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

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of Nature

Expand Messages
  • Gary Gearon
    To be clearer on my use of the word LAWS, I mean that noone can make a law that states the the Law of Nature no longer teaches anything in particular, or as it
    Message 1 of 20 , Dec 25, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      To be clearer on my use of the word LAWS, I mean that noone can make a law that states the the Law of Nature no longer teaches anything in particular, or as it once was thought to do, in a "supposed" time past.
       
      Gary
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 2:44 PM
      Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of Nature

      Dear Grant and Cathie,
       
      Here are some words of Gillespie that we covered in a Friday night Bible study at the Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian Church where we attend:
       
      I hope you find this edifying. English Popish Ceremonies, pg. 13, by Covenanted Pastor, George Gillespie.
       
      If it is demanded to what purpose serves then the enacting of ecclesiastical laws, since they have not in them any power to bind the conscience, I answer, The use and end for which ecclesiastical laws do serve is:
       
      1. For the plain discovery of such things as the Law of God or nature (Law of - emphasis mine) does require of us, so that law which of itself has power to bind, comes from the priests and ministers of the Lord neither independently, nor as lawgivers, but declarative (Mal. 2:7).
       
      2. For declaring to us what is fittest in such things as are, in their own nature, indifferent, and neither enforced by the Law of God or nature, and which part should be followed in these things as most convenient. The laws of the church, then, are appointed to let us see the necessity of the first kind of things, and what is expedient in the other kind of things, and therefore they are more properly called directions, instructions, admonitions, than laws. For I speak of ecclesiastical laws qua tales [as such], that is, as they are the constitutions of men who are set over us; thus considered, they have only the strength of directing and warning (that is no one can make LAWS about these things - emphasis mine).
       
      Brother and sister, please feel free to share this with whoever you like.
       
      Sincerely yours, in our most illustrious and merciful Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, the True LION of the Covenant,
       
       
      Gary
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Soles" <dsranch@...>
      Sent: Tuesday, December 24, 2002 3:29 AM
      Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Reconstructionists denial of the Light and Law of Nature

      > Gary try to get a hold of John Brown of Haddington's Systematic
      > Theology...there are about 40 pages on the Law and the Light of Nature,
      > Grant recommends the reading of it. Also Grant thinks that it would be
      > helpful if someone who was scholarly enough and has the tools and the time
      > and the interest to study Biblical usage's of the word Nature and it's
      > synonyms would sit down and do some writing as it pertains to our present
      > discussion; then some light might be generated instead of just heat. And as
      > far as your musing about Reconstructionists denial of the Light and the Law
      > of Nature, we think Haddington will probably cover this.
      >
      > Still by Christ's mercy,
      >
      > ~cis~
      >
      >
      > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
      > Advent Devotions Online at Following the Star.<br>
      > Take a few quiet moments to follow. See why angels sing. Join them.
      >
      http://us.click.yahoo.com/xMRTBC/rlGFAA/EcBKAA/GuTslB/TM
      > ---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
      >
      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      >
      covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >  
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
      > ------------------------------------------------------
      > [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Pike Online, Inc.]
      >
      >
      >

      To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



      Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
    • Gary Gearon
      Do you think the practice of the Free Church of Scotland in the UK and USA, and its custom of women manditorily wearing headcoverings (during worship only,
      Message 2 of 20 , Dec 27, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Do you think the practice of the Free Church of Scotland in the UK and USA, and its custom of women manditorily wearing headcoverings (during worship only, granted), should count as a legitimate North American customary observance?
         
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Soles
        Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 1:28 PM
        Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of Nature

        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 11:44 AM
        Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of Nature
        Dear Grant and Cathie,
         
        Here are some words of Gillespie that we covered in a Friday night Bible study at the Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian Church where we attend:
         
        I hope you find this edifying. English Popish Ceremonies, pg. 13, by Covenanted Pastor, George Gillespie.
         
        If it is demanded to what purpose serves then the enacting of ecclesiastical laws, since they have not in them any power to bind the conscience, I answer, The use and end for which ecclesiastical laws do serve is:
         
        1. For the plain discovery of such things as the Law of God or nature (Law of - emphasis mine) does require of us, so that law which of itself has power to bind, comes from the priests and ministers of the Lord neither independently, nor as lawgivers, but declarative (Mal. 2:7).
         
        2. For declaring to us what is fittest in such things as are, in their own nature, indifferent, and neither enforced by the Law of God or nature, and which part should be followed in these things as most convenient. The laws of the church, then, are appointed to let us see the necessity of the first kind of things, and what is expedient in the other kind of things, and therefore they are more properly called directions, instructions, admonitions, than laws. For I speak of ecclesiastical laws qua tales [as such], that is, as they are the constitutions of men who are set over us; thus considered, they have only the strength of directing and warning (that is no one can make LAWS about these things - emphasis mine).
         
        Brother and sister, please feel free to share this with whoever you like.
         
        Sincerely yours, in our most illustrious and merciful Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, the True LION of the Covenant,
         
         
        Gary
         
         
        Grant answering:
         
        The two notes by Geo G. are good points. And this is what the RPNA had in mind when they wrote the much maligned ruling.
         
        In accordance with number one, they did exactly what Paul did in 1Cor.11:3, declaring the principle of headship in its various ramifications, the very thing that both nature and the law of God teach. They went on to declare what the Word does in showing the impossiblity of the practise to be an essential in the exercises of worshiping, while the principle is essential for the purposes of church order.
         
        In accordance with number two, the admonition is, unless the church lives in a culture where women's headcoverings are universally understood to signify female submission, in which men not wearing a covering is well known to signify subjection to Christ, it is to be discouraged that you wear/don't wear these articles. However if it is your practice in your community and household to wear something on your head ladies, you may freely wear it to worship, provided two things.
         
        Number one: it is not meant as a distraction and to cause disorder in the house of God, and
        Number two: it must not be worn as a testimony against sin toward others who are not practicing the same thing. But our advice, stay back from the line, be warned. Don't try to get as close to objectionable as possible.
         
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 5:37 PM
        Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Sentence Correction: Law of Nature
         
        Correction: I see my sentence needs some fixin':

        To be clearer on my use of the word LAWS, I mean that noone can make a law that states the Law of Nature no longer teaches anything in particular, or, that it once was thought to teach a thing, in a "supposed" time past, which it no longer teaches, because  customs have changed, contrary to the Law of Nature. The Law of Nature is how God expresses His will for His creatures. God does not change His mind, about what He has placed in nature, and the physical constitution of man or woman or ant.
         
        Gary
         
         
        Grant answering:
         
        As for nature, yes it teaches the principle, but as has been pointed out repeatedly, if it also taught the practice, Eve should have been covered even in her innocence. She was not.
         
        In Pakistan where I was for a month in 1989. I saw firsthand how women show submission during worship...they all sit at the back during the worship service, the men at the front. Headcoverings aren't even an issue.
         
