Why the visual interference? If you bother to post this excellent teaching on the reformation, and to continue making it available, get rid of the foolishness. If there are those so offended at Steves fall, which i am, they can choose not to listen/watch. I choose both obviously. This truthful, historic teaching is valuable still to the church. I doesnt inspire anyone to follow him in sin. But it opens eyes to a valuable history that far too few know. But the visual interference is pretty rediculous regardless of who chose to place it here. Enjoy this wonderful teaching friends!

Veiling is nothing. If one wants to veil then that is their prerogative. BUT, to claim that it is a rule of some kind then they should prove it. By claiming that you want to “obey God” by wearing a veil (unless you are getting a spiritual command directly) then you are claiming that veiling is a thing to be obeyed because it is the Scriptures. This is an indirect way of telling people that they should obey God despite their insistence that they “do not judge women who choose not to cover.” Because if one is “humbly” obeying God then those who don’t obviously aren’t. So don’t let others trick you into thinking this is an actual rule ask them to read it to you. And not from any modern Bible but from the Textus Receptus which is where we get our King James bible from.

I veiled myself to church and prayers at home as well. Before i hear everyone point of view regarding head covering i was convicted to do so therefore i would rather obey than stand before God and held accountable for my disobedient. I don’t judge women who choose not to cover. I humbly covered myself all because i want to obeyed God and also symbol of submission to God’s headship in creation

I now have massive skeptisim for all preacher shouting loud on truth . My trust on them been betrayed. PREACHED MORAL TRUTH = LIVED HYPOCRISY 😵 Remove his video it's traumatising

God never possesses us to control us. The Holy Spirit leads us. Demons possess and control and leave no room for choice. But God does turn us into mind controlled robots.

I find it interesting that people would believe in the false doctrine of head covering simply because YEARS after the Bible was written various groups which consist of false Christians and doctrines MISINTERPRETED this passage. The Bible already made the claim that believers can be wrong of a doctrine for centuries e.g. Acts 7:47-52. Feminism or any other groups is irrelevant if the doctrine was false to begin with.

I find it interesting that for 1960 years the wide understanding of these verses was that women should wear some sort of covering while praying...... Until feminism became "popular"🤔

I would like to add my two cents here after reading this discussion. First of all I believe we should follow the teaching in 1st Corinthians 11. The main problem here is the misunderstanding of 1st Corinthians 11 altogether. I also have made an intense study of this passage, and the obvious conclusion is that Paul was referring to long hair being the covering. The first thing one should take notice is the lack of wording required to conclude that a veil is being referred to here. The word veil or cloth is not in the text if we read from the King James version. If you read from the “modern” versions then you might get that view but not from the Textus Receptus. I would like for you to reread the verses that allegedly refer to a veil which is 4-7 and 13. In those verses we read the words, cover, uncovered and not covered. According to scholars these are used as adverbs. Like if you were to say I am going to cover my feet. No one should be thinking of a veil just the action of being covered. What is missing in these verses are nouns that would prove the idea of veils. Since we should not be assuming anything we should be asking the question what is the thing that a woman should be covered WITH based on the passage ALONE? So if you do the math you would find that Paul refers to hair directly 3 times and then indirectly 4 times with the words shorn and shaven. So if there is no noun for the word veil or cloth yet there are 7 instances of idea of hair, then what are we to conclude? That Paul is referring to hair whether it be short or long. But the counterargument would be that Paul is allegedly telling women to put something on. But that is not exactly true it says a woman should be covered, but he is referring to long hair based on the surrounding verses. But what about that a woman ought to be covered when praying or prophesying? The assumption is a that Paul was referring to only two instances which is not true he was merely giving us two examples. This also applies to men about being uncovered. Evidence of this is written in the forgoing verses. Paul writes that men ought not to cover because he is the image and glory of God. And then Paul goes into how woman was made for man and is the glory of the man. So it would seem that man shouldn’t be covered at any time if he is the glory and image of God. Paul also mentions that the mere observation of a praying woman should make us note how uncomely (unappealing in appearance) for a woman to be uncovered. Paul states this in a way that it should be obvious to anyone that she looks off in verse 13. He does this again in verse 14 about how shameful it looks if a man has long hair. He says it this way… Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? KJV So this judgement that we should make is exclusively based on observation of an “uncovered” woman as well as a long haired man. Two consecutive questions both appealing to something innate or within us. Paul is in essence saying that it should be obvious to see that something is wrong or off. So how is it that for the women we are somehow to know within us that a woman would be unappealing in appearance without a manufactured veil? That does not seem logical especially since the word veil is never mentioned. Unless that is not what Paul is meaning but rather that if the woman was not covered in long hair (meaning her hair is short) doing something holy or godly LIKE praying or prophesying. I think most people can relate that looking at a woman with short hair does have an unappealing appearance. It naturally provokes head turns. And if there was any question Paul flat out states what he was talking about in verse 15. So the facts are that there no nouns to use as evidence of a veil. There is evidence that Paul was using praying and prophesying as examples. Paul appeals to nature and something innate within us to judge that being uncovered or covered (meaning having short hair or long hair) should be obvious to all. So this cannot make sense with a manufactured veil.

