Everything we do at Westside is centred on knowing Jesus and making Jesus known. Christ's great commission is for His disciples to go out and make disciples (Matthew 28:18-19). In Jesus' parable of the Great Banquet (Luke 14), He tells us to go out and compel as many people as possible to come to His Father's banqueting table so that His house may be full. There is no denying that our clear calling as the global church is to make Jesus known to those who don't know Him. But making Jesus known at Westside isn't simply tied into missions and evangelism, for knowing Jesus isn't a one-time act but an ongoing process -- what God begins, He completes (Romans 8:30 and Philippians 1:7). And the fact is, Jesus calls us to disciple-making, not convert--making; but that said, the role of any disciple is calling others to follow Jesus.
Пікірлер
Im listening to your sermon in 2024. I thank the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit for guiding me here to listen to this today. Thank you. ❤✝️🕊 🙏
men have to submit and obey their wives just as much as women their husbands 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...
Amen thank u for sharing + d way u closed by given us a chance to respond. Yes i am a beliver + been in God work but took a job past 13 yrs+been praying for FathercFod to open a door for mini. Was preparing thise mess fr 1 Corr3:10-17 + also had read Matt 7:24-27. I need some clarity on d gold silver + preciouse stones. So i googled , + came across yr sermon. To God be d glory. Patrick fr SA .
beautiful message. Thank you sir🙌🏽
If we follow those who subscribe to the doctrine of women wearing veils, then it can be argued that the most often cited verse is 1st Corinth. 11:5, which states: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.” According to many of those who believe women ought to wear veils this verse supposedly implies that a woman’s uncovered head is a woman who does not wear a veil. Such a woman is either dishonoring God, their own physical head or her husband for failing to wear it which implies that they are in disobedience. Some have gone so far as to say it is a sin. Another assumption is that the woman being referred to already has long hair and since they conclude that the covering is a veil then it must be referring to an “additional” covering otherwise it would clash with verse 15 stating that God gave women long hair for a covering. Another conclusion is that women ought to be covered ONLY when praying and prophesying which would make it seem as though it were something that can be placed on or taken off like a veil. You’ve probably noticed by now it takes several assumptions to reach the conclusion that women ought to wear a foreign object on their heads, despite the lack of evidence. * Does the Bible really give a clear command that women should wear a veil? The first thing that everyone must understand when talking about this topic is that it DOES NOT say the word “veil “or any other physical headwear, as far as the KJV is concerned. It surely mentions that the woman’s head should be covered, and no one disputes this, but it does not say that it should be covered with a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or any other specific headwear. The verses in question within 1st Corinthians 11 mention the words, cover, covered, uncovered, and covering, but that does not mean we can translate this to mean specifically a veil, a shawl, a bonnet, a cap, or anything else similar. In fact, it would seem more like an adverb rather than a noun. Nevertheless, the word “cover” is often unfortunately interpreted by head covering promoters to mean a veil above all other types of headwear, even if there is no evidence to prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt. To do so would mean that one is trying to read more into the verse than what is actually stated and is not truly seeking an exegesis of the Scriptures. Some have claimed that they are referring to a physical synthetic head covering because the Scriptures seem to indicate that there are two exclusive conditions in order to wear one and that is when a woman is either praying and/or prophesying. But does this interpretation stand up to logic? If we were to believe that under certain conditions a woman ought to wear a physical head covering, then it stands to reason that under OTHER conditions a woman should be able NOT to wear one. For example, if you are going to argue that a woman ought to wear a veil because the Bible claims there are two conditions, then it is logical to presume that any other condition would ALLOW them to be without one, like speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. Now if a head covering promoter should claim that there are MORE conditions, then they admit that there aren’t really “two” conditions thereby nullifying the two-condition argument. The reasoning behind why the “two-condition” argument is important for veil promoters is because if these words were actual conditions, then it would seem as though the covering were something that can be placed on or taken off. So even though it does not literally or EXPLICITLY say anything about putting on or taking off a veil. Veil promotors form this belief based on what they believe to be IMPLIED and not by a direct statement. Many people like to believe this because they ASSUME that praying and prophesying are two conditions instead of seeing them as mere examples. * Praying and prophesying were meant to be viewed as examples, not conditions… Now I can understand how someone can mistakenly conclude praying