Head-Coverings in Worship Part 8 — Milton Vincent

Okay, good evening. Class is in session. And folks, what we're going to do is try to jump right into what we are going to try to do tonight. We have a lot of ground to cover and don't want to have this go too terribly long because we want to allow time for fellowship afterwards.

And if you did not receive, here's the deal. First of all, if you were not here this morning or if you were but you really need another copy, go ahead and raise your hand. We've got a few left over from this morning.

That's not the material for tonight, but this morning's material, the title of it is, Our Head Coverings for Today. Does anybody need that? If you do, raise your hand. There's one back there and some up in the balcony.

And then how many of you, the title of the material for tonight is, Why Do So Many People Say That Head Coverings Are Not For Today? How many of you need that? It's ten pages. Okay, if you need this evening's material, go ahead and keep your hand up.

Jack needs one. Okay. What we have done, if you happen to be visiting with us, what we got, Oh, okay. Who has this morning's materials? I mean, no, who's passing out this morning's materials? Are we out?

Okay, so we're out. And that's okay. We can get it to you maybe afterwards, but we're not going to spend a lot of time in this morning's material. So if you don't have that, that's okay. As long as you have the materials for tonight, that's the important thing.

No, I, oh, you have one from, he's got this morning's material. Somebody over here who doesn't have this morning's material, go ahead and raise your hand. Okay. All right. Well, this morning, what we have been doing, if you've been visiting with us, or if you are visiting with us tonight, is we're dealing with 1 Corinthians chapter 11, verses 2 through 16, a passage of Scripture that we have to deal with in order to say that we are doing a study through 1 Corinthians.

But it is a passage that has not made my life or anyone's life in this church any easier. But nonetheless, we're trying to be faithful to it. And this is the eighth message that I'll be preaching on this particular passage, and we have at least two more to go.

The Theological Basis for Applying Head Coverings Today

And this morning, what we did was I tried to walk you through at least my own thinking process regarding the question of our head coverings for today. In other words, is Paul's explicit teaching regarding head coverings, telling men that they're not to cover their heads, telling women that they are to cover their heads, is Paul's explicit teaching in 1 Corinthians chapter 11, verses 2 through 16, applicable today?

And I tried to walk you through my own reasoning process, and that is primarily and very basically that none of Paul's arguments are drawn from cultural practices of the pagan world of his day. Instead, number two, all of his argumentation are based on realities that transcend temporary cultural norms.

They're very significant theological argumentation going back to creation, the structure of relationships in God's economy, angelic beings, nature, and church custom. And in addition to that, if you go to page 15 from this morning's material, I also have considered the fact that Paul is not telling women to just wear head coverings wherever they go or all the time.

He is only giving men and women instructions with regard to head coverings when they pray and prophesy. And to my way of thinking, that's a pretty narrow instruction to give if Paul was, after all, only being guided by the cultural practices of his day.

The fifth consideration is that whatever Paul is telling the Corinthians to do, verse 16 makes it clear that this was the practice in all of the churches throughout the Roman Empire. That would include Jerusalem and the Church of Antioch, Galatia, Philippi, Berea, and on and on the list can go, and Corinth.

This was the practice of all of the churches, not just something Paul is telling the Corinthians to do. Also, number six here on page 15, I told you that the evidence from history is that it would not have been uncommon at all for a woman to appear in public without a head covering.

In fact, most of the images that have been found dating back to the first century, images of women show them with their heads uncovered. And I'm not giving you that piece of information to say that women didn't wear head coverings in Paul's day.

They did, and it was common. However, it was not as common as many of us may tend to assume. It would not have been unusual or even scandalous for a woman in the Roman Empire or in a Grecian city to appear in public without a head covering.

And I told you this morning that I would show you some of the images that have been found by archaeologists. This is an image, hopefully everyone can see that, from about 50 to 25 B .C., and you'll notice that it's a woman who is not wearing a head covering.

This is an image of a woman in the late first century, and she's not wearing a head covering either. Here is another woman right there, and she's not wearing a head covering. In fact, here's a side view of that same woman, and this is the late first century B .C., so it would have been right around the time of the birth of Christ.

This is a first century image of a Roman woman, and she's not wearing a head covering. And then, look at this one, look at the dew on this lady. That was a very popular fashion in this day. It probably involved the use of a wig, but nonetheless, this one is the late first century.

And I don't know what these ladies did. If they sat there for like hours while the sculptor got everything just right, it was very different than us posing for a picture today. Look at this dew. This is around 80 A .D., and almost certainly that's the use of a wig.

