work of the Adversary to rob (Matt. 13:19; John 10:10) and deceive (Matt. 24:24; Rev 20:3,8) is it not logical that he attempts to deceive the gullible in this topic also?

Why do brides wear a wedding veil? Is it not a vestigial remnant from an earlier practice? From where does the nurse’s cap come? And, of course, the nun’s black veil? Charles Finney said of any devout Christian practice, "You will appear eccentric. Your obedience will challenge others."

In more recent history, there appears the Salvation Army bonnet in the 1700s and coverings amongst the early Methodists. Susanna Wesley wore one. Currently, the wife of Richard Wurmbrand (founder of The Voice of the Martyrs) wears one, as do many others.

Charles Caldwell Ryrie (The Role of Women in the Church was published in 1958)

"If angels desire to look into things pertaining to salvation, then they should see as they look at veiled women in the assembly of Christians the voluntary submission of a woman to her head. Thus the early church (for this was the custom of the churches generally) while offering religious equality in spiritual privilege insisted on showing in public worship the principle of subordination of women by their being veiled


The above taken from:

http://www.kingshouse.org/headcovering.htm

"How are we to apply this rule to ourselves as Christians in the twenty-first century? The whole passage has been treated with some uneasiness in recent times. Since about 1960, not only have hats and scarves gone out of fashion for women in Western nations, but it has become "politically incorrect" to even suggest that women ought to submit to male authority. The very idea that women should be required to wear headcoverings as a sign of their subordination is almost intolerable in the modern context. The interpretation of the passage which gets rid of headcoverings by saying that Paul is only requiring long hair for the women is no solution, because this merely makes the long hair into the symbol of submission, which is no more acceptable to the unisex and egalitarian spirit of the age than the headcoverings were. Do any of those preachers who explain away the passage with this interpretation actually have any intention of urging the women to keep their hair long? Of course not. In these "bible-believing" churches one finds that fully half the women have hair trimmed quite short, even above the collars of their mannish suit-jackets. There is no attempt to preach or honor this passage in any way. The only honest method of dealing with the passage under these circumstances has been to dismiss it as culturally conditioned. In the "old days" women dressed in particular ways that may have been significant at the time, it is said, but the times and fashions have changed, so that headcoverings or bare heads no longer signify anything today. Thus the passage is said to be irrelevent. But this dismissal of the passage will not do, for at least four reasons."


#####3. It is not safe to set aside any portion of Scripture, especially of the New Testament, without compelling reasons. If we can dismiss this portion of Scripture so lightly, we can dismiss anything in Scripture which disagrees with the fashions (both sartorial and moral) of our times. A passage which on its face offers what may even be called moral reasons for this garment is being dismissed as culturally relative and now obsolete. This is a very dangerous hermeneutical precedent, and I cannot believe that the avoidance of unstylish headcoverings for the ladies is worth the trouble we will get from compromised principles of interpretation.#######


The above taken from:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/headcoverings.html

[ June 14, 2003, 01:10 AM: Message edited by: Headcoveredlady ]

 

HCL, none of that very long and boring discourse did anything to show that headcoverings weren't cultural. Or at least none that I read. If you really believe that headcoverings are required, then you should wear them. But if someone else doesn't, well then according to Paul it is perfectly alright.

Don't you think if this were really important for all Christians regardless of culture, Paul would have written about it to more then just the Corinthians?

 

JonathanDT

What other one time statements in the Word of God do you believe is not important. Does God's Word have to state someting more than one time for it to be what we as God's People follow or is impoetant?

It is all God's Word and we better take care how we handle it and observe it. As I study church history, I have come to realize that, we today have become so wise in our own eyes that we would not know the truth if it hit us in the face. We feel we are smarter and wiser than those of the first 1600 years of the church. But my friends we have become as 2 Timothy says apostate. Verse 7 tells us, "ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of truth." Yes, that is us today...

Richard

 

Jim, the Catholics also had this same "we the trained" know better than you "untrained" common folks. Yet, it was the common folks from AD 300 on that insured that you and I have the doctrine of salvation, the doctrine of baptism, and many more of the true teachings of God's Word. The Holy Spirit does not need our BS Degrees, Master Degrees, or Doctorial Degrees to put forth the truth of God's Word.