and prophesying as conditions in verse 5, on the surface, but once you read the rest of the verses in context one cannot reach that conclusion. For example, if the strongest argument is because there were conditions for women to wear veils because of verse 5 then why don’t we hear the same thing spoken of about men in verse 4? “Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.” Normally we do not hear the argument that men ought not to have their heads covered exclusively under two conditions as we hear for women as to why they should. I think it is because that would imply that they CAN have their heads covered under other circumstances like the examples I mentioned before as in speaking in tongues, interpreting tongues, healing the sick, casting out devils, etc. But I suspect a veil promoter would not go along with this. Then there is 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.” So, there seems to be ANOTHER reason for men not to cover. Therefore, if the reason for men not to cover their heads in this verse is because he is the “image and glory of God,” then why even mention praying or prophesying in verse 4? Should a man not be covered under ANY condition since verse 7 overrides any supposed conditions? Shouldn’t that make you question that perhaps Paul was just giving a couple of examples? Verses 4 and 5 are basically the same except for whom they are directed yet when one hears the arguments by veil promoters it is typically about how verse 5 is conditional for women yet for men in verse 4 it is usually not spoken of. Again, isn’t it more likely that Paul was using the words praying and prophesying as examples in both verses? We can also get a sense that Paul was referring to praying and prophesying as examples if we read verse 13 when it only mentions the word praying and NOT prophesying. “Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?” If there were only two exclusive conditions, then why would he leave out prophesying? We can’t say he got tired in his writing as he mentioned both words in verses 4 and 5. So, what can we say about this? Just that Paul was giving us a couple of examples of how doing something HOLY or GODLY does not give a pleasant appearance if the woman is uncovered, meaning not covered in long hair and the same goes for men when their heads are covered in long hair since that is exactly one is supposed to understand when reading verse 14.
Brilliant links. Thanks! Bsa
Sometimes people explain away what Paul said. He said if you can’t control your lust get married. Plain and simple
26:21
I counted 8 for myself 😢
ITS ALL ABOUT JESUS
Thank you Pastor ❤. May God Bless you for this awesome message.
Root of rascism is sin. And since noone is immune from sin, all are capable of rascism.
Powerful message Thank you for being g vulnerable in your Sharing God Bless❤
1 Cor 2:10-11 tells us who the Spirit of God is, and it is not the third person of the trinity any more than my spirit is different from me (according to verse 11)
This is a blessing. My thoughts were spoken in this message
I was brought to this sermon via a very strange path that begin with prayer on a Tuesday morning before work. I've found myself here watching this, 3 years after it was first posted. I find it so relevant, not just then but now. Thank you. From down under, in Perth Western Australia. God Bless you all.
I like your black jacket
Yes.
🤩
I had a great time at service today. The sermon talks about not just knowing who the shepherd is but his ways. Dont just exalt his name. Try as much to live like he did.
Awesome and Appropriate Word!!! Thank you Pastor for your testimony and your obedience to our Father and our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!!! May the God of ALL Glory continue to bless your life and your family and your ministry that He has given you, in Jesus Christ name, Amen!!!
Interesting. Thanks for the message. Would it be comparable to not wearing a wedding band if you are married - like showing availability though one is not available? I found this verse earlier in the week and thought I would do some research into it.
brittany I post on head coverings and hair a lot. Reply if desired for scriptures and such.
Amen, found the preaching after reading the scripture. I wanted more knowledge on it, and is exactly what I got hear. I hope the almighty God bless you even more than you can barely contain
What happened at 38:00?
Amen amen that's right man
Yes that's right man baptising is right yes rock that's right bro his kingdom hearts!
Oh wow Pastor Paul of Westside Church I like your preaching
Come on bro preaching god's word come on let's be hungry in god's word Amen
such an insightful sermon. God be glorified.
In my situation, I have been with my partner for 16 years now. He was married for 3 years prior and they separated. 3 years after, we met and we lived together since then. Since there is no divorce here in the Philippines and the annulment is very expensive, we set it aside. When I became christian in 2019, I was really devastated because it's in the bible that I cannot be with him. I thought of leaving him. You see, we have a 12 year old child and knew what will be the implications. My partner was broken hearing my reasons. Then I was led to THIS CHAPTER, 1 Corinthians 7. It freed me. Freed us. Thank Jesus he became christian also and was also baptized. We are still looking forward though that we will find money for the annulment so we can marry to honor God and people. P.S. we just had our 2nd baby after 13 years. This happened within our christian life.