You may think, that's a head covering right there. No, that's actually hair, either her own hair or a wig, and wigs were very common in this day. Here's a hairstyle. This is a lady from somewhere 90 to 100 A .D., and she's not wearing a head covering.

And there's an interesting hairstyle there. This next one, this is actually a painting in the late first century of a Roman woman. You can see jewelry and a necklace, but also her hair, and she's not wearing a head covering.

And, let me see, here are a couple of women wearing head coverings. That's an interesting head covering there. And then this is another one. This is around the end of the first century B .C., a woman doing some work, and you can make out the fact that she's wearing a head covering.

And this first image here is like A .D. 57 to 59. And it's a very simple hairstyle, but she's not wearing a head covering. And then this is a woman who very likely was Messalina was her name, and who was actually a very immoral woman and was infamous for that.

But nonetheless, here she is, and in this case, she does have a head covering. So these are just some of the images that I've gotten my hands on, and there are times where you see women wearing head coverings, but the majority of cases from my own research, and then also some of the scholars that I quoted from this morning, most of the time women are depicted with their heads uncovered, indicating that it was not at all unusual for a woman to appear in public without a head covering.

Also, as we continued this morning, consideration number seven on page 16, one of the mistakes that people often make is they say that, well, the cultural practice in Paul's day was for men not to cover their heads, and women to cover their heads.

And so Paul is basically, everything he teaches in 1 Corinthians 11, 2 through 16, is exactly what the cultural practices were. And so that's his real motive. Well, the big problem with that is that in Paul's instructions to men, Paul is teaching the exact opposite of the cultural norm of his day.

In fact, the custom for Roman men, as we saw this morning, was when they were involved in a religious or devotional exercise, what those men would do is they would cover their heads. They would pull their toga up over their heads.

And I mentioned this morning, quoted from one of these scholars about the image of Caesar Augustus, most of the images that we have of him today are with his head uncovered. However, when he is involved in a religious exercise, he is always depicted as having a head covering.

And let me show you this. This is the image that was actually found in Corinth of the emperor. And you can see that he has his head covered. You can see his ears, though. So it's behind his ears. You'll notice his arms are missing, but his arms obviously were not hanging down to his side.

They have found almost exactly similar images of Caesar Augustus in this exact posture and with the arms intact. And in those images where his arms are intact, he has a bowl in his hand for pouring out a religious libation.

But this is an actual image of Caesar Augustus that would have been somewhere on public display in Corinth sometime during the first century. Here's another. This is going to be a toughie, but this is an actual Roman coin.

You've got to look at this real closely, but this is actually an image of the emperor, Caesar Augustus. And if you looked real closely, he has a crooked staff in his hand, and that was a religious symbol, meaning he was engaging at that moment in a prophetic exercise.

And so he's involved in a religious exercise here on this coin. And if you look closely, you can see that the emperor is wearing a head covering there on the coin. So hopefully that's clear enough. Here's another image of someone with a head covering.

And it's not real clear, but you may look at that and go, that looks like a lady to me. That is a man. And historians have studied this. And if you take a close look anatomically at this figure as well, it's obvious that it is a man.

And it was found in a setting where the indication is that it is an image of a man bringing a sacrifice. And as you can see, his head is covered. So the overwhelming evidence from not only literary sources, but also from coins and from statuary images and friezes and so forth, the overwhelming evidence is that the custom for men in the Roman Empire, and keep in mind Corinth was a Roman colony, was for men to cover their heads when they were involved in a religious exercise.

And so when I consider that and I consider the fact that the custom for men in the Roman Empire was to cover their heads, however, Paul tells men to do the exact opposite of that. How can I look at that fact and conclude anything other than that if Paul were speaking to the church today, he would totally disregard the fact that women don't wear head coverings today.

He wouldn't even consider that. He's not being guided by cultural norms. He would be guided by apostolic tradition as God had led him and the other apostles to instruct the church in this matter. But if you weren't here, get the tape from this morning where we interact with that on a deeper level.

Commentators on Creation, Custom, and Christian Practice

Go to page 18, where I'm not going to read all these commentators. I just want to read from a couple of them that I think are very significant. On page 18, the first commentator is Ben Witherington III, and look at what he says.

The text, in other words, the text of 1 Corinthians 11, raises a number of questions for us. First, why does Paul want to maintain for women, but not for men, the Roman practice of covering the head when engaging in a religious act?

