you prove what being a hindu is, you would resort to violence if someone tried to spread their faith. you think christians scam but hindus are all righteous heavenly beings when in reality all of you are full of pride hate and spread so and get triggered at other faiths. Jesus is the only way to eternal life not ram. Go study near death experiences, there is actual experiences of countless people experiencing Jesus or the father in heaven or hell. Not ram

go read the bible with an open my the only one true eternal God might open your eyes. Go study near death experiences, there is actual experiences of countless people experiencing Jesus or the father in heaven or hell. Not ram

Yes, faith is necessary for salvation. However we cannot be saved like the thief on the cross because he was a Jew, who lived and died under the Jewish system, he never became a Christian and he never had faith that Jesus raised from the dead (Rom 10:9). For a more full explanation please see this video ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-e3eQAngQM24.html

@@SouthSeminolechurchofChrist Perhaps you misunderstood the question. Here are the parallel passages that are intrinsically interconnected with Hebrews 4:2 (e.g., Isa.53:1, Jn. 12:38, Rom. 3:29-30; 10:16 and Gal. 3:6-8). Therefore, how can you reconcile your view of salvation with what those passages reveal about the gospel?

@@SouthSeminolechurchofChrist After reading those Scriptures, you are surely not still thinking there has been two different gospels, right?

It is unclear what you are asking or arguing. Are you contending that people today can be saved like the thief on the cross or something else?

@@SouthSeminolechurchofChrist I'm asking what you gathered from those Scriptures, and how the CoC's "new terms" of salvation can ever possibly be reconciled with them.

Good question, please see many of the other sermons on this channel for that answer.

@@SouthSeminolechurchofChrist can you recommend a specific one that gets to the heart of your conversion? One you feel is the main reason. I'm sure like the rest of us there are many reasons why but what if you could only give one that stands all above the rest. I really don't have time to watch the many you said you have. Thanks

“Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. Because of what law? The law that requires works? No, because of *the law that requires faith.”* Which law requires works? The law of the Pharisees. Washing of hands for righteousness, which sandal to put on first, which sandal to tie first, which side of a boat to enter from, countless ever-changing laws of works all for righteousness! And which law requires faith and faithfulness to obey? God’s commandments.