        ~cis~

        To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
        covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
      • Fredrick Fleming
        YES!!!!! Oh if only the christian church would do this! It would be good if men also wore Beard. ... covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com ...
        Message 3 of 20 , Dec 27, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          YES!!!!! Oh if only the christian church would do
          this! It would be good if men also wore Beard.
          --- Gary Gearon <GGearon@...> wrote:
          > Do you think the practice of the Free Church of
          > Scotland in the UK and USA, and its custom of women
          > manditorily wearing headcoverings (during worship
          > only, granted), should count as a legitimate North
          > American customary observance?
          >
          >
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: Soles
          > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 1:28 PM
          > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of Nature
          >
          >
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: Gary Gearon
          > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 11:44 AM
          > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of Nature
          > Dear Grant and Cathie,
          >
          > Here are some words of Gillespie that we covered
          > in a Friday night Bible study at the Covenanted
          > Reformed Presbyterian Church where we attend:
          >
          > I hope you find this edifying. English Popish
          > Ceremonies, pg. 13, by Covenanted Pastor, George
          > Gillespie.
          >
          > If it is demanded to what purpose serves then the
          > enacting of ecclesiastical laws, since they have not
          > in them any power to bind the conscience, I answer,
          > The use and end for which ecclesiastical laws do
          > serve is:
          >
          > 1. For the plain discovery of such things as the
          > Law of God or nature (Law of - emphasis mine) does
          > require of us, so that law which of itself has power
          > to bind, comes from the priests and ministers of the
          > Lord neither independently, nor as lawgivers, but
          > declarative (Mal. 2:7).
          >
          > 2. For declaring to us what is fittest in such
          > things as are, in their own nature, indifferent, and
          > neither enforced by the Law of God or nature, and
          > which part should be followed in these things as
          > most convenient. The laws of the church, then, are
          > appointed to let us see the necessity of the first
          > kind of things, and what is expedient in the other
          > kind of things, and therefore they are more properly
          > called directions, instructions, admonitions, than
          > laws. For I speak of ecclesiastical laws qua tales
          > [as such], that is, as they are the constitutions of
          > men who are set over us; thus considered, they have
          > only the strength of directing and warning (that is
          > no one can make LAWS about these things - emphasis
          > mine).
          >
          > Brother and sister, please feel free to share this
          > with whoever you like.
          >
          > Sincerely yours, in our most illustrious and
          > merciful Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, the True
          > LION of the Covenant,
          >
          >
          > Gary
          >
          >
          > Grant answering:
          >
          > The two notes by Geo G. are good points. And this
          > is what the RPNA had in mind when they wrote the
          > much maligned ruling.
          >
          > In accordance with number one, they did exactly
          > what Paul did in 1Cor.11:3, declaring the principle
          > of headship in its various ramifications, the very
          > thing that both nature and the law of God teach.
          > They went on to declare what the Word does in
          > showing the impossiblity of the practise to be an
          > essential in the exercises of worshiping, while the
          > principle is essential for the purposes of church
          > order.
          >
          > In accordance with number two, the admonition is,
          > unless the church lives in a culture where women's
          > headcoverings are universally understood to signify
          > female submission, in which men not wearing a
          > covering is well known to signify subjection to
          > Christ, it is to be discouraged that you wear/don't
          > wear these articles. However if it is your practice
          > in your community and household to wear something on
          > your head ladies, you may freely wear it to worship,
          > provided two things.
          >
          > Number one: it is not meant as a distraction and
          > to cause disorder in the house of God, and
          > Number two: it must not be worn as a testimony
          > against sin toward others who are not practicing the
          > same thing. But our advice, stay back from the line,
          > be warned. Don't try to get as close to
          > objectionable as possible.
          >
          >
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: Gary Gearon
          > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
          > Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 5:37 PM
          > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Sentence
          > Correction: Law of Nature
          >
          > Correction: I see my sentence needs some fixin':
          >
          >
          > To be clearer on my use of the word LAWS, I mean
          > that noone can make a law that states the Law of
          > Nature no longer teaches anything in particular, or,
          > that it once was thought to teach a thing, in a
          > "supposed" time past, which it no longer teaches,
          > because customs have changed, contrary to the Law
          > of Nature. The Law of Nature is how God expresses
          > His will for His creatures. God does not change His
          > mind, about what He has placed in nature, and the
          > physical constitution of man or woman or ant.
          >
          > Gary
          >
          >
          > Grant answering:
          >
          > As for nature, yes it teaches the principle, but
          > as has been pointed out repeatedly, if it also
          > taught the practice, Eve should have been covered
          > even in her innocence. She was not.
          >
          > In Pakistan where I was for a month in 1989. I saw
          > firsthand how women show submission during
          > worship...they all sit at the back during the
          > worship service, the men at the front. Headcoverings
          > aren't even an issue.
          >
          > ~cis~
          >
          > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
          >
          >
          covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          >
          >
          > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
          > Terms of Service.
          >
          >


          __________________________________________________
          Do you Yahoo!?
          Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
          http://mailplus.yahoo.com
        • Soles
          Okay Gary, Let s have a little bit of fun with this....let s all think of those things that are so customary in our land that folks do not even think about
          Message 4 of 20 , Dec 27, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Okay Gary,
             
            Let's have a little bit of fun with this....let's all think of those things that are so customary in our land that folks do not even think about them being there/or about them when used...inotherwards they are taken for granted....and folks understand what they are for.
             
            1. public facilities that have a woman's symbol may say women and  facilities that have a man's symbol and may say men above or below the symbol
             
             
            2.getting up in the morning and whole households putting their day clothes on.
             
            3. adults going to work, children to some kind of schooling
             
            4. time taken for three meals a day
             
            5.greetings of how are you today?
             
            6. hand movements that everyone understands, waving goodbye, come here and so on ...
             
            7. couples sharing a room, most children in individual beds...and these beds raised off the floor.
             
            More?
             
            ~Cathie~
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 7:43 PM
            Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of Nature

            Do you think the practice of the Free Church of Scotland in the UK and USA, and its custom of women manditorily wearing headcoverings (during worship only, granted), should count as a legitimate North American customary observance?
             
             
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Soles
            Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 1:28 PM
            Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of Nature

            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 11:44 AM
            Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of Nature
            Dear Grant and Cathie,
             
            Here are some words of Gillespie that we covered in a Friday night Bible study at the Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian Church where we attend:
             
            I hope you find this edifying. English Popish Ceremonies, pg. 13, by Covenanted Pastor, George Gillespie.
             
            If it is demanded to what purpose serves then the enacting of ecclesiastical laws, since they have not in them any power to bind the conscience, I answer, The use and end for which ecclesiastical laws do serve is:
             
            1. For the plain discovery of such things as the Law of God or nature (Law of - emphasis mine) does require of us, so that law which of itself has power to bind, comes from the priests and ministers of the Lord neither independently, nor as lawgivers, but declarative (Mal. 2:7).
             
            2. For declaring to us what is fittest in such things as are, in their own nature, indifferent, and neither enforced by the Law of God or nature, and which part should be followed in these things as most convenient. The laws of the church, then, are appointed to let us see the necessity of the first kind of things, and what is expedient in the other kind of things, and therefore they are more properly called directions, instructions, admonitions, than laws. For I speak of ecclesiastical laws qua tales [as such], that is, as they are the constitutions of men who are set over us; thus considered, they have only the strength of directing and warning (that is no one can make LAWS about these things - emphasis mine).
             
            Brother and sister, please feel free to share this with whoever you like.
             
            Sincerely yours, in our most illustrious and merciful Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, the True LION of the Covenant,
             
             
            Gary
             
             
            Grant answering:
             
            The two notes by Geo G. are good points. And this is what the RPNA had in mind when they wrote the much maligned ruling.
             
            In accordance with number one, they did exactly what Paul did in 1Cor.11:3, declaring the principle of headship in its various ramifications, the very thing that both nature and the law of God teach. They went on to declare what the Word does in showing the impossiblity of the practise to be an essential in the exercises of worshiping, while the principle is essential for the purposes of church order.
             
            In accordance with number two, the admonition is, unless the church lives in a culture where women's headcoverings are universally understood to signify female submission, in which men not wearing a covering is well known to signify subjection to Christ, it is to be discouraged that you wear/don't wear these articles. However if it is your practice in your community and household to wear something on your head ladies, you may freely wear it to worship, provided two things.
             