The bulk of his argument is taken up with providing a theological rationale for this. The theological rationale is not brought in as an afterthought to prop up an argument primarily grounded in custom or in nature itself, but rather the reverse.

Paul appeals to nature and to church custom because he's pulling out all the stops in his closing arguments to forestall objections on any other possible grounds. Paul is not simply endorsing standard Roman or even Greco-Roman customs in Corinth.

Paul was about the business of reforming his convert social assumptions and conventions in the context of the Christian community. They were to model new Christian customs, common in the assemblies of God, but uncommon in the culture, thus staking out their own sense of a unique identity.

Now, skip the next brief quotation and then look at the following one. In view of the argument about both men and women and head coverings, it is likely that both, not just women, were creating the disorder in Christian worship.

In light of Roman practice, it is very believable that some Christian Roman males were covering their heads when they were about to pray or prophesy. Paul is not interested in baptizing the status quo or normal Roman practice.

He is setting up new customs for a new community, and these customs are deeply grounded in his theological understanding of creation, redemption, their interrelation, and how they should be manifested in worship.

And what this guy says is just so right on. The next is from Bruce Waltke, and I won't necessarily quote from that, but go to number three, the quote from S. Lewis Johnson in the Wycliffe Bible Commentary.

I read this to you guys about a month ago. Let me just read it again. He says, some say that the custom was peculiar to Corinth, but Paul's words, neither the churches of God argue against this view. Still others insist that the custom is not to be applied today.

It should be noted, however, that each of the reasons given for the wearing of a veil is taken from permanent facts lasting as long as the present earthly economy. Paul did carry his point, for early church history bears witness that in Rome, Antioch, and Africa, the custom became the norm.

In the final analysis, the hat or veil is not the important thing, but the subordination for which it stands is the important thing. But then he says the presence of both is ideal. And I really like the heart in which he expresses that.

Let me see if there's any others. Go to page 20. Look at number eight, Charles Ryrie. Women should be veiled or covered in the meeting of the church and men should not. Paul's reasons were based on theology, the order of creation and the presence of the angels in the meeting.

None of these reasons was based on contemporary social custom. Go to number 11. This is from Thomas Charles Edwards. He says it is remarkable that the injunction to men to pray uncovered and to women to pray veiled is peculiar to the Christians.

Among the Greeks, men and women prayed bareheaded. Plutarch says the Romans worship with the head covered. We must therefore suppose that what we have here is an example of a distinctly Christian observance that the man should pray without a headdress and the woman veiled.

And then one other quote from R .C. Sproul in his Table Talk magazine. He says throughout 1 Corinthians 11, Paul refers to creation to prove his point concerning the general principle of the subordination of women and the symbol of authority that should be placed upon her.

Nowhere does he give cultural reasons for his teaching. Paul points us back to God's established order in nature. Whenever a teaching in scripture refers to creation ordinances, that teaching is binding for all culture in all ages.

The forms may change, but the substance concerning symbols and principles remains the same. This is true in the case of head coverings, just as it is true in the case of marriage and deviant behavior such as homosexuality.

Very well said. I've not quoted from all of them, but I would encourage you guys, if you have not already, to read from some of these commentators who I think give some pretty good explanations of the very things that we've been talking about in dealing with this passage.

But anyway, that at least walks you through what my own thinking process has been as I have arrived almost unwillingly at times to the conclusion that Paul's explicit teaching on head coverings is fully applicable to us today.

Why Christians Reject the Applicability of Head Coverings

Well, what I want to do tonight is to try to see how far we can get in the next packet of information. And that is to address the issue of why is it? If head coverings are for today, then why in the world do so many people, why do so many godly Christians, why do so many people in the church say that Paul's specific instructions are not for today?

I think we would be remiss if we didn't at least try to walk through these. And let me just try to walk you through some of these. Please understand, guys, whatever their reasons are, they're not derived from the text of 1 Corinthians 11, verses 2 through 16.

There's not a commentator you're going to read that's going to say, aha, see here in verse 8, it says this. And that's why I believe that head coverings are not for today, because Paul teaches that they're not for today here in this passage.

They don't point to anything in the text of 1 Corinthians 11, 2 through 16. So if their reasons are not drawn from the text, that doesn't automatically make it wrong. But we do need to ask, where are their reasonings being drawn from?

And let me try to explain this to you. Number two here on page 21, many make two convenient cultural historical assumptions, neither of which bear up under closer scrutiny. We talked about this about a month ago.