PART 2 I should note that verse 4 in NO WAY implies that the covering on the man can be placed on or taken off, like some like to argue due the aforementioned false interpretation that the verse is being exclusive to two actions instead of seeing them as two examples. As stated before this verse simply states that it is dishonoring if a man does something holy or godly like praying or prophesying while covered in LONG HAIR. The same should be understood in verse 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.” Again, they are NOT implying something that can be put on or taken off, ESPECIALLY in this verse, as it offers no examples or “supposed” exclusive conditions. In this instance it is to be understood that the man should not cover his head (with long hair) and the reason because he is the image and glory of God. This same idea should be included in the verses that refer to women like in verse 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.” This verse is often misinterpreted like verse 5 when it is simply mentioning in the same tone as the previous verse that if a woman has short hair then let her head be shaved BUT if it is a shame to be shaven let her be covered in long hair. It’s really not complicated once you understand what it means to be covered or uncovered. Everything else starts to make sense when you read the other verses knowing that they are referring to hair. I have seen too many times people get stuck on just a couple of words that vaguely seems like some kind of headwear but do not take into consideration (or purposely avoid) all the other verses that show that the “covering” means long hair and that the word “uncovered” is to mean short hair. Also, please keep in mind that there are various sections that would not make sense if you try to force the idea of veil wearing in them. Therefore, given all this logic and proof, how can one conclude that they are referring to a hat, bonnet or veil? I reiterate, how can one have logical judgments or conclusions in the example I gave that by merely looking at a long-haired woman performing such holy acts without a veil that one would automatically assume that there is something off? It makes no logical sense. So before anyone gets riled up why not first try to EXPLAIN 1st Corinthians 11:13 because I suspect most people will simply ignore it. So, in short, the whole veil doctrine is wrong, it cannot be substantiated and should be rejected. * Misinterpretations Lead to More Questions and More Problems…. Much of these misunderstandings come from small groups who push the veil agenda because of years of misinterpretation of the Scriptures. Unfortunately, such groups will have to deal with additional complex and logistical matters for example: If it doesn’t say the word “veil” how do you know they are not referring to a hood or a bonnet or any other type of headwear? What are the dimensions of this supposed covering? How can you be 100% sure that your dimensions are acceptable to God? What is the frequency of wearing it? Does location matter? Does color matter? If a woman takes it off because she is going to bed or when she showers and naturally prays to God without wearing it, did she commit a sin? Wouldn’t this provoke internal shame and a fear of having to constantly beg for forgiveness for forgetting to wear the veil? So instead of something so simple like maintaining a manly or feminine look by one’s hair now it becomes complex and even a burdensome issue. To expand on my previous question about the size of the veil, it is quite common to see women from certain “Christian” sects wear a very small veil. Therefore the questions for them would be: Why should a woman wear a tiny veil that covers a small area of the head? Why not cover the whole head? Wouldn’t it seem that they are NOT keeping to their own beliefs? Isn’t it hypocritical to preach to others that women ought to cover their heads when their women don’t really cover their whole head? It’s gotten to the point where I’ve even read comments from die-hard veil promoters criticize women who cover just a patch going as far as calling them “disobedient.” Some denominations have their women wearing veils nearly 24 hours a day and that's because they point towards the verse that states that we are to “pray without ceasing.” So now their women are basically coerced into wearing them continuously. One can find a tinge of hypocrisy in this matter in their own misinterpretation when some will make a big argument that verses refer to an item that can be taken on or off, yet will frown upon any of their followers if they should actually take them off. Another weird hypocrisy is that some will argue that a woman ought to wear a veil WHILE in church, but will give a side-eye to those who don’t wear one outside a church setting. Purveyors of this false doctrine will even go so far as to influence their followers to wear it in such a way that it makes it very difficult to remove. So can one even call it a veil anymore? Where can read we in the Bible that the this form of veil headwear is acceptable? As far as I am aware a veil is something that one can put on or take off with ease. This form of semi-permanent headwear rule within some churches removes the woman’s option to readily remove the veil. So it’s ok to preach that it is removable to prove your point or saying that it was only meant for praying and prophesying (and in only in church for some), but in practice they will have their women BOUND to wear it regardless of whether or not they are praying, prophesying or in a church. This is hypocritical. This misunderstanding also now imposes new and unheard of dynamics that are not found in the Bible, like the purchasing or creation of veils, hats or bonnets, figuring out how to maintain it or keep it well fastened by purchasing various forms of pins or clips since it is not an option to take it off and always being mindful not to let it fall and so forth. This one misinterpretation causes a snowball effect by creating an array of issues, which is not biblically supported. * The “Head Covering Journey or Testimony” Obsession…. Within the realm of this misinterpretation one can find that there exists an OBSESSION to speak about this topic incessantly. Evidence of this can easily be found online whose own channels are inundated with videos on head coverings. Going so far as to elevate it as though they were on some “mystical journey” or that there is some kind of “testimony” to share about it with little to no biblical evidence. Let me be clear, there is NO SCRIPTURAL REASONING to ever think that 1st Corinthians 11 propitiates this level of attention or “sacredness” towards coverings. Whether you think the covering is a veil or hair the Bible does not give allowance to obsess or talk about this subject in such an extreme manner. But of course those who believe the covering to be a veil are typically those who will act somewhat cult-like by basically dedicating themselves to continually refer to head coverings as though this were one of the most important topics of the entire Bible. Such persons often repeatedly state in a very stubborn manner that they don’t care what others think, that they take any negativity as a badge of honor. They often refuse to listen to any biblical soundness because they are already convinced that what they are doing is right. In short they basically close themselves off to any reasonable debate or discussion. Such persons often mention how they FEEL that they are somehow CLOSER to God by SIMPLY WEARING A VEIL, which is akin to those who believe that an inanimate object holds some kind of power like a talisman. Such dedication is similar to Catholics who say the exact same things regarding a scapula, crucifix, rosary or prayer card. For the most part their unwavering attachment to this is based more on EMOTION rather than something biblical. I’ve noted that many people who leave comments on RU-vid videos on this topic repeatedly speak about how God or the Holy Ghost “convicted” them on wearing a veil. It’s never usually about how this or that verse convinced them but rather some kind of spiritual or religious experience brought them to believe that they ought to wear a veil. This line of thinking can be very dangerous because if the experience does not line up with the scriptures then the alternative is an experience one is creating in their own minds or at worst something demonic in nature. For those who create videos it’s gotten so that some will constantly and needlessly point to this topic in any way, shape or form in their channels. There really seem to be no end to this obsession, from why they wear it, to how to wear it, to talking about how they feel about it or how it has affected others and so on. With all due respect this is truly ridiculous. It is evident that for some this has become a form of fanatic extremism. Not unlike those who repeatedly talk about the Sabbath like the Seventh-Day Adventists or any other religion that over-focuses on one area of the Bible. Can you imagine that instead of focusing on the gospel they put more effort and concentration on something written briefly in one chapter of the whole Bible and on top of that misinterpreting it? This is a form of IDOLATRY. What’s even worse are those who claim that God actually TOLD them or LED them to put a hat, cap or veil on their heads. If this is you then I implore you to reconsider by reading the scriptures I have shared. It’s never too late to get it right.

