Re: On Covering
*I* personally am not sure. From what I have understood from advocates
of the two positions, it appears to be so. The ones that state that the
covering is a moral/creation issue in that the woman is to be covered at
all times in public, whether in the public worship or not, would say
that those who advocate a RPW only position are still in error and
violating a creation ordinance, although they are closer in their
submission to God's Word than those that do not believe in any secondary
covering for a woman. Whereas those that advocate a RPW-only covering
would say that there is no creation ordinance dictating that the woman
cover herself outside of the public worship of God. It is a RPW only
So that is why I made that distinction, based on what I have understood
from both sides. If I am wrong or have misunderstood either side, I am
Hope that helps?
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "puritanone"
> --- In email@example.com, "Ic Neltococayotl"
> puritanpresbyterian@ wrote:
> > How do we as Christians that may hold the three different views:
> > * RPW covering
> > * Moral/creation ordinance covering
> > * no covering necessary: sub-divided into:
> Edgar, do you feel 1. and 2. in your list above are necessarily
> mutually exclusive?
> - Parnell McCarter
- Katrina Schumacher wrote:
> /Ha, Ha, Ha, Elder Larry; /I couldn't imagine that you did, so that's a relief!
> /Thanks for the laugh this morning, <grin> I guess I should have
> commented that I did not/
> /agree with my Step Brother's actions or that of their friend that
> punished himself by growing his hair long...