• ChristIsKing.eu has moved to ChristIsKing.cc - see the announcement for more details. If you don't know your password PM a mod on Element or via a temporary account here to confirm your username and email.

Rules for Protestant Thread

The heritage tag means we were members of RVF. You might not have been given it if your post count was really low.

The core beliefs are things we believe are essential, so much so that we won't allow posters to come and argue against them. I don't think head coverings fall in that category.

I actually like the idea, but it's rarely practiced, even in some very conservative traditional churches. It's worded like a biblical commandment, but I can see how it is cultural, not an absolute requirement. In Western societies, it was almost universal for all men and women to wear some kind of a hat whenever they were outside until somewhere around 50-70 years ago. Now wearing hats is definitely optional, and fairly rare. Personally, I never wear a hat, except to keep warm in winter. I think a lot of women are like that as well.
1) Thanks. It was removed, but that makes sense :)

2) That also makes sense. However, I would put it on the same level as female ordination, which you have included on the list. In my view, they are linked if looking at the reasons Paul gives behind head coverings.

3) It's rarely practiced because the churches have been subverted and lost the truth, like it has happened to many other things which we might agree on. I see you are unpersuaded - I only confidently changed my view on it recently, so I would encourage you to consider it further.

Regarding the common argument that it was merely a matter of culture, here are some counterpoints (copy/pasted for convenience):

  • There is no command in the New Testament where the Church is instructed to follow the practices of non-Christians. As Christians, we are not to pattern our lives after the world but after Jesus and His commands. As you can see from the description of women in the Roman Empire in the first century, the head covering teaching in 1 Corinthians 11 was not based on the Corinthian culture. Nor was it based on the Jewish culture, where both men and women covered their heads. Jewish men at that time were easily recognized by their broad brimmed hats.The woman’s headcovering in 1 Corinthians 11 is a practice that is distinctly Christian. The command for women to cover their heads and men not to cover their heads is based on creation, not culture (v.7-10).

  • Those who say that Paul was only trying to get the Corinthians in line with a social custom that does not speak to our culture today are opening a Pandora’s Box. If we say that Paul’s instructions concerning the head covering are only about a social custom, even though he does not say so, then why can we not say that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are merely first-century social customs that do not speak to our times? In fact, if we allow this kind of picking and choosing without any internal, biblical evidence as to what is and what it is not a social custom , we can tear the Bible to shreds.


    Further, those who promote this view often say they are supported by historical evidence. First, it is not historical evidence but the Bible that is to determine our beliefs and practice. But, second, the historical evidence is not on their side anyway. Some will say that Oriental women always wore a head covering, apparently not realizing that Corinth is in Greece, which is in Europe, not the Orient. Others say that only temple prostitutes in Corinth did not wear a head covering. While this may have been true about 200 years before Paul wrote, it was not true of Paul’s time. Extra biblical evidence shows that the Corinthian women of Paul’s day were influenced by Roman culture and likely did not always wear a head covering, even during religious services. The men, however, often did wear a head covering during pagan worship ceremonies. So Paul’s instructions, if they had any relationship to the prevailing culture, were counter to it. But, again, we must base our conclusions on the Bible, not extra-biblical evidence. And there is nothing in the Bible to indicate that Paul is telling the Corinthians to conform to their culture.

If anyone is interested to know/discuss more, I will start a separate thread on it. That seems more appropriate.
 
1) Thanks. It was removed, but that makes sense :)

2) That also makes sense. However, I would put it on the same level as female ordination, which you have included on the list. In my view, they are linked if looking at the reasons Paul gives behind head coverings.

3) It's rarely practiced because the churches have been subverted and lost the truth, like it has happened to many other things which we might agree on. I see you are unpersuaded - I only confidently changed my view on it recently, so I would encourage you to consider it further.

Regarding the common argument that it was merely a matter of culture, here are some counterpoints (copy/pasted for convenience):

  • There is no command in the New Testament where the Church is instructed to follow the practices of non-Christians. As Christians, we are not to pattern our lives after the world but after Jesus and His commands. As you can see from the description of women in the Roman Empire in the first century, the head covering teaching in 1 Corinthians 11 was not based on the Corinthian culture. Nor was it based on the Jewish culture, where both men and women covered their heads. Jewish men at that time were easily recognized by their broad brimmed hats.The woman’s headcovering in 1 Corinthians 11 is a practice that is distinctly Christian. The command for women to cover their heads and men not to cover their heads is based on creation, not culture (v.7-10).

  • Those who say that Paul was only trying to get the Corinthians in line with a social custom that does not speak to our culture today are opening a Pandora’s Box. If we say that Paul’s instructions concerning the head covering are only about a social custom, even though he does not say so, then why can we not say that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are merely first-century social customs that do not speak to our times? In fact, if we allow this kind of picking and choosing without any internal, biblical evidence as to what is and what it is not a social custom , we can tear the Bible to shreds.