The first assumption that many people make is that what Paul advocates in this passage was the cultural practice of his day. Many people make that assumption. Well, when Paul tells men don't wear a head covering, when he tells women to wear a head covering, everything he's teaching there is totally consistent with what the cultural practices of the day were.

But we've seen that's an assumption that's wrong, because in Paul's instructions to men, as we've seen, he's teaching the exact opposite of what the custom was in the Roman Empire. So that assumption does not work, and it does not bear up under closer scrutiny.

There's a second assumption that people make, and that is, let's assume that what Paul teaches in this passage did conform to what the cultural practices were. Even if that were the case, that still doesn't mean that that must have been what's guiding Paul.

Back in Paul's day, it was not the custom for women to teach men. Paul in 1 Timothy 2 happens to teach something that was consistent with the culture, but would any of us say that that's what was guiding him?

Culture was what was guiding him? No, creation truths were what were guiding him. So even if it's not true, but even if what Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 11 was exactly what the cultural practices were, you're still making a leap to assume that that must have been what was guiding him.

And so the second assumption is that the cultural practices of the day served as a guide for Paul's instructions regarding head coverings. My response is this is nothing more than conjecture. There's nothing in the text of 1 Corinthians 11 through 16 that would suggest this, and if this were the real reason that lay behind Paul's instructions, he was perfectly capable of saying so as an eloquent and as an inspired writer of Scripture.

John MacArthur and the Cultural-Custom Argument

Now, folks, let me show you an example of someone who does make these assumptions, and that is John MacArthur in his commentary on 1 Corinthians. Look at the quote here. Now, he's commentating on 1 Corinthians 11, verse 4, where Paul says, if a man has something on his head, he's disgracing his head, and so a man should not do that.

Look at what MacArthur says. The context here of verse 4 implies that in Corinth, such a head covering would have been completely ridiculous for a man and completely proper for a woman. Now, he's making an assumption there.

He then says, generally, it was regarded as a disgrace for a man to worship with his head covered. Now, he's teaching you something that he believes is true about the culture and the history of Paul's day, and that is that generally it was regarded as a disgrace for a man to worship with his head covered, and now based on that historical, cultural piece of information, he then says, it seems therefore, because of this information I just stated, it seems therefore that Paul is not stating a divine, universal requirement, but simply acknowledging a local custom.

His conclusion that it's not for today is based upon a flawed historical assumption, and his flawed historical assumption is that it would have been ridiculous for a man to wear a head covering in Paul's day, and it was a disgraceful thing.

That's how everyone would have viewed it, and so because of that, MacArthur says, I believe that Paul is merely acknowledging a local custom. However, look at the page here. Notice in the following quote how MacArthur reverses his explanation of the cultural practices, yet fails to acknowledge the ramifications of such a reversal.

This quote is taken from his notes in the MacArthur Study Bible. It was published in 97, so 13 years have gone by, and notice how MacArthur updates his cultural, historical assumptions. Now, commenting on verse 4, he says,.

This is literally having down from the head, as his translation of the expression something on his head, and he then says,. Now, that's different than what he said in his commentary. Does everyone see that?

Now he's saying that it was the local custom for a man to cover his head, and so basically MacArthur would agree with what I was saying this morning about the custom for men in the Roman Empire of wearing head coverings when they were involved in a religious exercise.

He then says,. And now, amazingly, he then says, I would encourage you guys to underline the words local custom there near the end of the quote, and then you see the words local custom at the beginning of the quote, because those are very important code words there.

But guys, look carefully at what MacArthur is saying in this last quote. Number one, it seems to have been a local custom in Corinth for men to wear a head covering. I'm not stretching anything. That's exactly what MacArthur says.

And then he says,. Number two, some Jewish men may have been doing this as well. And then number three, some Christian men in the Corinthian church were doing the same in wearing a head covering. And now number four, top of page 22, Paul tells the Corinthian men that to wear a head covering.

Everyone turned. OK, Paul tells the Corinthian men that to wear a head covering, which seems to have been the local custom, is a disgrace. All right. Now, according to John's own explanation, the local custom seems to have been for men to wear a head covering.

Corinthian men were doing that. And that was the local custom. Paul tells Corinthian men that it's a disgrace. So Paul is actually telling them in the Corinthian church, if you do what the local custom is, it's a disgraceful thing.

Now, look at MacArthur's conclusion, and I don't understand this. He says Paul is not stating a universal law from God, but acknowledging a local custom. My question to him would be, if according to your own explanation, Paul has just told men not to practice the local custom, then how can you say Paul is merely acknowledging a local custom?

