Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: On Covering

Expand Messages
  • Ic Neltococayotl
    Parnell, *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
    Message 1 of 38 , May 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      Parnell,

      *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
      type issue.

      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
      all ears.

      Hope that helps?

      Edgar


      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "puritanone"
      <joseph.mccarter@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.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
      >
    • Larry Bump
      ... I couldn t imagine that you did, so that s a relief! ;-) Larry
      Message 38 of 38 , May 3, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        Katrina Schumacher wrote:
        > /Ha, Ha, Ha, Elder Larry; /
        > //
        > /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...

        I couldn't imagine that you did, so that's a relief!
        ;-)

        Larry
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.