            Number one: it is not meant as a distraction and to cause disorder in the house of God, and
            Number two: it must not be worn as a testimony against sin toward others who are not practicing the same thing. But our advice, stay back from the line, be warned. Don't try to get as close to objectionable as possible.
             
             
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 5:37 PM
            Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Sentence Correction: Law of Nature
             
            Correction: I see my sentence needs some fixin':

            To be clearer on my use of the word LAWS, I mean that noone can make a law that states the Law of Nature no longer teaches anything in particular, or, that it once was thought to teach a thing, in a "supposed" time past, which it no longer teaches, because  customs have changed, contrary to the Law of Nature. The Law of Nature is how God expresses His will for His creatures. God does not change His mind, about what He has placed in nature, and the physical constitution of man or woman or ant.
             
            Gary
             
             
            Grant answering:
             
            As for nature, yes it teaches the principle, but as has been pointed out repeatedly, if it also taught the practice, Eve should have been covered even in her innocence. She was not.
             
            In Pakistan where I was for a month in 1989. I saw firsthand how women show submission during worship...they all sit at the back during the worship service, the men at the front. Headcoverings aren't even an issue.
             
            ~cis~

            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
            covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
          • Gary Gearon
            Hmmm...beards. I am only half way there Frederick (moustache). Gary ... From: Soles To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 28,
            Message 5 of 20 , Dec 28, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              Hmmm...beards. I am only half way there Frederick (moustache).
               
              Gary
               
               
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Soles
              Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 2:02 AM
              Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of Nature

              Okay Gary,
               
              Let's have a little bit of fun with this....let's all think of those things that are so customary in our land that folks do not even think about them being there/or about them when used...inotherwards they are taken for granted....and folks understand what they are for.
               
              1. public facilities that have a woman's symbol may say women and  facilities that have a man's symbol and may say men above or below the symbol
               
               
              2.getting up in the morning and whole households putting their day clothes on.
               
              3. adults going to work, children to some kind of schooling
               
              4. time taken for three meals a day
               
              5.greetings of how are you today?
               
              6. hand movements that everyone understands, waving goodbye, come here and so on ...
               
              7. couples sharing a room, most children in individual beds...and these beds raised off the floor.
               
              More?
               
              ~Cathie~
              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 7:43 PM
              Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of Nature

              Do you think the practice of the Free Church of Scotland in the UK and USA, and its custom of women manditorily wearing headcoverings (during worship only, granted), should count as a legitimate North American customary observance?
               
               
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Soles
              Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 1:28 PM
              Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of Nature

              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 11:44 AM
              Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of Nature
              Dear Grant and Cathie,
               
              Here are some words of Gillespie that we covered in a Friday night Bible study at the Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian Church where we attend:
               
              I hope you find this edifying. English Popish Ceremonies, pg. 13, by Covenanted Pastor, George Gillespie.
               
              If it is demanded to what purpose serves then the enacting of ecclesiastical laws, since they have not in them any power to bind the conscience, I answer, The use and end for which ecclesiastical laws do serve is:
               
              1. For the plain discovery of such things as the Law of God or nature (Law of - emphasis mine) does require of us, so that law which of itself has power to bind, comes from the priests and ministers of the Lord neither independently, nor as lawgivers, but declarative (Mal. 2:7).
               
              2. For declaring to us what is fittest in such things as are, in their own nature, indifferent, and neither enforced by the Law of God or nature, and which part should be followed in these things as most convenient. The laws of the church, then, are appointed to let us see the necessity of the first kind of things, and what is expedient in the other kind of things, and therefore they are more properly called directions, instructions, admonitions, than laws. For I speak of ecclesiastical laws qua tales [as such], that is, as they are the constitutions of men who are set over us; thus considered, they have only the strength of directing and warning (that is no one can make LAWS about these things - emphasis mine).
               
              Brother and sister, please feel free to share this with whoever you like.
               
              Sincerely yours, in our most illustrious and merciful Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, the True LION of the Covenant,
               
               
              Gary
               
               
              Grant answering:
               
              The two notes by Geo G. are good points. And this is what the RPNA had in mind when they wrote the much maligned ruling.
               
              In accordance with number one, they did exactly what Paul did in 1Cor.11:3, declaring the principle of headship in its various ramifications, the very thing that both nature and the law of God teach. They went on to declare what the Word does in showing the impossiblity of the practise to be an essential in the exercises of worshiping, while the principle is essential for the purposes of church order.
               
              In accordance with number two, the admonition is, unless the church lives in a culture where women's headcoverings are universally understood to signify female submission, in which men not wearing a covering is well known to signify subjection to Christ, it is to be discouraged that you wear/don't wear these articles. However if it is your practice in your community and household to wear something on your head ladies, you may freely wear it to worship, provided two things.
               
              Number one: it is not meant as a distraction and to cause disorder in the house of God, and
              Number two: it must not be worn as a testimony against sin toward others who are not practicing the same thing. But our advice, stay back from the line, be warned. Don't try to get as close to objectionable as possible.
               
               
              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 5:37 PM
              Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Sentence Correction: Law of Nature
               
              Correction: I see my sentence needs some fixin':

              To be clearer on my use of the word LAWS, I mean that noone can make a law that states the Law of Nature no longer teaches anything in particular, or, that it once was thought to teach a thing, in a "supposed" time past, which it no longer teaches, because  customs have changed, contrary to the Law of Nature. The Law of Nature is how God expresses His will for His creatures. God does not change His mind, about what He has placed in nature, and the physical constitution of man or woman or ant.
               
              Gary
               
               
              Grant answering:
               
              As for nature, yes it teaches the principle, but as has been pointed out repeatedly, if it also taught the practice, Eve should have been covered even in her innocence. She was not.
               
              In Pakistan where I was for a month in 1989. I saw firsthand how women show submission during worship...they all sit at the back during the worship service, the men at the front. Headcoverings aren't even an issue.
               
              ~cis~

              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

              To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
              covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



              Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
            • Gary Gearon
              I wonder if wedding veils should be a symbol of submission anymore... ... From: Soles To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December
              Message 6 of 20 , Dec 28, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                I wonder if  wedding veils should be a symbol of submission anymore...
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Soles
                Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 2:02 AM
                Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of Nature

                Okay Gary,
                 
                Let's have a little bit of fun with this....let's all think of those things that are so customary in our land that folks do not even think about them being there/or about them when used...inotherwards they are taken for granted....and folks understand what they are for.
                 
                1. public facilities that have a woman's symbol may say women and  facilities that have a man's symbol and may say men above or below the symbol
                 
                 
                2.getting up in the morning and whole households putting their day clothes on.
                 
                3. adults going to work, children to some kind of schooling
                 
                4. time taken for three meals a day
                 
                5.greetings of how are you today?
                 
                6. hand movements that everyone understands, waving goodbye, come here and so on ...
                 
                7. couples sharing a room, most children in individual beds...and these beds raised off the floor.
                 
                More?
                 
                ~Cathie~
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 7:43 PM
                Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of Nature

                Do you think the practice of the Free Church of Scotland in the UK and USA, and its custom of women manditorily wearing headcoverings (during worship only, granted), should count as a legitimate North American customary observance?
                 
                 
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: Soles
                Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 1:28 PM
                Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of Nature

                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 11:44 AM
                Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of Nature
                Dear Grant and Cathie,
                 
                Here are some words of Gillespie that we covered in a Friday night Bible study at the Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian Church where we attend:
                 
                I hope you find this edifying. English Popish Ceremonies, pg. 13, by Covenanted Pastor, George Gillespie.
                 