Christian’s do not need music when preachers are preaching or when athe Word of The Lord is read, neither do our eyes need constant graphics when listening to a podcast. Please don’t distract us with these things

Please please don’t have the awful propeller like graphic as background.

Verse 16 ? Do none of you read it ? NO SUCH CUSTOMS.

1 cor 11;16 But if any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the churches of God. it was the tradition and custon and culture of those times. nothing else in 1 pet 3 we read about women coming to the church meetings with plaited hair so women did not cover the hair. thirdly, the Bible says that everything has to be gounded on at least TWO witnesses. there is only ONE place in the Bible where you read about the head covering and that is also not very clear since we read in the very passage that the hair of women is their covering. in the new testament we dont follow the traditions of old. we follow Lord Yeshu who set us free from the external things. now the reality is Christ Himself. not the things on the outside those who wear head coverings rely on the Flesh which is SIN and that is the WRONG REBELLION... thats bondage to sin...

I couldn’t watch because of the graphics. Just FYI, this is not Steve Lawton’s official channel. This channel “stole” the video and pretended it was their own. That’s deception and not what a follower of Jesus Christ should be doing no matter your intentions. Steve’s official channel is just called Trinity Bible.

Content: great! But the cauliflower clouds on the screen don’t make sense - quite distracting.

Wow! What a great sermon! by Pastor Lawson❤

Amen

Tellement nécessaire de nos jours d'entendre ces vérités dans un monde ou il n'y a plus de référentiel ! Merci Seigneur pour ces réformateurs , merci pour steven Laswson. soyons tous bénis !

Amen

The optics is very distracting

Oh God that I would live with eternity stamped on my eyelids

Could do without the optics.

I wear a hat generally, to church. I have scarves too.

Reformed teachers have a literal, grammatical, historical hermeneutic until it comes to passages like 1 Cor. 11:10. Why don't they do some literal, grammatical, historical, raw exegesis on that? Extracting the pure, literal verse by verse truth like they do elsewhere? Now you know.

Excellence in American ministry. Dr. Steven Lawson.

I would be interested in hearing where the Calvinist teaching changed from John Calvin's very clear exposition on 1Cor 11. Do a History search and you find that less than 100yrs ago, there was very limited dispute over Pauls teaching on this topic. And also the falling apart of traditional families correlates the timeline of this teaching change. Also if you read the letters of Paul as a teaching to the whole church, then this cultural approach quickly vanishes. We may the also apply the culteral approach to many other clear scriptural teachings. I would love to hear Pastor Lawsons response to this. Thank you for your passion in teaching scripture! God Bless you

I'm sure the content here is great; however, the green explosions were distracting and I decided to listen to RC on this topic.

I understand that the Bible tells women to ask their husbands at home. However, my husband passed away. So, to whom do I ask a question to, if I can't ask my husband. I asked my Pastor this very question and he said, to ask him, even though the Bible doesn't say to ask your Pastor. But, if I can't speak in Church, or ask my husband, then how do I get my questions answered?

Why All these stupid designs?

what's up with the graphics? dang man ,just stop already

How do you know the women were being speaking out.

How do you know the women were being speaking out.

How do you know the women were being speaking out.

How do you know the women were being speaking out.

This is a message every soul on earth needs to hear. Thank you.