PART 3 * Head Covering Idolatry…. This obsession of course is not limited to individuals who repeatedly make videos or books on the same subject over and over. One can see in certain groups like the Amish or Mennonites how they have converted the head coverings into a very major practice. Meaning that this practice is taken so seriously that one would think it was in the same level as the salvation message. Such obsession or better-stated “idolatry” can be seen in their own videos. For example, I was fortunate enough to find a video which certain Mennonites publicly and unashamedly admit that the head covering doctrine was the main reason that caused them to decide to disaffiliate from another group of Mennonites because the other wanted to reevaluate the importance of the head covering which they disliked and caused them to restart a whole new group. Don’t believe me? Read the following transcript of two Mennonites in a RU-vid video, which was made to introduce the NEW association, which literally begins with the MAIN REASON why they started a new association of churches: “Well there were several of us who were involved with some of the old Mennonite church people. Problems that we were seeing was that, or were that things were drifting and applications were being discarded. A CRISIS POINT was reached when one of the organizations we were involved with decided by a vote not to require the veiling any longer specifically for ministers wives.” “For me that was A LINE IN THE SAND TOO FAR and I felt that we ought to really stick with clear commands of scripture without apology. I thought we were going to have to just go unaffiliated and I didn't like that prospect.” ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-RL_5Zvby4Xo.html As you can see the vote to reevaluate the importance of “veiled” head coverings was viewed as a CRISIS POINT for this group. Yes, you read that correctly a “crisis point.” Who would ever think that the lack of wearing a veil on a woman’s head would be seen as a crisis? That it was going too far for the other speaker to accept this. Despite whatever other applications that were being discarded, the point you and I should take from this is that the head covering doctrine was the TIPPING point for them. It should be quite evident that they considered this a very serious issue as they were willing to go so far as to remove themselves (disaffiliate) from people of their OWN religion to form a whole new alliance, just to continue in THEIR interpretation of the covering, which they did. Clearly this seems to be hot-button issue that even within the Mennonites they cannot completely agree about. We can only hope and pray that they come out from following a religion and follow the perfect will of Christ. Another perfect example of this form of idolatry is the recently created “Head Covering Movement,” which is a small group of people trying to “bring back” the supposed custom of wearing veils. Without going into too much detail this group has placed their misinterpreted belief on veiled head coverings to such a seriously high level that they thought they had to form an actual organized group, that includes a website and a channel on RU-vid, JUST ON THIS ONE DOCTRINE. Don’t you think this maybe going a bit too far? This level of attention ladies and gentleman is a form of idolatry. * Going Outside the Scope of the Scriptures & so called “Christian History” When it comes to the topic of head coverings I’ve never seen so many people make the point about how head coverings were a “cultural thing” or that the “historical evidence” shows that SOME women wore some kind of headwear for centuries and that due to certain social or cultural movements people started to drift away from it. There are many videos online that repeatedly describe that had been wearing a head covering for centuries and that only recently women began to stop wearing them, usually because of an introduction of some evil like the feminist movement. This is used to somehow show proof or credence to their beliefs that women ought to wear a veil. This is by no means a proof of any kind. One CANNOT use practices that were done by various peoples for various reasons, performed for various years as proof. If one has to resort to going outside the scope of the scriptures to prove their point then their evidence was likely very thin to begin with. I cannot stress this enough so let me repeat that evidence OUTSIDE the confines of the Scriptures is NOT THE SAME LEVEL AS SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE. Often cited are the facts that there are many ancient pictures or paintings of women wearing some kind of physical head covering. But again what people did in the past is irrelevant to what the Bible teaches; plus people wore headwear for all sorts of reasons, it doesn’t mean that they were abiding to Scripture either. I reiterate that the length of time of a practice CANNOT be used as proof of doctrine. Let me give you a couple of perfect examples: The fact that people believed in using CRUCIFIXES, STATUES, RELIGIOUS PAINTINGS or performed INFANT BAPTISMS or any other “religious” work for CENTURIES does not mean that we ought to accept such practices. (Feel free to Google these.) By allowing and accepting this form of reasoning regarding historical evidence also allows the door to be wide open to all those who believe in other false doctrines, just like to ones I’ve just described. False doctrines have been around for centuries, therefore, how can anyone use paintings, photos or even writings to prove their interpretation of Scripture is correct? All it shows (like crucifixes, statues, infant baptisms, etc) is that people can be wrong for a very long period of time. One can even point in the New Testament where people were already misinterpreting Scriptures and teaching others false doctrines. Therefore, what the people did, however long ago, does not prove that what they practiced was scriptural truth. Therefore it is irrelevant if some women in certain parts of the world wore something on their heads for many years, what matters is what the Scriptures teach. Our faith should be based on rock solid verses not the flimsy writings or etchings of man. When some people refer to the idea that it was the culture of the day (or cultural) to wear veils it is often to disprove it. Meaning it was a true thing to follow at the time, but not because of a SPECIFIC verse, because, as far as I can tell from others, it was always based on an ASSUMPTION in that since it was written in the 1st book of Corinthians the “covering” doctrine was ONLY meant for those who lived at Corinth. But this is a flawed interpretation, because it, first, accepts the misinterpretation of veils to be a covering when it is long hair. Second, it is wrong to think that these passages were meant for a specific group when it is clearly written for all men and women by the words: “Every man…” and “…every woman…” in verses 4 and 5. Then there is also the passage in verse 10 that states: “For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.” So regardless of what you might interpret what the phrase “because of the angels” means, it clearly cannot be cultural. Add to this the fact that it mentions the creation order in verses 8 and 9 then there is no doubt IT MUST BE APPLICABLE TO ALL TODAY! If you go online and listen to others about this subject you will find an array of unsubstantiated stories of how people supposedly thought wearing or not wearing a veil meant for them. As an example one RU-vid video has someone relaying a story about how some believe that the first century church viewed women going without a veil as equal to being topless! Shocking as this may sound this is what some people believe with no biblical proof whatsoever. Another shocking story (based on a book) is that some believe that unveiled women were considered prostitutes and was the reason why 1st Corinthians 11 was written, which is completely OPPOSITE to what the Scriptures convey. For remember Genesis 38:14-15 when Tamar “…put her widow's garments off from her, and covered her with a veil, and wrapped herself, and sat in an open place, which is by the way to Timnath; for she saw that Shelah was grown, and she was not given unto him to wife.” And when Judah saw her he thought she was a prostitute “…because she had covered her face.” Therefore to believe that women without a veil on their heads were considered harlots is a blatant LIE. As you can see the Bible just proved such a belief to be absolutely wrong. Again in Genesis some use the story when Rebecca covered her head when she approached Isaac’s home, as some sort of proof that women ought to wear veils as though they knew exactly what she was thinking when she did this. It doesn’t say anything that either side can use as proof. Therefore, there is no way to state with 100% certainty that what she was doing was because of a doctrine. Still others believe that married women had to wear veils to show their marital status, which of course cannot be substantiated. The stories and theories people come up with seem to be nonstop.