                If it is demanded to what purpose serves then the enacting of ecclesiastical laws, since they have not in them any power to bind the conscience, I answer, The use and end for which ecclesiastical laws do serve is:
                 
                1. For the plain discovery of such things as the Law of God or nature (Law of - emphasis mine) does require of us, so that law which of itself has power to bind, comes from the priests and ministers of the Lord neither independently, nor as lawgivers, but declarative (Mal. 2:7).
                 
                2. For declaring to us what is fittest in such things as are, in their own nature, indifferent, and neither enforced by the Law of God or nature, and which part should be followed in these things as most convenient. The laws of the church, then, are appointed to let us see the necessity of the first kind of things, and what is expedient in the other kind of things, and therefore they are more properly called directions, instructions, admonitions, than laws. For I speak of ecclesiastical laws qua tales [as such], that is, as they are the constitutions of men who are set over us; thus considered, they have only the strength of directing and warning (that is no one can make LAWS about these things - emphasis mine).
                 
                Brother and sister, please feel free to share this with whoever you like.
                 
                Sincerely yours, in our most illustrious and merciful Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, the True LION of the Covenant,
                 
                 
                Gary
                 
                 
                Grant answering:
                 
                The two notes by Geo G. are good points. And this is what the RPNA had in mind when they wrote the much maligned ruling.
                 
                In accordance with number one, they did exactly what Paul did in 1Cor.11:3, declaring the principle of headship in its various ramifications, the very thing that both nature and the law of God teach. They went on to declare what the Word does in showing the impossiblity of the practise to be an essential in the exercises of worshiping, while the principle is essential for the purposes of church order.
                 
                In accordance with number two, the admonition is, unless the church lives in a culture where women's headcoverings are universally understood to signify female submission, in which men not wearing a covering is well known to signify subjection to Christ, it is to be discouraged that you wear/don't wear these articles. However if it is your practice in your community and household to wear something on your head ladies, you may freely wear it to worship, provided two things.
                 
                Number one: it is not meant as a distraction and to cause disorder in the house of God, and
                Number two: it must not be worn as a testimony against sin toward others who are not practicing the same thing. But our advice, stay back from the line, be warned. Don't try to get as close to objectionable as possible.
                 
                 
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 5:37 PM
                Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Sentence Correction: Law of Nature
                 
                Correction: I see my sentence needs some fixin':

                To be clearer on my use of the word LAWS, I mean that noone can make a law that states the Law of Nature no longer teaches anything in particular, or, that it once was thought to teach a thing, in a "supposed" time past, which it no longer teaches, because  customs have changed, contrary to the Law of Nature. The Law of Nature is how God expresses His will for His creatures. God does not change His mind, about what He has placed in nature, and the physical constitution of man or woman or ant.
                 
                Gary
                 
                 
                Grant answering:
                 
                As for nature, yes it teaches the principle, but as has been pointed out repeatedly, if it also taught the practice, Eve should have been covered even in her innocence. She was not.
                 
                In Pakistan where I was for a month in 1989. I saw firsthand how women show submission during worship...they all sit at the back during the worship service, the men at the front. Headcoverings aren't even an issue.
                 
                ~cis~

                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

                To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
              • Gary Gearon
                Oh, and sister, don t forget this very common e- symbol for modesty... (grin)
                Message 7 of 20 , Dec 28, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Oh, and sister, don't forget this very common e- symbol for modesty... (grin)
                   
                  <:-)
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: Soles
                  Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 2:02 AM
                  Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of Nature

                  Okay Gary,
                   
                  Let's have a little bit of fun with this....let's all think of those things that are so customary in our land that folks do not even think about them being there/or about them when used...inotherwards they are taken for granted....and folks understand what they are for.
                   
                  1. public facilities that have a woman's symbol may say women and  facilities that have a man's symbol and may say men above or below the symbol
                   
                   
                  2.getting up in the morning and whole households putting their day clothes on.
                   
                  3. adults going to work, children to some kind of schooling
                   
                  4. time taken for three meals a day
                   
                  5.greetings of how are you today?
                   
                  6. hand movements that everyone understands, waving goodbye, come here and so on ...
                   
                  7. couples sharing a room, most children in individual beds...and these beds raised off the floor.
                   
                  More?
                   
                  ~Cathie~
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 7:43 PM
                  Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of Nature

                  Do you think the practice of the Free Church of Scotland in the UK and USA, and its custom of women manditorily wearing headcoverings (during worship only, granted), should count as a legitimate North American customary observance?
                   
                   
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  From: Soles
                  Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 1:28 PM
                  Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of Nature

                  ----- Original Message -----
                  Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 11:44 AM
                  Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of Nature
                  Dear Grant and Cathie,
                   
                  Here are some words of Gillespie that we covered in a Friday night Bible study at the Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian Church where we attend:
                   
                  I hope you find this edifying. English Popish Ceremonies, pg. 13, by Covenanted Pastor, George Gillespie.
                   
                  If it is demanded to what purpose serves then the enacting of ecclesiastical laws, since they have not in them any power to bind the conscience, I answer, The use and end for which ecclesiastical laws do serve is:
                   
                  1. For the plain discovery of such things as the Law of God or nature (Law of - emphasis mine) does require of us, so that law which of itself has power to bind, comes from the priests and ministers of the Lord neither independently, nor as lawgivers, but declarative (Mal. 2:7).
                   
                  2. For declaring to us what is fittest in such things as are, in their own nature, indifferent, and neither enforced by the Law of God or nature, and which part should be followed in these things as most convenient. The laws of the church, then, are appointed to let us see the necessity of the first kind of things, and what is expedient in the other kind of things, and therefore they are more properly called directions, instructions, admonitions, than laws. For I speak of ecclesiastical laws qua tales [as such], that is, as they are the constitutions of men who are set over us; thus considered, they have only the strength of directing and warning (that is no one can make LAWS about these things - emphasis mine).
                   
                  Brother and sister, please feel free to share this with whoever you like.
                   
                  Sincerely yours, in our most illustrious and merciful Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, the True LION of the Covenant,
                   
                   
                  Gary
                   
                   
                  Grant answering:
                   
                  The two notes by Geo G. are good points. And this is what the RPNA had in mind when they wrote the much maligned ruling.
                   
                  In accordance with number one, they did exactly what Paul did in 1Cor.11:3, declaring the principle of headship in its various ramifications, the very thing that both nature and the law of God teach. They went on to declare what the Word does in showing the impossiblity of the practise to be an essential in the exercises of worshiping, while the principle is essential for the purposes of church order.
                   
                  In accordance with number two, the admonition is, unless the church lives in a culture where women's headcoverings are universally understood to signify female submission, in which men not wearing a covering is well known to signify subjection to Christ, it is to be discouraged that you wear/don't wear these articles. However if it is your practice in your community and household to wear something on your head ladies, you may freely wear it to worship, provided two things.
                   
                  Number one: it is not meant as a distraction and to cause disorder in the house of God, and
                  Number two: it must not be worn as a testimony against sin toward others who are not practicing the same thing. But our advice, stay back from the line, be warned. Don't try to get as close to objectionable as possible.
                   
                   
                  ----- Original Message -----
                  Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 5:37 PM
                  Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Sentence Correction: Law of Nature
                   
                  Correction: I see my sentence needs some fixin':

                  To be clearer on my use of the word LAWS, I mean that noone can make a law that states the Law of Nature no longer teaches anything in particular, or, that it once was thought to teach a thing, in a "supposed" time past, which it no longer teaches, because  customs have changed, contrary to the Law of Nature. The Law of Nature is how God expresses His will for His creatures. God does not change His mind, about what He has placed in nature, and the physical constitution of man or woman or ant.
                   