In 1 Corinthians 11:5-15, Paul is NOT teaching that women are to cover their heads as in using a hat when praying or prophesying, but that they should maintain their hair long ergo covering their heads. Please note that veil promoters will sneak in the words “head coverings” when the Bible doesn’t say it that way. It says to cover the head. But this they do to manipulate the masses because “head coverings” have a strong connotation of it being a separate object. The fact that Paul makes no comment about women having to cover their heads in other contexts does not prove anything especially if Paul is simply trying for men and women to continue the tradition of having the proper hair length. Some have made the argument that the Greek word used in 1 Corinthians 11:5-14 is different from the one he used in 1 Corinthians 11:15 as though it should mean something vital. Here is an excerpt that shows that it does not promote the wearing of a veil or hat. “Those who promote a cloth veil as a covering try to use the fact that this word perbolaiou is different than the word katakalupto to prove that it is talking about a “second covering” - the long hair being the first, katakalupto, and the veil being the second, perbolaiou. But, katakalupto is not a noun, and does not mean what veil-promoters say it does. It shows a state of being, and is used as an adverb, say the scholars. Therefore, there are not two nouns - that is, two distinct coverings - being discussed. Rather, a state of being, or condition, is discussed: the man’s head is in a state or condition of being “not hanging-down, covered”, while the woman’s head is in a state of being “hanging-down, covered”. Her hair is given her for a “throw-around” (perbolaiou). In other words, the hanging-down hair serves as a throw-around for her head - she is covered, and meets the examples first put forth: that she pray or prophesy with her long hair hanging down on her head. Since it is a shame for a man to have long hair, he is to pray to God with his head “not hanging-down, covered” -- ouk katakaluptesthai.’ The argument that if Paul wanted to say hair is the covering at 1 Corinthians 11:15 in the same sense as he was referring to in 1 Corinthians 11:5-14 that all he needed to do was use the corresponding noun, κάλυξ (kalux), instead of περιβόλαιον (peribolaion) is very thin. Especially since we have already established that peribolaion means “throw around” which long hair has the capacity to do. We also noted that the other word katakalupto means “hanging down from the head’ which again hair has the capacity to do. Paul’s decision to use two types of words to describe the capacities of hair does not prove he was referring to two different “coverings.” There is no logical reason to assume that one or both of these Greek words MUST be referring to a cloth or hat or veil. The words needed to prove this idea are just not there. Would have been good to use the exact same word? Sure, but did he have to? No. Also, bringing up the point of using the corrupted Septuagint to show that it does not refer to hair does not help the case given that this book is well-known for having a ton of errors. What this alludes to is that one must be very desperate to find proof or confirmation that they would use anything. The argument that the 'hair as a covering' claim was a modern invention, is not provable. To say that “….promoters would be saying that the earliest Christians, who lived in a world where koine Greek was the lingua franca, didn't understand what Paul wrote…” is actually a tricky and sly move to gain a foothold on the argument. What do I mean? Well, the person who wrote this is saying that since it is ALREADY and OBVIOUSLY a foregone conclusion that the covering is a veil and that the people who don’t believe in this must think that the early Christians who understood Greek couldn’t understand Paul’s writings. No, I think they did as do many other people. If the covering was in fact long hair then I would believe that many of them understood this. The problem is that when veil promoters try to find proof that people believed in their version of the scriptures, they will look for those who they consider “early church fathers” And the question one should ask is who are they referring to? And although some do not mention who they are I have been in conversations when they start including an array of Catholic Scholars, people from sects that follow a ton of bad doctrines. So my response would be, why are you looking to false and religious groups or people that stray from many Bible truths? I don’t need a so-called “early church father” to prove what the Bible says is true, do you? Therefore it is irrelevant if “early church fathers” believed that the covering was a veil, especially when we read how they erred in, the method of salvation, deity of Christ, belief in Church officials, non-biblical church dogmas, hell, water baptism, redemption, grace and more. To say that those promoting the 'hair as a covering' claim need to explain why translations such as the: ASV, ERV NAB, NRSV & RSV render the covering as a veil…. Um, I am sorry to be the bearer of bad news but those are the worst translations out there, where WHOLE sections of Mark are taken out. Where verses regarding hell are BLANKED out. When 1st John 5 mentions God being three in one is removed. Where horrible mistranslations are found. Why? because INSTEAD of using the Texus Receptus they use the Vaticanus or Sinaiticus, etc. There are MANY Scholars who have denounced these translations. So it is not about whether a lowly person thinks they are better than those who translated them. There are BOOKS on why these translations are no good, written by people of high educational stature. It is NOT a singular personal opinion. But in order to win an argument they will try guilt or shame or make up nonsense by saying that those who believe hair is the covering really expect them to believe they know more about what the Greek text than the scholars. Rubbish. It is agreed that Paul's admonition was also clearly counter-cultural and was theologically based, not culturally conditioned. But the difference is that Paul was saying that women ought to keep their hair long and men’s short and that it is not based on culture whereas veil promoters will claim he is referring to foreign object that goes on the woman’s head. And when sticking to Scripture is not enough veil promoters tend to make quick jabs by saying that those who don’t believe in their interpretation would be “…either laughed in their face or walk away in disbelief and disgust by those who follow the Greek Orthodox church…” as though this highly religious and knee-deep-in-unfounded-traditions sect is some sort of standard. Now that is laughable. Just google “Greek Orthodox Church” click on images and tell me that they are not steeped in religiosity and paganism. Allow me to apply the ACTUAL logic of the 'hair as a covering' claim to the whole of 1st Corinthians 11:4-15 (KJV) gives: For if the woman be not covered IN LONG HAIR, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered IN LONG HAIR. For a man indeed ought not to cover his head with LONG HAIR, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, even so is the man also by the woman; but all things of God. Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered (not covered in LONG hair)? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering. The POINT is not about any kind of hair like the detractors like to claim but hair that COVERS the head in other words LONG hair that hangs from the head. If a woman's LONG hair is the covering (because LONG hair covers the head obviously) throughout 1 Corinthians 11:5-15 THEN it is also dishonorable for a man to have LONG HAIR covering his head when praying or prophesying, as per 1st Corinthians 11:4 a man should not be “covered” meaning not covered in LONG hair. NOT the idea of having no hair on his head when praying or prophesying as veil promoters try to paint. Detractors love to play word games by inferring that those opposed to their beliefs think that their logic is wrong because it makes it sound as if men’s heads should be bald aka shaved. But if they conveniently leave out the words LONG or SHORT hair which covered and uncovered is referring to then of course the way they paint their theory will sound logical. Finally, when Paul refers to a woman's 'long hair' in 1 Corinthians 11:14-15, he is not contrasting its glory with the shamefulness of being shorn that referred to in 1 Corinthians 11:16. He is saying that women ought to be covered in long hair and men should not be covered in long hair. He offers several reasons why which includes the angels, doing something holy LIKE praying or prophesying (but not exclusively), the order of creation which should be obvious that since creation God would have made man with short hair and woman with long hair and note that if it were really important then why is there no mention of a veil for the woman?