Does everyone see that? But at least I take this kind of as a compliment to the research that I've done, that MacArthur himself incorporates some of this historical information in his MacArthur study Bible that is more recent than his 1984 commentary.

And he himself acknowledges that it was, it seems to have been the custom for men to cover their heads. Paul tells Corinthian men, don't do the local custom. But I don't understand how MacArthur then says Paul isn't stating a universal law from God, but acknowledging a local custom.

But nonetheless, I cite this as an example of a godly commentator, a substantive scholar in his own right who makes some flawed historical assumptions. And the first assumption is that what Paul advocates in the passage, that's what the practice was in his day.

And making that assumption, the second assumption is that must have been what's guiding Paul all along. And he's not teaching some universal law from God. He's merely acknowledging what the customs were.

So this is an example of that. And so this is how many people, folks, especially lay people who've not studied it, you bring the subject up to them and their first response is, ah, it was just the custom.

And my question is, what research have they done? How did they arrive at that conclusion? That is a very convenient conclusion to arrive at. Because if you can arrive at that, then you can dispense with the passage.

But from the research that I've done, as much as I would want to, as a part of me would want to, I cannot agree with those cultural assumptions because they're not borne out by history, nor are they borne out by the text of 1 Corinthians chapter 11.

The Significance of a Teaching Mentioned Once

Well, there's a third consideration. There's a third concern or reason that people have for thinking that Paul's instructions are not to be implied today. And that is this, on page 22, some might be troubled over the fact that what Paul teaches in this passage is taught nowhere else in Scripture.

And they ask, how important is an issue that is mentioned only one time in Scripture? And some say, this is the only thing I've ever said on it, and so, you know, why take this so seriously? And my response to this, there's really kind of two issues here.

First of all, is this an important issue? The second issue involved in this concern is that, you know, it's only taught one time, and some people have a problem with that. Well, letter A, we all would wish that what Paul teaches in 1 Corinthians 11 was affirmed elsewhere in Scripture.

However, we have to ask ourselves, how many times does God have to teach something for it to be binding upon our consciences? Do we show God respect when we say, Lord, if you say it four times, then I'll take it seriously.

Or five times, then I'll take it seriously. But if you just say it one time, I'm not going to take it seriously. You know what, I think those of us who are parents, we have children who do that to us all the time.

Amen? And we don't want to do the same thing to God and say, well, if you say it more than once, then I'll take it seriously. No, all God needs to do, if we really love Him and want to obey Him, God, just say it one time, just give me the word, and I'll just do whatever you say.

And folks, letter B, even though Paul only teaches about this one time, Paul does give 15 verses to this particular issue, indicating that it was of some importance to him. Letter C, Paul states in verse 16 that the practice of head coverings was the custom in all the churches, indicating that this must have been a subject that was widely taught and practiced in all the churches.

Additionally, in verse 2, Paul indicates that the head covering issue was a part of the apostolic tradition that he himself had taught the Corinthians when he was with them in person. So 1 Corinthians 11, 2 through 16 is at least the second time he's taught the Corinthians extensively on the subject.

We also know then Paul would have taught all of the churches that he founded on this subject. So this is not the only time Paul's ever talked about this. It just happens to be the only time that we find it in God's good providence in the pages of Scripture.

And also, letter D, and I touched on this last Sunday night, we want to be very careful before we go writing this off as being unimportant. You know, come on, it's just a piece of cloth on a head. I mean, what's the big deal?

But folks, all of us would agree that our number one calling in life is to honor Jesus Christ and to glorify God, right? Are we all agreed on that? That's our number one passion in life. And do you realize Paul brings both of those things to bear on the head covering issue?

Look what I say in letter D. I think we would all agree that glorifying God is to be our highest calling and ultimate pursuit. Consequently, none of us would ever think that something which affects the glory of God is unimportant, would we?

Yet Paul actually teaches that a man who prays or prophesies with a covered head disgraces his head. And who's his head? It's Jesus Christ. It is also clear in verse 7 that Paul views the glory of God as a major consideration in the matter of head coverings.

Can we look at such considerations and say that this issue is really not all that important? If we speak thus, we are disagreeing with Paul himself along with the Holy Spirit who inspired this passage.

If we value the glory of God and the honor of Jesus Christ, we must treat Paul's instructions with the same seriousness which he attaches to the issue. And not just the issue of glorifying God and honoring Jesus Christ in the presence of the body of believers who may see, you know, a woman wearing a head covering, but even before the principalities and powers glorifying him.