                  Gary
                   
                   
                  Grant answering:
                   
                  As for nature, yes it teaches the principle, but as has been pointed out repeatedly, if it also taught the practice, Eve should have been covered even in her innocence. She was not.
                   
                  In Pakistan where I was for a month in 1989. I saw firsthand how women show submission during worship...they all sit at the back during the worship service, the men at the front. Headcoverings aren't even an issue.
                   
                  ~cis~

                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

                  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                  covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                • Fredrick Fleming
                  That is a good start. *wink* I have friends that are Indian and can grow nothing. hahaha ... === message truncated ===
                  Message 8 of 20 , Dec 28, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    That is a good start. *wink* I have friends that are
                    Indian and can grow nothing. hahaha

                    --- Gary Gearon <GGearon@...> wrote:
                    > Hmmm...beards. I am only half way there Frederick
                    > (moustache).
                    >
                    > Gary
                    >
                    >
                    > ----- Original Message -----
                    > From: Soles
                    > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                    > Sent: Saturday, December 28, 2002 2:02 AM
                    > Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of
                    > Nature
                    >
                    >
                    > Okay Gary,
                    >
                    > Let's have a little bit of fun with this....let's
                    > all think of those things that are so customary in
                    > our land that folks do not even think about them
                    > being there/or about them when used...inotherwards
                    > they are taken for granted....and folks understand
                    > what they are for.
                    >
                    > 1. public facilities that have a woman's symbol
                    > may say women and facilities that have a man's
                    > symbol and may say men above or below the symbol
                    >
                    >
                    > 2.getting up in the morning and whole households
                    > putting their day clothes on.
                    >
                    > 3. adults going to work, children to some kind of
                    > schooling
                    >
                    > 4. time taken for three meals a day
                    >
                    > 5.greetings of how are you today?
                    >
                    > 6. hand movements that everyone understands,
                    > waving goodbye, come here and so on ...
                    >
                    > 7. couples sharing a room, most children in
                    > individual beds...and these beds raised off the
                    > floor.
                    >
                    > More?
                    >
                    > ~Cathie~
                    > ----- Original Message -----
                    > From: Gary Gearon
                    > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                    > Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 7:43 PM
                    > Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of
                    > Nature
                    >
                    >
                    > Do you think the practice of the Free Church of
                    > Scotland in the UK and USA, and its custom of women
                    > manditorily wearing headcoverings (during worship
                    > only, granted), should count as a legitimate North
                    > American customary observance?
                    >
                    >
                    > ----- Original Message -----
                    > From: Soles
                    > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                    > Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 1:28 PM
                    > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of
                    > Nature
                    >
                    >
                    > ----- Original Message -----
                    > From: Gary Gearon
                    > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                    > Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 11:44 AM
                    > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of
                    > Nature
                    > Dear Grant and Cathie,
                    >
                    > Here are some words of Gillespie that we
                    > covered in a Friday night Bible study at the
                    > Covenanted Reformed Presbyterian Church where we
                    > attend:
                    >
                    > I hope you find this edifying. English Popish
                    > Ceremonies, pg. 13, by Covenanted Pastor, George
                    > Gillespie.
                    >
                    > If it is demanded to what purpose serves then
                    > the enacting of ecclesiastical laws, since they have
                    > not in them any power to bind the conscience, I
                    > answer, The use and end for which ecclesiastical
                    > laws do serve is:
                    >
                    > 1. For the plain discovery of such things as
                    > the Law of God or nature (Law of - emphasis mine)
                    > does require of us, so that law which of itself has
                    > power to bind, comes from the priests and ministers
                    > of the Lord neither independently, nor as lawgivers,
                    > but declarative (Mal. 2:7).
                    >
                    > 2. For declaring to us what is fittest in such
                    > things as are, in their own nature, indifferent, and
                    > neither enforced by the Law of God or nature, and
                    > which part should be followed in these things as
                    > most convenient. The laws of the church, then, are
                    > appointed to let us see the necessity of the first
                    > kind of things, and what is expedient in the other
                    > kind of things, and therefore they are more properly
                    > called directions, instructions, admonitions, than
                    > laws. For I speak of ecclesiastical laws qua tales
                    > [as such], that is, as they are the constitutions of
                    > men who are set over us; thus considered, they have
                    > only the strength of directing and warning (that is
                    > no one can make LAWS about these things - emphasis
                    > mine).
                    >
                    > Brother and sister, please feel free to share
                    > this with whoever you like.
                    >
                    > Sincerely yours, in our most illustrious and
                    > merciful Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, the True
                    > LION of the Covenant,
                    >
                    >
                    > Gary
                    >
                    >
                    > Grant answering:
                    >
                    > The two notes by Geo G. are good points. And
                    > this is what the RPNA had in mind when they wrote
                    > the much maligned ruling.
                    >
                    > In accordance with number one, they did
                    > exactly what Paul did in 1Cor.11:3, declaring the
                    > principle of headship in its various ramifications,
                    > the very thing that both nature and the law of God
                    > teach. They went on to declare what the Word does in
                    > showing the impossiblity of the practise to be an
                    > essential in the exercises of worshiping, while the
                    > principle is essential for the purposes of church
                    > order.
                    >
                    > In accordance with number two, the admonition
                    > is, unless the church lives in a culture where
                    > women's headcoverings are universally understood to
                    > signify female submission, in which men not wearing
                    > a covering is well known to signify subjection to
                    > Christ, it is to be discouraged that you wear/don't
                    > wear these articles. However if it is your practice
                    > in your community and household to wear something on
                    > your head ladies, you may freely wear it to worship,
                    > provided two things.
                    >
                    > Number one: it is not meant as a distraction
                    > and to cause disorder in the house of God, and
                    > Number two: it must not be worn as a testimony
                    > against sin toward others who are not practicing the
                    > same thing. But our advice, stay back from the line,
                    > be warned. Don't try to get as close to
                    > objectionable as possible.
                    >
                    >
                    > ----- Original Message -----
                    > From: Gary Gearon
                    > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                    > Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 5:37 PM
                    > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Sentence
                    > Correction: Law of Nature
                    >
                    > Correction: I see my sentence needs some
                    > fixin':
                    >
                    >
                    > To be clearer on my use of the word LAWS, I
                    > mean that noone can make a law that states the Law
                    > of Nature no longer teaches anything in particular,
                    > or, that it once was thought to teach a thing, in a
                    > "supposed" time past, which it no longer teaches,
                    > because customs have changed, contrary to the Law
                    > of Nature. The Law of Nature is how God expresses
                    > His will for His creatures. God does not change His
                    > mind, about what He has placed in nature, and the
                    > physical constitution of man or woman or ant.
                    >
                    > Gary
                    >
                    >
                    > Grant answering:
                    >
                    > As for nature, yes it teaches the principle,
                    > but as has been pointed out repeatedly, if it also
                    > taught the practice, Eve should have been covered
                    > even in her innocence. She was not.
                    >
                    > In Pakistan where I was for a month in 1989. I
                    > saw firsthand how women show submission during
                    > worship...they all sit at the back during the
                    > worship service, the men at the front. Headcoverings
                    > aren't even an issue.
                    >
                    === message truncated ===


                    __________________________________________________
                    Do you Yahoo!?
                    Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
                    http://mailplus.yahoo.com
                  • Thomas Roche
                    The standard argument, seen as far back as Tertullian, is that God gave males beards and withheld them from females, as just another of His intentional designs
                    Message 9 of 20 , Dec 29, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      The standard argument, seen as far back as Tertullian,
                      is that God gave males beards and withheld them from
                      females, as just another of His intentional designs to
                      differentiate the genders, in the same way that he
                      also forbids the practice of transvestism, and that
                      men should not seek to make themselves look feminine
                      by shaving off their beards.