Quote from Bernie Parsons: "Those who promote a cloth veil as a covering try to use the fact that this word perbolaiou is different than the word katakalupto to prove that it is talking about a “second covering” - the long hair being the first, katakalupto, and the veil being the second, perbolaiou. But, katakalupto is not a noun, and does not mean what veil-promoters say it does. It shows a state of being, and is used as an adverb, say the scholars. Therefore, there are not two nouns - that is, two distinct coverings - being discussed. Rather, a state of being, or condition, is discussed: the man’s head is in a state or condition of being “not hanging-down, covered”, while the woman’s head is in a state of being “hanging-down, covered”. Her hair is given her for a “throw-around”. In other words, the hanging-down hair serves as a throw-around for her head - she is covered, and meets the condition first put forth: that she pray or prophesy with her long hair hanging down on her head. Since it is a shame for a man to have long hair, he is to pray to God with his head “not hanging-down, covered” -- ouk katakaluptesthai. The entire context of this discussion about authority and headship, and the hierarchy established by God, includes a discussion of long hair on women and short hair on men. There is never a mention of a piece of cloth. Consider: the veil is a man-made device to cover a God-given, natural state. It is an imitation of what God has already provided. The cloth veil was a common article worn by both men and women of the desert lands. It served a practical purpose in that it protected the head, hair, and face from the relentless hot sun and the blowing sands of the desert. It was not commanded by God but was a practical invention. As the centuries wore on, it became a custom among certain cultures and religions. God does not bind man-made customs upon His people as immutable law!" - By Bernie Parsons