Head Coverings, Baptism, and the Weight of Christian Ordinances

Incidentally, top of page 23, in 1 Corinthians, Paul treats the head covering issue with more gravity than the issue of water baptism. In 1 Corinthians 1, Paul expresses relief that he did not baptize many of the Corinthian converts and then states, Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel.

Yet Paul gives careful, extensive, and methodical treatment to the head covering issue. Any objective reader of 1 Corinthians 11, 2 -16 would never get the impression that the head covering issue was unimportant to Paul.

In fact, at least in 1 Corinthians, he advocates it more strenuously than water baptism. Now, my point is not to say that head coverings are more important than baptism. I'm just saying that I can't go the way of some commentators who read 1 Corinthians 11, 2 -16, all of these verses and say, it just doesn't seem like Paul's real passionate about this.

I mean, there's actually an evangelical commentator that I read who says that. It just doesn't seem like he has a lot of passion for this, and not nearly as much passion as he's going to have for the Lord's Supper issue that he talks about later in the chapter.

And my response to that would be, excuse me? Paul's talking about the honor of Jesus Christ, the glory of God, angels, and theological argumentation. He's bringing all of these things to bear and giving this much ink to this issue.

There's no way that an objective reader could look at that and say, it's not an important issue. It wasn't even to Paul, and so it should not be to me either. And so, even though it's taught only one time, folks, how much do we love God?

And how many times does God have to say something before we will heed his word? A fourth concern that people have is some fear that if Paul's teaching on head coverings is fully applied today, too much attention will be given to the symbol rather than the substance which the symbol represents.

That's a valid concern. If people start wearing head coverings in our services, you know, it'll be easy to be distracted by that and to be thinking about that, and too much attention could then be given to the symbol to where the substance is really lost.

And that's a true concern, but folks, we run that same concern with other things that we do. Let's not single this out and say, well, because of this concern, let's dismiss it. Look what I say. We run this risk with the ordinance of baptism and the Lord's table as well.

Some even elevate baptism to the level of being necessary for salvation. Others do the same with the Lord's Supper. However, the risk of such errors and the fact that some are actually guilty of such errors does not negate our duty to maintain the use of biblically required symbolic practices.

And also I would ask the question, why don't we worry about the other side of the issue? Why aren't we concerned that if the symbol is removed, the reality which it symbolizes may be lost? And folks, is this not exactly what has happened in our society today?

Why aren't we concerned about that? We would never want to remove the Lord's table from our body life because our fear would be that we might lose the substance that those symbols remind us of. We would never want to remove baptism because we might lose the substance of what baptism symbolizes.

And we ought to be concerned about the head covering issue, that if we remove that from the church at large, we're going to lose the substance of what it symbolizes. And folks, any honest observer of even the church over the last 50 years would have to say that's exactly what has happened in the church of Jesus Christ, at least in this society.

So if you're going to be concerned about, well, there's going to be too much attention given to the symbol. I would encourage you to also be concerned with the other side of things. Number five, some might be turned off by all the controversy which surrounds this passage.

Controversy, Church History, and the Prophecy of John Calvin

And they ask, why practice something that is shrouded in so much controversy? My response would be, if you study church history, there's been a tremendous amount of controversy regarding water baptism.

And there's a bunch of different viewpoints. Infant baptism versus believer's baptism. The error of baptismal regeneration. Immersion versus sprinkling or pouring. Hyper-dispensational teaching that water baptism is not even for today.

Single dunk versus triple dunk. There's actually disagreements over that. One of my professors in seminary believed that you dunk someone three times. In the name of the Father, bring them up. The Son, bring them up.

And the Holy Spirit, and bring them up the third time. Hopefully, if you've got the energy to do that. But they believe in triple dunking the person that is being baptized. And so there's disagreements over that issue.

There's also been a tremendous amount of controversy regarding the Lord's Supper. There's transubstantiation, which is the Roman Catholic view. Consubstantiation, the Zwinglian or symbolic view. The Eastern Orthodox view.

The Calvinistic view. Weekly practice versus monthly practice. The sacramental view versus the ordinance view. There's been a tremendous amount of controversy over both water baptism and the Lord's Supper.

Yet, folks, we do not let these controversies discourage us from searching the Scriptures on such matters. And seeking to rightly understand and practice such ordinances. Do we look at all the controversy on baptism and say, there's so much debate.