                      --- "Susan <susan_wilkinson@...>"
                      <susan_wilkinson@...> wrote:
                      > Hi Fredrick,
                      >
                      > I'm curious as to why you think men should wear
                      > beards? Is this
                      > something you think men ~should~ do, or something
                      > that would be your
                      > personal preference?
                      >
                      > Susan
                      >
                      > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com,
                      > Fredrick Fleming
                      > <followerofhim2001@y...> wrote:
                      > > YES!!!!! Oh if only the christian church would do
                      > > this! It would be good if men also wore Beard.
                      > > --- Gary Gearon <GGearon@p...> wrote:
                      > > > Do you think the practice of the Free Church of
                      > > > Scotland in the UK and USA, and its custom of
                      > women
                      > > > manditorily wearing headcoverings (during
                      > worship
                      > > > only, granted), should count as a legitimate
                      > North
                      > > > American customary observance?
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > ----- Original Message -----
                      > > > From: Soles
                      > > > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                      > > > Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 1:28 PM
                      > > > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of
                      > Nature
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > ----- Original Message -----
                      > > > From: Gary Gearon
                      > > > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                      > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 11:44 AM
                      > > > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of
                      > Nature
                      > > > Dear Grant and Cathie,
                      > > >
                      > > > Here are some words of Gillespie that we
                      > covered
                      > > > in a Friday night Bible study at the Covenanted
                      > > > Reformed Presbyterian Church where we attend:
                      > > >
                      > > > I hope you find this edifying. English Popish
                      > > > Ceremonies, pg. 13, by Covenanted Pastor, George
                      > > > Gillespie.
                      > > >
                      > > > If it is demanded to what purpose serves then
                      > the
                      > > > enacting of ecclesiastical laws, since they have
                      > not
                      > > > in them any power to bind the conscience, I
                      > answer,
                      > > > The use and end for which ecclesiastical laws do
                      > > > serve is:
                      > > >
                      > > > 1. For the plain discovery of such things as
                      > the
                      > > > Law of God or nature (Law of - emphasis mine)
                      > does
                      > > > require of us, so that law which of itself has
                      > power
                      > > > to bind, comes from the priests and ministers of
                      > the
                      > > > Lord neither independently, nor as lawgivers,
                      > but
                      > > > declarative (Mal. 2:7).
                      > > >
                      > > > 2. For declaring to us what is fittest in such
                      > > > things as are, in their own nature, indifferent,
                      > and
                      > > > neither enforced by the Law of God or nature,
                      > and
                      > > > which part should be followed in these things as
                      > > > most convenient. The laws of the church, then,
                      > are
                      > > > appointed to let us see the necessity of the
                      > first
                      > > > kind of things, and what is expedient in the
                      > other
                      > > > kind of things, and therefore they are more
                      > properly
                      > > > called directions, instructions, admonitions,
                      > than
                      > > > laws. For I speak of ecclesiastical laws qua
                      > tales
                      > > > [as such], that is, as they are the
                      > constitutions of
                      > > > men who are set over us; thus considered, they
                      > have
                      > > > only the strength of directing and warning (that
                      > is
                      > > > no one can make LAWS about these things -
                      > emphasis
                      > > > mine).
                      > > >
                      > > > Brother and sister, please feel free to share
                      > this
                      > > > with whoever you like.
                      > > >
                      > > > Sincerely yours, in our most illustrious and
                      > > > merciful Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, the
                      > True
                      > > > LION of the Covenant,
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > Gary
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > Grant answering:
                      > > >
                      > > > The two notes by Geo G. are good points. And
                      > this
                      > > > is what the RPNA had in mind when they wrote the
                      > > > much maligned ruling.
                      > > >
                      > > > In accordance with number one, they did
                      > exactly
                      > > > what Paul did in 1Cor.11:3, declaring the
                      > principle
                      > > > of headship in its various ramifications, the
                      > very
                      > > > thing that both nature and the law of God teach.
                      > > > They went on to declare what the Word does in
                      > > > showing the impossiblity of the practise to be
                      > an
                      > > > essential in the exercises of worshiping, while
                      > the
                      > > > principle is essential for the purposes of
                      > church
                      > > > order.
                      > > >
                      > > > In accordance with number two, the admonition
                      > is,
                      > > > unless the church lives in a culture where
                      > women's
                      > > > headcoverings are universally understood to
                      > signify
                      > > > female submission, in which men not wearing a
                      > > > covering is well known to signify subjection to
                      > > > Christ, it is to be discouraged that you
                      > wear/don't
                      > > > wear these articles. However if it is your
                      > practice
                      > > > in your community and household to wear
                      > something on
                      > > > your head ladies, you may freely wear it to
                      > worship,
                      > > > provided two things.
                      > > >
                      > > > Number one: it is not meant as a distraction
                      > and
                      > > > to cause disorder in the house of God, and
                      > > > Number two: it must not be worn as a testimony
                      > > > against sin toward others who are not practicing
                      > the
                      > > > same thing. But our advice, stay back from the
                      > line,
                      > > > be warned. Don't try to get as close to
                      > > > objectionable as possible.
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > ----- Original Message -----
                      > > > From: Gary Gearon
                      > > > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                      > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 5:37 PM
                      > > > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Sentence
                      > > > Correction: Law of Nature
                      > > >
                      > > > Correction: I see my sentence needs some
                      > fixin':
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > To be clearer on my use of the word LAWS, I
                      > mean
                      > > > that noone can make a law that states the Law of
                      > > > Nature no longer teaches anything in particular,
                      > or,
                      > > > that it once was thought to teach a thing, in a
                      > > > "supposed" time past, which it no longer
                      > teaches,
                      > > > because customs have changed, contrary to the
                      > Law
                      > > > of Nature. The Law of Nature is how God
                      > expresses
                      > > > His will for His creatures. God does not change
                      > His
                      > > > mind, about what He has placed in nature, and
                      > the
                      > > > physical constitution of man or woman or ant.
                      > > >
                      > > > Gary
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > Grant answering:
                      > > >
                      > > > As for nature, yes it teaches the principle,
                      > but
                      > > > as has been pointed out repeatedly, if it also
                      > > > taught the practice, Eve should have been
                      > covered
                      > > > even in her innocence. She was not.
                      > > >
                      > > > In Pakistan where I was for a month in 1989. I
                      > saw
                      > > > firsthand how women show submission during
                      > > > worship...they all sit at the back during the
                      > > > worship service, the men at the front.
                      > Headcoverings
                      > > > aren't even an issue.
                      > > >
                      > > > ~cis~
                      > > >
                      > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
                      > to:
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > >
                      >
                      covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
                      > Yahoo!
                      > > > Terms of Service.
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > __________________________________________________
                      > > Do you Yahoo!?
                      > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
                      > now.
                      > > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
                      >
                      >


                      =====
                      Dr. Thomas P. Roche
                      Librarian
                      The Marvelwood School
                      476 Skiff Mtn. Rd.-- PO Box 3001
                      Kent, CT 06757
                      tertullianus_2000@...
                      (my opinions do not reflect those of my employer)

                      __________________________________________________
                      Do you Yahoo!?
                      Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
                      http://mailplus.yahoo.com
                    • Thomas Roche
                      ... Why does the Free Church of Scotland get to set practice that should be counted as normative for others to have to observe? ===== Dr. Thomas P. Roche
                      Message 10 of 20 , Dec 29, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- Gary Gearon <GGearon@...> wrote:
                        > Do you think the practice of the Free Church of
                        > Scotland in the UK and USA, and its custom of women
                        > manditorily wearing headcoverings (during worship
                        > only, granted), should count as a legitimate North
                        > American customary observance?
                        >
                        >
                        Why does the Free Church of Scotland get to set
                        practice that should be counted as normative for
                        others to have to observe?