Richard

 

Bible Student,

There is a point where the Catholics have the right idea. I am not denying the right, and indeed, the duty, for all Christians to study God's word and to know what it is saying. Nor am I saying that understanding is left only to the degreed.

So far as saving for posterity the great doctrines of redemption, baptism at el, was it not the religious leaders who did this? It seems to me Luther was a minister, as was Calvin and other reformers. This is the commandment to leaders, to lead the way.

Then there are rules of order when it comes to understanding scripture. If these rules are ignored, then we end up in cultic dilemma. Time and time again we have witnessed this in history. What is the adage, If we ignore history we are destined to repeat it.

A doctrine is never established on one verse of scripture, but on the overall witness of the word. Scripture interprets scripture, and not one verse in isolation.

We do not have the trinity in one verse of scripture, but a reading of the whole. This collection gives us the triune understanding of God.

Culture is extremely important to understanding what scripture is saying. If we ignore the essentials of who is speaking to whom, why they are speaking and their cultural beliefs of the time, then we fail to understand the full import of scripture.

Further, what I said was that it is unlikely that the 1000's of ministers, theologians and bible scholars missed the intent and teaching of this one passage of scripture over the centuries. I am singling out these people because they are the ones who pour over the scriptures daily.

On headcoverings, such as bonnets, much of it comes down through the romish churches...One must wear a bonnet to attend church...I got this in all my Anglican upbringing. Even in early baptist churches, women wore hats to church. Part of this also stems from the Victorian era, and prior, when all women wore bonnets everywhere..it was a cultural thing, and not limited to the religious community. It in no way signified that one was a Christian. With changing culture, the bonnets went out the window.

To-day, this odd way of dressing is a detractor to Christian witness and not an attractor. The world looks unkindly upon this and offer disparaging remarks. Does this not bring discredit upon one's witness rather than invite the outside world to the gospel? Paul also talks, in the same passage, about not wearing the veil or covering if it foes not serve the purpose.

Then I ask, Why is it only women who are promulgating this concept? If it were so, the preachers could have a hayday with another piece of ammunition in their cadre to hold over the people each week.

On the Salvation army wearing bonnets, the founder came out of the Anglican/Methodist camp and it was fashioned more upon the military regimin than the church order. Booth was a military man......hence Army. The bonnet was their badge, as it were.

This headcovering thing can also be a badge of a false piety. See how religious I am and you are not? It is like saying, I pray and fast more than do you. When, in fact, we ought to pray in secret, in our closet, with God, and not on display.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Not important for us today...1 Corinthians 16:19, Titus 3:13, Philemon 23-24, ect. Seriously though, EVERYTHING is important or it wouldn't be in the Bible. You put words in my mouth. There are more ways than one something can be important.

Nope. But it's just one more piece of the puzzle that shows this particular passage in the Bible is not a hard rule for all people but a cultural specific rule for that time and place. How many times was something only mentioned once by Paul? Not many that I can think of. Maybe some things in Timothy. I hold dear the part about not letting you old people look down on me.

True true. We can learn something from EVERY part of the Bible, even the verses I mentioned. However to blindly take every rule in the Bible as hard and fast for all time, well that is simply foolish. When was the last time you threw a women out of the congregation for wearing pearls or gold, or wearing an expensive dress? Do YOU always pray with hands lifted up? Did you cut off the last body part that made you sin? If we're going to be legalistic, lets at least be consistent about it, right?

Wiser? No, certainly not. More knowledgeable? I think so. It's only natural since we have both the insight those forefathers have written down for 2000 years AND much more archeological evidence then they ever did. But this is OT, so I'll stop.

`JD

 

I guess what I am trying to do is say let's not get to the point where all we need is Jesus. That is the trap I see people falling into today.

Too many Bible issues are being tossed out, of that which we do not want to believe and we say it is cultural, law, just for the church it was written for, etc. God did not give his people His Word for us to find ways to discredit it. And before I get attacked as not believing that there are somethings cultural, law, and written to a certain church, I do believe there are truths that we must apply to the church today. At the least it gives us a look at what God thinks about certain issues.