PART 4 So what about the so-called “Early Church Fathers?” Surely we should be able to rely on the writings of such people to prove doctrines, right? Well actually no. The most obvious reason for this is that it is simply NOT biblical. Also, if we begin to accept this form of proof then any group who has some form of historical background can make a argument that their writings, however contradictory, ought to be taken seriously. For example: Given that Catholic dogmas can be very ancient it would be easy for Catholic Scholars to lay claim that they possess the oldest documents and therefore falsely claim to have the writings that would “prove” that “Christians” actually followed “their” beliefs. Bias will also very likely come into play here because if you are of a particular group, your “early church fathers” will be based on those YOU consider to be early church fathers and avoid any other “historical” church writings from other religious groups. For example the Amish or Mennonite groups would favor Anabaptist church fathers and would not likely consider Catholic Church fathers or their history like the Catholics wouldn’t consider the Anabaptists. This also begs the question: “Is your faith based on what you believe God wrote in his Holy Scriptures or in man’s writings? You can’t have it both. Either you follow and trust God’s words or man’s? If you subscribe to the idea of “Sola Scriptura” then you shouldn’t be pushing, quoting, or relying on writings that are not from the Bible to prove a DOCTRINE. If you preach this idea you could potentially be the reason why some weaker believers begin to lose faith in the Bible by making the Bible seem less dogmatic. Some people may point to a “historical” book which “opened their eyes” that women had to wear veils. In one instance I found online an individual who would rightly say that we don’t need other books to understand the Bible, but then quote so-called “Christians” for a lengthy amount of time as though what they wrote was law. (See 2nd Tim 4:3) This is a contradiction. Besides how can we trust what they wrote was true? Or, how can we be sure there wasn’t any bias in the author’s writings? Or if what the people did was because of a misinterpretation? If such ideas cannot be biblically substantiated or if they require a lot of biblical manipulation to try to fit into their narrative then it should not be received as truth. So what does it imply that one has to go BEYOND THE SCOPE of the Bible to prove their point? It implies that READING THE BIBLE IS NOT ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND certain truths. I cannot stress this more because this is very important and that for ANY topic not just about head covering. If someone asks you to read or hear something historical than what is in the Bible to get a BETTER understanding, then they are implying that their argument is so thin that they have to resort to other sources.