    Further, those who promote this view often say they are supported by historical evidence. First, it is not historical evidence but the Bible that is to determine our beliefs and practice. But, second, the historical evidence is not on their side anyway. Some will say that Oriental women always wore a head covering, apparently not realizing that Corinth is in Greece, which is in Europe, not the Orient. Others say that only temple prostitutes in Corinth did not wear a head covering. While this may have been true about 200 years before Paul wrote, it was not true of Paul’s time. Extra biblical evidence shows that the Corinthian women of Paul’s day were influenced by Roman culture and likely did not always wear a head covering, even during religious services. The men, however, often did wear a head covering during pagan worship ceremonies. So Paul’s instructions, if they had any relationship to the prevailing culture, were counter to it. But, again, we must base our conclusions on the Bible, not extra-biblical evidence. And there is nothing in the Bible to indicate that Paul is telling the Corinthians to conform to their culture.

If anyone is interested to know/discuss more, I will start a separate thread on it. That seems more appropriate.
I would be interested in a separate thread. I was thinking when I made my earlier reply that this topic is parallel with the issue of female preaching. I solidly agree that women shouldn't teach men in the church, and should not be ordained as pastors, but this is actually widespread in Protestant churches. I wouldn't be surprised if a number of Protestant members here attend churches with female pastors on staff, who occasionally preach. My own church does not allow this, but I have attended churches in the past where it was done on a limited scale.

I will ask my pastor on this.

If you make a thread, can you add a poll asking if a member's present church allows women in the pulpit in any capacity? Maybe have options for preaching full sermons, vs coming up and giving a very brief teaching, possibly targeting wives in a sermon about marriage, or something like that.
 
I solidly agree that women shouldn't teach men in the church, and should not be ordained as pastors, but this is actually widespread in Protestant
I have never seen this here, thankfully. No pride flags at all as well. If anything, it is people here who whine about Protestants being too based. One pastor got arrested here for praying for a second holocaust.
 
Anytime someone says something that God inspired and the Apostles took the time to write "doesn't matter" I can't help but feel a little concerned.

I think an understanding of God's sovereignty over time does have a profound effect in your life, especially the more you live in the truth of it. You understand He has always been there "causing you to will and to work for His good pleasure." If someone does deny the concept of predestination, they are denying the plain testimony of Scripture. It doesn't get any more heretical than that.

I think it is more permissible to debate how predestination works but I would be careful even in that.
In short, the entire concept of predestination once the penny dropped with me, enabled my mind and spirit to further humble myself as to just how lowly and small I am, and how incredibly mighty and wonderful our God is. To think that before He even formed the heavens and the earth He had a plan for me! Wow.
 
Anytime someone says something that God inspired and the Apostles took the time to write "doesn't matter" I can't help but feel a little concerned.

I think an understanding of God's sovereignty over time does have a profound effect in your life, especially the more you live in the truth of it. You understand He has always been there "causing you to will and to work for His good pleasure." If someone does deny the concept of predestination, they are denying the plain testimony of Scripture. It doesn't get any more heretical than that.

I think it is more permissible to debate how predestination works but I would be careful even in that.
What Protestant denominations believe in predestination outside of Presbyterianism?
 
It is a more useful question to ask which Protestant denominations reject Presdestination. Even the most hardcore, free-will provisionalists recognize that predestination is forced onto the Christian by the Bible, the question is how should it be understood. Traditionally, the Reformed have recognized that God's work alone in eternity past is the ground for our salvation, these would be Presbyterians, Reformed, Lutherans, Reformed Baptists, etc.

Have a good Lord's Day.
 
Glad to see a dedicated Protestant section here, as well as Catholic, etc. This makes this more broadly Christian overall, I get to see what the Catholics and Orthodox are talking about, yet sandboxes us (I hope) from propagating the Prot-Cath wars.
 
Glad to see a dedicated Protestant section here, as well as Catholic, etc. This makes this more broadly Christian overall, I get to see what the Catholics and Orthodox are talking about, yet sandboxes us (I hope) from propagating the Prot-Cath wars.
Paulie Walnuts. Good to see you here. The Prot-Cat wars have been pretty much hashed out. Most of the big time Catholic apologists of 20 years ago have left for sedevacantism. What will be interesting to see is how the Protestant-Orthodox conversation develops.
 
I think they are not giving it if you were pretty new, or your post count was really low.

The core beliefs are things we believe are essential, so much so that we won't allow posters to come and argue against them. I don't think head coverings fall in that category.

I actually like the idea, but it's rarely practiced, even in some very conservative traditional churches. It's worded like a biblical commandment, but I can see how it is cultural, not an absolute requirement. In Western societies, it was almost universal for all men and women to wear some kind of a hat whenever they were outside until somewhere around 50-70 years ago. Now wearing hats is definitely optional, and fairly rare. Personally, I never wear a hat, except to keep warm in winter. I think a lot of women are like that as well.
While I can understand why allowing debate over core beliefs may be difficult to manage from a moderation-standpoint, I actually think it would be quite useful to permit this is some capacity in a dedicated thread or sub-forum. By not allowing discourse, I think it does a disservice to those wishing to develop and strengthen their ability to defend their beliefs, and do so in a professional way, especially when there aren't many avenues out there for men to do so. I'll be the first to say that arguments that I thought held ground held nothing more than a wet paper bag would once I had the opportunity to engage in friendly debates with others. And as someone that values the truth, and the ability to defend that truth, I value being challenged on all things, no matter how foundational they are.

