Originally Posted by Pilgrim
It would be of great interest to me and doubtless to others here if you could give a reason why you don't agree with Murray.

I believe I did give my reason. I believe that the central meaning is that of authority and not about an outward symbol. So I don't agree with Murray in his belief that actual head coverings were transcendent.

Originally Posted by Pilgrim
Hoping I have grasped your argument as held by you, I believe it would go something like this:

a) The concession - the principle that an ordinance commemorating the death of Christ in a meal is to be observed is permanent.

b) The assumption - bread and wine were the normal elements of food and drink in the 1st Century AD (undoubtedly true) and can be assumed were only used in the Lord’s supper for cultural reasons.

c) The conclusion - We are to remember Christ’s death by communal partaking of food and drink, but the precise elements will depend on the culture of time and place (tea and biscuits or coke and crisps etc.).

Without question, this doesn't work for me. wink

First, I would like to ask in exactly what do you mean when you say that "this doesn't work for you?" Are we talking about sanctification or justification?

Second, there have been a multitude of Christian Missionaries who have had to do the very thing that your are against. Missionaries all across the world who find themselves without means to obtain wine or grape juice.

Again, this is an outward sign of an inward conviction.

I agree with the principle that this is about Biblical interpretation and I also believe that we should consider the whole Bible in our attempts to interpret scripture and that we shouldn't rely on our own private interpretation.

I also believe that there are many in the Church, who are true believers who interpret this part of Scripture the same as I do.

I truly believe that we, Christs' Body the Church, should be very focused on our sanctification. Therefore we should take seriously the role of Men and Women in regards to authority. But I still don't believe that this is all about an outward sign but rather about an inward conviction.

I would have no problem taking communion with just water and hardtack. I also have no problem with women not wearing head coverings and I would have no problem if man decided to wear a hat during service. Just as long and the Word of God is being preached, the gospel proclaimed and people listening and the Spirit of God transforming lives, I'm not too concerned about outward symbols.

As far as Baptism, if you want to baptize infants, adults, dunk or sprinkle makes no difference to me. It's the meaning behind the outward symbol.

Dave

Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. - Galatians 2:16