In 1 Corinthians 11:5-15, Paul clearly teaches that women are to cover their heads when praying or prophesying. He makes no comment about women wearing head coverings in other contexts. The essence of this teaching is that, because man is the image and glory of God, that glory should not be covered (1 Corinthians 11:7). However, woman is the glory of man (1 Corinthians 11:7), and long hair, in turn, is the woman's glory (1 Corinthians 11:15), that lesser glory of man should be covered so as not to detract from the glory of God. Of primary importance in understanding the text in translations that don't use a word like 'veil' to describe the covering is that the Greek word used in 1 Corinthians 11:5-14 is different from the one he used in 1 Corinthians 11:15, clearly showing that the covering referred to in 1 Corinthians 11:5-14 is not her hair. Paul uses the adjective ἀκατακάλυπτος (akatakaluptos) for "uncovered" for the covering at 1 Corinthians 11:5-13, and the verb, κατακαλύπτω (katakaluptó), for *both the man and the woman being covered*, but the noun περιβόλαιον (peribolaion) for the woman's covering in 1 Corinthians 11:15. Had Paul wanted to say hair is the covering at 1 Corinthians 11:15 in the same sense as he was referring to in 1 Corinthians 11:5-14 (notwithstanding that this would make nonsense of all that he'd said so far), all he needed to do was to use the corresponding noun, κάλυξ (kalux), instead of περιβόλαιον (peribolaion). Hence, given Paul's use of περιβόλαιον (peribolaion) for the covering at 1 Corinthians 11:15, one can only reasonably conclude he is referring to a different kind of covering there. This point is backed up in parallel usages in the Septuagint showing that ἀκατακάλυπτος (akatakaluptos) does not refer to hair. The 'hair as a covering' claim is a modern invention. Those promoting it are, in effect, saying the earliest Christians, who lived in a world where koine Greek was the lingua franca, didn't understand what Paul wrote. None of the early church fathers - repeat, none - all of whom were closer in language and thought to the Apostles than we'll ever be thought it referred to anything other than a covering over the hair. For example, Tertullian (c.160-220), writing only 150 years after Paul wrote 1 Corinthians, said the church in Corinth was still practicing veiling in his day: “So, too, did the Corinthians themselves understand him. In fact, at this day the Corinthians do veil their virgins. What the apostles taught, their disciples approve.” ( _On The Veiling Of Virgins_ 8). Hippolytus of Rome (c.170-c.235) writing around the same time said “…let all the women have their heads covered with an opaque cloth…”. ( _The Apostolic Tradition_ 2.18). Those promoting the 'hair as a covering' claim also need to explain why translations such as the: ASV, ERV NAB, NRSV & RSV render the covering as a veil: NLT renders it as a 'wear a head covering'; and CEV renders it as 'wear something on her head'. Do the 'hair as a covering' proponents really expect us to believe they know more about what the Greek text means than the scholars involved in making those translations??? Paul's admonition was also clearly counter-cultural (despite unfounded claims to the contrary) and, in any event, was theologically based, not culturally conditioned. Were those promoting the 'hair as a covering' interpretation to take it to a Greek Orthodox church, the Greek speakers there would probably either laugh in their face or walk away in disbelief and disgust. Either way, they'd get short shrift. Applying the logic of the 'hair as a covering' claim to the whole of *1 Corinthians 11:4-15 (NKJV)* gives: Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered _with hair,_ dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head -un- _not_ covered _with hair_ dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered _with hair on her head,_ let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her _head_ be covered _with hair._ For a man indeed ought not to cover his head _with hair,_ since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. For this reason the woman ought to have _hair as_ a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels. Nevertheless, neither is man independent of woman, nor woman independent of man, in the Lord. For as woman came from man, even so man also comes through woman; but all things are from God. Judge among yourselves. Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head -un- _not_ covered _with hair?_ Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a _head_ covering. *---* If a woman's hair is the covering throughout 1 Corinthians 11:5-15 it is also dishonorable for a man to have a covering on his head when praying or prophesying, per 1 Corinthians 11:4 and a man should have no hair on his head when praying or prophesying. Similarly, if a woman's hair is the covering and a man ought not to cover his head, per 1 Corinthians 11:7, logic demands that the man has his head shaved. Additionally, the 'hair as a covering' proponents' line of argument is tautological - as the re-worked 1 Corinthians 11:6 shows. Finally, when Paul refers to a woman's 'long hair' in 1 Corinthians 11:14-15, he is merely contrasting its glory with the shamefulness of being shorn that he referred to in 1 Corinthians 11:16. The insistence that hair is the covering misrepresents Paul's teaching, makes a tautological mockery of what he wrote, and promotes disobedience. Note: There are some KJV-only trolls going about posting comments on channels like this basically naysaying the idea that Paul was writing about a removable head covering. Apparently they belong to some cult that claims _long_ hair is of itself the covering - based on their twisting of 1 Corinthians 11:15. Doubtless they'll start posting their lies here too as soon as they find this video. Expect them to mount all kinds of specious arguments to support their case - including why only the KJV can be trusted. Contrary to what the 'long hair as a covering' trolls claim, Paul does not say in 1 Corinthians 11:15 that _long_ hair is given to her for the περιβόλαιον (peribolaion) covering, only that long hair is her glory. Let's see what the 'long hair as a covering' interpretation does to the text of *1 Corinthians 11:5-6 (NKJV):* But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head -un- _not_ covered _with long hair_ dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. For if a woman is not covered _with long hair on her head,_ let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her _head_ be covered _with long hair._ *---* If a woman refuses to have long hair, she should cut her hair short? But she’d already have short hair! This argument makes no sense at all. Although I don't see the question of head coverings as a salvation issue, what is at stake is the heavenly rewards women might get for obedience. Women who refuse to cover their heads when praying or prophesying will suffer loss of standing in the next life, as will those who encourage such disobedience. Paul apparently thought the issue serious enough for anyone disputing it to be denied fellowship.