                        =====
                        Dr. Thomas P. Roche
                        Librarian
                        The Marvelwood School
                        476 Skiff Mtn. Rd.-- PO Box 3001
                        Kent, CT 06757
                        tertullianus_2000@...
                        (my opinions do not reflect those of my employer)

                        __________________________________________________
                        Do you Yahoo!?
                        Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
                        http://mailplus.yahoo.com
                      • PuritanPresbyterian
                        Thomas, What to do with the Native Americans who cannot grow beards? Are they not men because they cannot grow beards? The standard argument you state is
                        Message 11 of 20 , Dec 29, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Thomas,
                           
                            What to do with the Native "Americans" who cannot grow beards?  Are they not men because they cannot grow beards?   The standard argument you state is something imposed by men who want to control how people look and dress.  There is no rule on this in the New Testament and the bread law in the Old Testament was ceremonial and thus has been abolished.  Let's make sure we learn a lesson from the legalism that we have seen the Taliban impose on the Afgan people.
                           
                          a Mayan who can grow a beard because of the Spanish blood that runs in my veins,
                           
                          Edgar
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 5:36 PM
                          Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of Nature

                          The standard argument, seen as far back as Tertullian,
                          is that God gave males beards and withheld them from
                          females, as just another of His intentional designs to
                          differentiate the genders, in the same way that he
                          also forbids the practice of transvestism, and that
                          men should not seek to make themselves look feminine
                          by shaving off their beards.

                          --- "Susan <susan_wilkinson@...>"
                          <susan_wilkinson@...> wrote:
                          > Hi Fredrick,
                          >
                          > I'm curious as to why you think men should wear
                          > beards? Is this
                          > something you think men ~should~ do, or something
                          > that would be your
                          > personal preference?
                          >
                          > Susan
                          >
                          > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com,
                          > Fredrick Fleming
                          > <followerofhim2001@y...> wrote:
                          > > YES!!!!! Oh if only the christian church would do
                          > > this! It would be good if men also wore Beard.
                          > > --- Gary Gearon <GGearon@p...> wrote:
                          > > > Do you think the practice of the Free Church of
                          > > > Scotland in the UK and USA, and its custom of
                          > women
                          > > > manditorily wearing headcoverings (during
                          > worship
                          > > > only, granted), should count as a legitimate
                          > North
                          > > > American customary observance?
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >   ----- Original Message -----
                          > > >   From: Soles
                          > > >   To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                          > > >   Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 1:28 PM
                          > > >   Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of
                          > Nature
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >   ----- Original Message -----
                          > > >   From: Gary Gearon
                          > > >   To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                          > > >   Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 11:44 AM
                          > > >   Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of
                          > Nature
                          > > >   Dear Grant and Cathie,
                          > > >
                          > > >   Here are some words of Gillespie that we
                          > covered
                          > > > in a Friday night Bible study at the Covenanted
                          > > > Reformed Presbyterian Church where we attend:
                          > > >
                          > > >   I hope you find this edifying. English Popish
                          > > > Ceremonies, pg. 13, by Covenanted Pastor, George
                          > > > Gillespie.
                          > > >
                          > > >   If it is demanded to what purpose serves then
                          > the
                          > > > enacting of ecclesiastical laws, since they have
                          > not
                          > > > in them any power to bind the conscience, I
                          > answer,
                          > > > The use and end for which ecclesiastical laws do
                          > > > serve is:
                          > > >
                          > > >   1. For the plain discovery of such things as
                          > the
                          > > > Law of God or nature (Law of - emphasis mine)
                          > does
                          > > > require of us, so that law which of itself has
                          > power
                          > > > to bind, comes from the priests and ministers of
                          > the
                          > > > Lord neither independently, nor as lawgivers,
                          > but
                          > > > declarative (Mal. 2:7).
                          > > >
                          > > >   2. For declaring to us what is fittest in such
                          > > > things as are, in their own nature, indifferent,
                          > and
                          > > > neither enforced by the Law of God or nature,
                          > and
                          > > > which part should be followed in these things as
                          > > > most convenient. The laws of the church, then,
                          > are
                          > > > appointed to let us see the necessity of the
                          > first
                          > > > kind of things, and what is expedient in the
                          > other
                          > > > kind of things, and therefore they are more
                          > properly
                          > > > called directions, instructions, admonitions,
                          > than
                          > > > laws. For I speak of ecclesiastical laws qua
                          > tales
                          > > > [as such], that is, as they are the
                          > constitutions of
                          > > > men who are set over us; thus considered, they
                          > have
                          > > > only the strength of directing and warning (that
                          > is
                          > > > no one can make LAWS about these things -
                          > emphasis
                          > > > mine).
                          > > >
                          > > >   Brother and sister, please feel free to share
                          > this
                          > > > with whoever you like.
                          > > >
                          > > >   Sincerely yours, in our most illustrious and
                          > > > merciful Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, the
                          > True
                          > > > LION of the Covenant,
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >   Gary
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >   Grant answering:
                          > > >
                          > > >   The two notes by Geo G. are good points. And
                          > this
                          > > > is what the RPNA had in mind when they wrote the
                          > > > much maligned ruling.
                          > > >
                          > > >   In accordance with number one, they did
                          > exactly
                          > > > what Paul did in 1Cor.11:3, declaring the
                          > principle
                          > > > of headship in its various ramifications, the
                          > very
                          > > > thing that both nature and the law of God teach.
                          > > > They went on to declare what the Word does in
                          > > > showing the impossiblity of the practise to be
                          > an
                          > > > essential in the exercises of worshiping, while
                          > the
                          > > > principle is essential for the purposes of
                          > church
                          > > > order.
                          > > >
                          > > >   In accordance with number two, the admonition
                          > is,
                          > > > unless the church lives in a culture where
                          > women's
                          > > > headcoverings are universally understood to
                          > signify
                          > > > female submission, in which men not wearing a
                          > > > covering is well known to signify subjection to
                          > > > Christ, it is to be discouraged that you
                          > wear/don't
                          > > > wear these articles. However if it is your
                          > practice
                          > > > in your community and household to wear
                          > something on
                          > > > your head ladies, you may freely wear it to
                          > worship,
                          > > > provided two things.
                          > > >
                          > > >   Number one: it is not meant as a distraction
                          > and
                          > > > to cause disorder in the house of God, and
                          > > >   Number two: it must not be worn as a testimony
                          > > > against sin toward others who are not practicing
                          > the
                          > > > same thing. But our advice, stay back from the
                          > line,
                          > > > be warned. Don't try to get as close to
                          > > > objectionable as possible.
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >   ----- Original Message -----
                          > > >   From: Gary Gearon
                          > > >   To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                          > > >   Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 5:37 PM
                          > > >   Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Sentence
                          > > > Correction: Law of Nature
                          > > >
                          > > >   Correction: I see my sentence needs some
                          > fixin':
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >   To be clearer on my use of the word LAWS, I
                          > mean
                          > > > that noone can make a law that states the Law of
                          > > > Nature no longer teaches anything in particular,
                          > or,
                          > > > that it once was thought to teach a thing, in a
                          > > > "supposed" time past, which it no longer
                          > teaches,
                          > > > because  customs have changed, contrary to the
                          > Law
                          > > > of Nature. The Law of Nature is how God
                          > expresses
                          > > > His will for His creatures. God does not change
                          > His
                          > > > mind, about what He has placed in nature, and
                          > the
                          > > > physical constitution of man or woman or ant.
                          > > >
                          > > >   Gary
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >   Grant answering:
                          > > >
                          > > >   As for nature, yes it teaches the principle,
                          > but
                          > > > as has been pointed out repeatedly, if it also
                          > > > taught the practice, Eve should have been
                          > covered
                          > > > even in her innocence. She was not.
                          > > >
                          > > >   In Pakistan where I was for a month in 1989. I
                          > saw
                          > > > firsthand how women show submission during
                          > > > worship...they all sit at the back during the
                          > > > worship service, the men at the front.
                          > Headcoverings
                          > > > aren't even an issue.
                          > > >
                          > > >   ~cis~
                          > > >
                          > > >   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
                          > to:
                          > > > 
                          > > >
                          > >
                          >
                          covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > >   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
                          > Yahoo!
                          > > > Terms of Service.
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > __________________________________________________
                          > > Do you Yahoo!?
                          > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
                          > now.
                          > > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
                          >
                          >