Amazing beautiful message Pastor Cliff !!! Thank you JESUS 🙌 Blessed sermon 🙏 💜
This pastor was great! Super funny, thanks for the guest sermon :)
Beautiful lovely sermon 🙌
Thanks for posting. The moral of this passage of Scripture: Take heart! God sent His servant as a light for all people.
This was awesome I'm teaching this sunday. Thank you
Wow , this was eye opening beyond my expectation . God Bless , Westside Church .
This was so emotional at the end. But my take away is "God make me A Joshua. A faithful Joshua" I really would love to know where God led pastor Norm led him and His family.
Thanks. I enjoyed your teaching. Please continue.
Thank you for this pastor.
Hear me out as I prophesies for you about head coverings. Don't nuns wear head coverings? If one wore head coverings most certainly it wouldn't be with daisy dukes that are worn these days by the woman in our country. What head covering will do for the society is show less skin which would help with sexual immorality and lusting. Hence, why the Amish wear long dresses and show no legs to people in the public. The Muslims and Islamic ways and traditions serve this as well. Head coverings are to serve one another that might have lusted if her skin were exposed. This is what it means to serve one another. Not to do things to let other people stumble. Woman and their lack of cloths, make-up, hair dying leads men into sexual immorality and themselves. Not to mention the vanity they are creating to themselves. Woman being subservient to such measures will help the men and lusting. There is no room for ego to be involved if we want to make it to heaven. Meaning throw fasion out the window. As in 1 Peter, about the beauty not coming from the outside. Also, think about how many wives get lusted over by Godless men these days, day in and day out? If head covering were in play, as stated, this would eliminate this behavior. As a snow ball affect society will slowly come out of sexual immorality, lusting, sex before marriage, masturbation, and pornography. It will help people stop sinning in these areas. Sexual immorality is at a high right now. There are so many single woman raising kids on their own due to sexual immorality. I simply stumbled on this reading today and have been researching it. I appreciate your words on it. As stated in Joshua 1:8 "Meditate on the word day and night so you may do exactly as it says". What I stated above is what I feel, and I appreciate the opposing view point. I shall meditate day and night until the Holy Spirit reveals the answers to me. Let us do things so others don't stumble. May God bless West Side Church in Vancouver. 1 Corinthians 11:6 6 For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head. Can you at least hear me out and see what I am saying about it helping reduce lusting and sinful nature for others? I grew up in The United States and even though this is a tough topic it stays true to my heart weather the woman see what they can do to help or not.
I agree, head covering and dress modestly .
@@susanalday4368tank tops are not modest.
This is awesome!
Wearing head coverings is an apostolic tradition (v1) that is a symbol of authority. We mustn't set aside apostolic teaching because of our current culture. Wearing head coverings was common throughout church history in all denominations up until it began to wane at the time of the feminist movement.
I feel you brother.