Lawson clearly had no understanding of the Greek text when he preached this. Regarding 1 Corinthians 11:3, Lawson contends that two completely different Greek words are used to refer to a man. False. It's just two different forms of the _same_ Greek noun (ἀνήρ -anér) referring to an adult male human being, with ἀνδρὸς (andros) being the genitive form and ἀνήρ (anér) being the nominative form. Neither form has any inherent connection with the man being a husband - only context can resolve that issue. Had Paul wanted to draw such a distinction, he would have used ἄνθρωπος (anthrópos) for the first reference (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:28). Likewise, the Greek noun γυνή (guné) in 1 Corinthians 11:5 is just the nominative form of the noun referring to a woman, whether a wife or not, just as γυναικός (gynaikos) is genitive form of that noun (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:11). As for Lawson attempts to explain Paul's concern as being cultural, he is simply disregarding the strictly theological basis of Paul's instruction for all women in all congregations to cover their heads. For solid biblical teachings on this subject, see the Followers of the Way 3-part series at: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-QA4bxP0nY_0.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-HA42_uoEnCc.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-x2_hJaLvisk.html and the Sound Faith teaching at: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-oflUWLFXyfI.html

I need this massage & if this pastor is still with us may God bless & keep him in every way in Yeshua's name!

Headcoverings is a command and it never a position for a Christian to decide when to obey or not (Duteronomy 11:1). The view of Headcoverings changed with the Feminist movement, and the Feminist movement is effecting and proswaying the church more then God's word for it has distorted many things. For a Christian to say this is a cultural thing is the same as saying that scripture is "outdated". Paul is a straightforward man is not complicated like man makes it!

One of the best sermons I have heard. Thank you Pastor may the Lord keep blessing you always.

WHAT A "WONDERFUL" MESSAGE OF "TRUTH" !!! NO ONE, STEVEN LAWSON, HAVE THE LOVE and FEAR OF GOD, AS IT "SHOULD" BE PROCLAIMED, AS YOU DO !!!! LOVE in CHRIST, Rita xxoo

Seeing truth not heard or rejected my. heart weeps

If i don't tell other people about the gospel of Jesus CHRIST will i go to hell because i waah dishes at Oregon state university in Corvallis Oregon inside a student dinning hall if i tell the students about the gospel of Jesus CHRIST while I'm in my work uniform then i can get fired from my job but if i were to read the bible and i walk in obedience to Jesus CHRIST but i went to a strip club last night and spent my money on lap dances because I'm single and i don't have no girlfriend I'm single and I'm not married

Barely after the 45 minute mark I had the answer to my question; what he teaches concerning the timing of the rapture in relation to Daniel's 70th week. Or at least down to a couple of choices. That he either teaches pre-trib or that everything except for Christ's return happened in 70AD. Sadly for those who hang on his every word, both are a false teaching. The rapture and the beginning of the Day of the Lord occur on the same day. Neither can happen until after the anti-christ is revealed by committing the abomination of desolation (2Thess 2:1-5) and a time of great tribulation that will come upon the entire world. The abomination of desolation occurs at the mid-point of Daniel's 70th week and Christ's return at some point during the second 3 1/2 years of that 7 year period cuts short that great tribulation for the sake of the elect.

Yes, I agree with Rosie Adcock. Please get rid of the "exploding lava lamp" effect. It is an unnecessary distraction.

The church of Christ where A Cappella singing takes place is the kingdom of God. There ls No Other!

How sobering and critical for a saved sinner to hear. Oh, LORD may it be that I would learn to number my days for your Glory and Jesus’ shed Blood by the Holy Spirit for this worm. Amen!!!

I thankful for uploading this sermon. one request, the graphic design popping up is very disturbing while listening

Very great message. I love the truth