God does not change His mind, nor does His holiness change just because we are in the 21st Century. I believe there is a great weakness in the churches as a result of an OT, yes Jewish problem, "everyone is doing that which is right in his own eyes." Which is evident here on the BB.

Richard

 

I have found that for me personally the wearing of the veil has opened up doors to share Christ as never before.

The absolute WORST TREATMENT I have received regarding this issue has been from those who call themselves Christians.

The unsaved approach me all the time. When I had a bad testimony I was just like the world. I wore their clothing and had head uncovered.

Never had anybody approach me about what I believed when I wore the clothing of the world and went about with head uncovered.

Actually there are men that teach this.

Fasting is to be done in secret and praying in your closet. But, the headcovering must be worn on top of the head. The angels need to see it. That is what the Word of God says in 1 Cor 11:10. I take it literally that the sign must be there for the angels.

[ June 14, 2003, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: Headcoveredlady ]

 

I spoke at length with two of my pastor's about this subject and they agree with my husband (and me) on this subject. A woman's HAIR is covering enough.

Also, the long (very plain) dresses and dark socks to cover skin stand out to me like a sore thumb. I agree with Jim that this can be a detriment to our testimony. I, for one, don't want the world to think that we are, as Christian's, a sad and legalistic bunch.

Diane

 

Sorry, I will be working on that.

 

I don't think it matters one way or another.

 

In the 1800's, there were great debates about how bushy a preacher's beard could be. When I started out in ministry, a beard was not a desireable thing; I was not accepted at all churches whilst sporting a beard. How customs change in a few short years.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Yes, it is sad how customs change. But, it is so freeing to follow the Lord and His unchanging Word.

 

I don't recall saying it was sad that customs change, but the fact that they change all the time. I am glad for change. I can't see me walking about with a long flowing gown on and sandals, but they too were the custom of the day.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Here is another one of those verses that I usually find myself alone on, but I must speak my opinion, much like the rest of you do…..

The Bible says, “Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ. 2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you. 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. 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. 7 For 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. 8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.”

These scriptures aren’t speaking of literal hair…. I’m sure that some of you are ready to quit reading at this point, but I will speak on…. So….. Much like Jesus used parables to explain an important illustration, so Paul uses hair here, in these verses, for much the same purpose… They’re used to illustrate a very important point….

God is the head of the man (In other words, He’s the man’s covering), so if a man prays, and he doesn’t have his head covered, which is to say that he isn’t under God’s authority, he dishonors his head…… The same as with a man…. Man is the head of the woman (he is the woman’s covering)… So, if the woman prays and she isn’t under subjection (or her head isn’t covered) unto her husband, as she would be unto God, she dishonors her head…

The Woman is the glory of the man (as the angels in heaven are under authority unto God, so should the woman be under the authority of the man, or under subjection unto he own husband….

So you see, hair is an outward appearance of a much deeper meaning… If a woman chooses to show the world that she is under subjection (literally, by letting her hair grow to a certain, long length), I don’t see anything wrong with this, although, you will get in a debate of how long is long….

These verses are hard to swallow for those of us with no backbone, those of us that don’t lead and guide, and love their wives, and in return are respected and revered…. Also, for those women that would lead about their husband and have spiritual authority over them… Not remembering that the man was first made, and then the woman, and the man wasn't deceived, but the woman, being the weaker vessel, was deceived…. …………Pause, not my words…. It’s a shame unto them, just as God is saying…..

Personally, and without showing any disrespect unto God, what would it be worth to you, if your God couldn’t hear your prayers because you have long hair, or short hair… Is your God that weak? Not my God! Does God explain just how many inches you should let your hair grow? Folks, we’re not under the law, but under grace….. These verses, as some of the other scriptures, shouldn’t be taken literally….

Pray unto God for understanding these scriptures…. Don’t just look at the outside of a much deeper explanation inside…

Amen!

 

I told my husband all about this discussion and he said that if you want to call us legalists because we desire to follow the Word of God that is fine.

He also said that you are a legalist too. Every time you stop at a stop sign you are following the laws of Canada.

Anyway, I am free to follow the Word of God. I enjoy not following the dictates of man and the changing whims of fashion of this ungodly culture that sets it mind and heart on things below.