If the mods see fit that they would rather not allow for debate, does anyone have suggestions for forums that do?
 
While I can understand why allowing debate over core beliefs may be difficult to manage from a moderation-standpoint, I actually think it would be quite useful to permit this is some capacity in a dedicated thread or sub-forum. By not allowing discourse, I think it does a disservice to those wishing to develop and strengthen their ability to defend their beliefs, and do so in a professional way, especially when there aren't many avenues out there for men to do so. I'll be the first to say that arguments that I thought held ground held nothing more than a wet paper bag would once I had the opportunity to engage in friendly debates with others. And as someone that values the truth, and the ability to defend that truth, I value being challenged on all things, no matter how foundational they are.

If the mods see fit that they would rather not allow for debate, does anyone have suggestions for forums that do?
What things from the list would you dispute? Would it be just for the sake of discussion, or is there something there you really disagree with?
 
What things from the list would you dispute? Would it be just for the sake of discussion, or is there something there you really disagree with?
Just for the sake of discussion. My concern is that if myself, or anyone else, would like to ask questions about anything from that list or beyond, that it would come off as attempting to cause disorder, even if it results in dissent.
 
Just for the sake of discussion. My concern is that if myself, or anyone else, would like to ask questions about anything from that list or beyond, that it would come off as attempting to cause disorder, even if it results in dissent.
I think if you stated it as "some would say, xyz, but we know that is wrong, because abc", that could not be called arguing against the truth. It would be pretty clear if you were really in favor of Christian beliefs and refuting critics.

It is important to learn to give the reasons for your Christian beliefs. That would be very welcome.

I read your answer again, and you could certainly ask, what is the support for this thing, or that. I think some of them come down to faith. In some cases arguments are made from the scriptures, but that depends on faith as well. It is good to talk about our reasons for our faith.
 
Last edited:
Just for the sake of discussion. My concern is that if myself, or anyone else, would like to ask questions about anything from that list or beyond, that it would come off as attempting to cause disorder, even if it results in dissent.
Questions or discussions in good faith are different than promoting heretical or blatantly erroneous teachings. For example, it's one thing to come on the forum and start promoting the idea that women should be pastors and church leaders, but it's another to start a thread with the intention of discussing why women are not permitted in spiritual leadership. Basically, you are free to discuss a wide range of topics, as long as you don't cross the line into actively promoting teachings that go against the listed core beliefs.

If you aren't trolling, being disruptive or promoting blatantly unbiblical ideas, then you basically have nothing to worry about.
 
What if the most evil person comes to Christ on their deathbed, is everything them have done, up to and including, genocide forgiven. God may be able to do that, but as a flawed human, I really can't.
Christ's perfect righteousness is able to make you perfect and His forgiveness is a perfect forgiveness, having carried the burden of our sin on the cross. As a sinful human, you have no righteousness before God to atone for someone else. We are all equal at the foot of the cross.

As to your point of straying off the path, as a human I see a difference between straying by telling a lie, or by murdering someone. God does not.
While all sin is worthy of damnation, there are degrees of evil. Not worshipping the One True God is a violation of the natural law but apostasy from worshipping the One True God is even worse. The punishment will be worse for the apostate.

This could be debated forever, but for me, the problem has always been that my capacity for forgiveness falls a lot sort of Christ's infinite capacity for forgiveness.
Amen and amen. I struggle with forgiveness, having been wronged my fair share in life. But when I think about how sinful I am, how guilty I am, how much Christ endured to forgive me, I realized that I could not call myself His disciple and be unforgiving at the same time.

Anyway, to clear up what I believe, I believe that if you accept Christ as your Saviour, you are saved. If you are not perfect, if you sin, but if you still try to live a life that honours Christ then you are still saved. If you turn from Christ, whether purposefully or not, but return to him again, you are saved. If you forsake Christ but do not return, then you are not saved.
Works-based righteousness is anathema. It is not the Gospel of the Apostles. We are only saved by the grace of Jesus Christ. No one who follows Him is perfect, but "His grace is sufficient for us because His power is perfected in our weakness." Everything you've said is what the Apostles have said.
 
Just for the sake of discussion. My concern is that if myself, or anyone else, would like to ask questions about anything from that list or beyond, that it would come off as attempting to cause disorder, even if it results in dissent.
Out of curiosity, what did you have questions about, or what did you want to discuss?
 
Last edited:
Was always curious why Martin Luther wrote 95 Theses, not 9 or not 5 but Ninety Five Theses.

I can only imagine how disgusted he was with the Corrupt RC hierarchy and clergy in 1517, a consensus beginning of the Protestant Reformation...

He didn't know what he was stepping into when he had nailed the theses. By the Diet of Worms, he was made well aware.
 
Back
Top