* Going Outside the Scope of the Scriptures & so called “Christian History” …. Proponents of the head covering often point towards church history meaning that there is “historical evidence” within the church (whatever church that may be) that this doctrine was applied for a very long time. Many proponents insist that women had been wearing a head covering for centuries and that only recently (within the 1900s) did women begin to reject the idea, usually because of an introduction of some evil like the feminist movement as though this somehow supports or gives credence to their false interpretation. They never consider the fact that about that time more people were getting the word of God into their hands and as a result the possibility that they discovered that the old interpretations, held by many of these contradicting churches, were false. As an example, I recall when I was Catholic, I was shocked when I found the Bible to be contrary to Catholic dogmas. And they claim to have had the true word of God for centuries! It is logical to think that as more people read the Scriptures with their own eyes, they would naturally discover many false doctrines pushed by many sects and even within their own church. So, one cannot just assume that one specific movement or event caused many to reject this or any other doctrine. Still, many veil promoters will be bold to claim that no Christian or Christian group ever thought that the covering was long hair and not a veil. That such an idea only existed within the last few years. This seems to be a very narrow-minded way to think that no one ever thought that long hair was the covering for over two thousand years. Yet they will declare it as though it were a proven fact but when confronted no one that I have spoken to has been able to logically describe HOW they came to this conclusion with proof. Most people tend to make outlandish claims but never do research to prove these claims. Another argument is the fact that certain women wore veils, bonnets, or hats in the past is by no means evidence of any kind. One cannot prove that women (in general, not just Christians) who covered their heads in the past did it because they were supposedly following a “Christian” rule. If one must resort to going outside the scope of the scriptures to prove their point, then isn’t it possible that their biblical evidence was likely very thin, to begin with? They often add that many ancient pictures or paintings, whether they be religious or not, show women wearing some kind of physical head covering. But what people did in the past is irrelevant to what the Bible teaches; plus, people wore headwear for all sorts of reasons, and it doesn’t mean that they were abiding by what they interpret the Scripture to mean. The idea (if it can be proven) that more women wore fewer hats or veils today than in the past is not a sign of anything, whether they be Christian or not. It doesn’t prove people were breaking any so-called “biblical” rule if you first don’t prove that there was a rule to break to begin with! Let me give you a couple of examples that eliminate this logic: 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 them. The long time practice of a questionable doctrine is NOT evidence. It should go without saying that these examples are either not in the Bible or in contrast with scripture. False doctrines have been around for centuries; therefore, how can anyone use paintings, photos, or even post-biblical writings to prove their interpretation of Scripture to be correct? All it shows (like crucifixes, statues, and infant baptisms) is that people can be wrong for a very long period. The Bible even mentions the long time practice of temple construction but even though God allowed it ti happen he was NOT in agreement with it as one can easily see God’s disdain of the practice. (Read Acts 7:47-51). The New Testament already mentions several instances where people were misinterpreting the Scriptures and teaching false doctrines. So let’s not act like it would be hard to believe that splinter groups formed and followed their OWN interpretations of which could have spread to other denominations. Even with biblical facts people will continue to find it hard to believe that the people could be wrong for so long. The thing that I find most interesting is when they throw around the word “church” as if one should KNOW what they mean. The first logical response should be ‘Which church are you referring to? Catholic? Protestant? Anabaptist?’ All of which oppose each other by the way. Who exactly is being referring to when they say “church?” Most of the time people are sidelined by this because they haven’t made any real effort to know what they mean by “church.” And if they start to add certain churches that contradict scripture. I would say, ‘Why are putting your trust in them?’ Then I would explain all the scriptural reasons why they shouldn’t. Churches that follow a certain doctrine for an extended length of time are not proof of anything unless it stands firm within the scriptures. Our faith should be based on rock-solid verses, not because some churches are following similar beliefs which can be wrong, or the flimsy writings or etchings of man. Therefore, what the people did, however long ago, does not prove that what they practiced was biblically sound. 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 false “Christian” group who have some form of long historical background can make an argument that their writings ought to be taken seriously as well. 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” followed “their” beliefs. Bias will also very likely come into play here because if you are of a particular sect, then the “early church fathers” will be based on those YOU consider and avoid any other “historical” church writers from other 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 both. Either you follow and trust God’s words or men’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 belief. If you do 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 that “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 they wrote 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 they should not be received as truth. So, what does this imply? Just that one must 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 for ANY topic not just about head covering. If someone asks you to believe in a doctrine based on non-biblical writings to get a BETTER understanding of the Bible, then they are implying that their argument is so thin that they must resort to other sources.
1.Does it glorify the Father? 2. Is it the will of the Father. 3. Is it obedience to the Father? KJV John 6:38. “For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.”
Just a FYI. Mexico does not celebrate Cinco de Mayo. It’s a American made up holiday that apparently is another day to get drunk. AKA: Drinko de Mayo.
Powerful message. Thank you
Pastor Matt must be the Only Pastor in Vancouver who actually encourages people to bring their physical Bibles to church. Well done and kudos Pastor! We really need more people doing this. Having the Sword of the Spirit physically present with you especially at church is so important. Blessings 🙏🏼 📕 ⚔️ 🦁😄
You guys are the best! I can’t wait to be there in person one day!