                          =====
                          Dr. Thomas P. Roche
                          Librarian
                          The Marvelwood School
                          476 Skiff Mtn. Rd.-- PO Box 3001
                          Kent, CT 06757
                          tertullianus_2000@...
                          (my opinions do not reflect those of my employer)

                          __________________________________________________
                          Do you Yahoo!?
                          Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
                          http://mailplus.yahoo.com

                          To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                          covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                        • PuritanPresbyterian
                          uuhhh, that should read beard law the bread law has not yet been abolished, my bad. prefers bread over beard, Edgar ... From: PuritanPresbyterian To:
                          Message 12 of 20 , Dec 29, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            uuhhh, that should read "beard law"  the bread law has not yet been abolished, my bad.
                             
                            prefers bread over beard,
                             
                            Edgar
                             
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 11:13 PM
                            Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of Nature

                            Thomas,
                             
                              What to do with the Native "Americans" who cannot grow beards?  Are they not men because they cannot grow beards?   The standard argument you state is something imposed by men who want to control how people look and dress.  There is no rule on this in the New Testament and the bread law in the Old Testament was ceremonial and thus has been abolished.  Let's make sure we learn a lesson from the legalism that we have seen the Taliban impose on the Afgan people.
                             
                            a Mayan who can grow a beard because of the Spanish blood that runs in my veins,
                             
                            Edgar
                            ----- Original Message -----
                            Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 5:36 PM
                            Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of Nature

                            The standard argument, seen as far back as Tertullian,
                            is that God gave males beards and withheld them from
                            females, as just another of His intentional designs to
                            differentiate the genders, in the same way that he
                            also forbids the practice of transvestism, and that
                            men should not seek to make themselves look feminine
                            by shaving off their beards.

                            --- "Susan <susan_wilkinson@...>"
                            <susan_wilkinson@...> wrote:
                            > Hi Fredrick,
                            >
                            > I'm curious as to why you think men should wear
                            > beards? Is this
                            > something you think men ~should~ do, or something
                            > that would be your
                            > personal preference?
                            >
                            > Susan
                            >
                            > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com,
                            > Fredrick Fleming
                            > <followerofhim2001@y...> wrote:
                            > > YES!!!!! Oh if only the christian church would do
                            > > this! It would be good if men also wore Beard.
                            > > --- Gary Gearon <GGearon@p...> wrote:
                            > > > Do you think the practice of the Free Church of
                            > > > Scotland in the UK and USA, and its custom of
                            > women
                            > > > manditorily wearing headcoverings (during
                            > worship
                            > > > only, granted), should count as a legitimate
                            > North
                            > > > American customary observance?
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >   ----- Original Message -----
                            > > >   From: Soles
                            > > >   To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                            > > >   Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 1:28 PM
                            > > >   Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of
                            > Nature
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >   ----- Original Message -----
                            > > >   From: Gary Gearon
                            > > >   To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                            > > >   Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 11:44 AM
                            > > >   Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of
                            > Nature
                            > > >   Dear Grant and Cathie,
                            > > >
                            > > >   Here are some words of Gillespie that we
                            > covered
                            > > > in a Friday night Bible study at the Covenanted
                            > > > Reformed Presbyterian Church where we attend:
                            > > >
                            > > >   I hope you find this edifying. English Popish
                            > > > Ceremonies, pg. 13, by Covenanted Pastor, George
                            > > > Gillespie.
                            > > >
                            > > >   If it is demanded to what purpose serves then
                            > the
                            > > > enacting of ecclesiastical laws, since they have
                            > not
                            > > > in them any power to bind the conscience, I
                            > answer,
                            > > > The use and end for which ecclesiastical laws do
                            > > > serve is:
                            > > >
                            > > >   1. For the plain discovery of such things as
                            > the
                            > > > Law of God or nature (Law of - emphasis mine)
                            > does
                            > > > require of us, so that law which of itself has
                            > power
                            > > > to bind, comes from the priests and ministers of
                            > the
                            > > > Lord neither independently, nor as lawgivers,
                            > but
                            > > > declarative (Mal. 2:7).
                            > > >
                            > > >   2. For declaring to us what is fittest in such
                            > > > things as are, in their own nature, indifferent,
                            > and
                            > > > neither enforced by the Law of God or nature,
                            > and
                            > > > which part should be followed in these things as
                            > > > most convenient. The laws of the church, then,
                            > are
                            > > > appointed to let us see the necessity of the
                            > first
                            > > > kind of things, and what is expedient in the
                            > other
                            > > > kind of things, and therefore they are more
                            > properly
                            > > > called directions, instructions, admonitions,
                            > than
                            > > > laws. For I speak of ecclesiastical laws qua
                            > tales
                            > > > [as such], that is, as they are the
                            > constitutions of
                            > > > men who are set over us; thus considered, they
                            > have
                            > > > only the strength of directing and warning (that
                            > is
                            > > > no one can make LAWS about these things -
                            > emphasis
                            > > > mine).
                            > > >
                            > > >   Brother and sister, please feel free to share
                            > this
                            > > > with whoever you like.
                            > > >
                            > > >   Sincerely yours, in our most illustrious and
                            > > > merciful Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, the
                            > True
                            > > > LION of the Covenant,
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >   Gary
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >   Grant answering:
                            > > >
                            > > >   The two notes by Geo G. are good points. And
                            > this
                            > > > is what the RPNA had in mind when they wrote the
                            > > > much maligned ruling.
                            > > >
                            > > >   In accordance with number one, they did
                            > exactly
                            > > > what Paul did in 1Cor.11:3, declaring the
                            > principle
                            > > > of headship in its various ramifications, the
                            > very
                            > > > thing that both nature and the law of God teach.
                            > > > They went on to declare what the Word does in
                            > > > showing the impossiblity of the practise to be
                            > an
                            > > > essential in the exercises of worshiping, while
                            > the
                            > > > principle is essential for the purposes of
                            > church
                            > > > order.
                            > > >
                            > > >   In accordance with number two, the admonition
                            > is,
                            > > > unless the church lives in a culture where
                            > women's
                            > > > headcoverings are universally understood to
                            > signify
                            > > > female submission, in which men not wearing a
                            > > > covering is well known to signify subjection to
                            > > > Christ, it is to be discouraged that you
                            > wear/don't
                            > > > wear these articles. However if it is your
                            > practice
                            > > > in your community and household to wear
                            > something on
                            > > > your head ladies, you may freely wear it to
                            > worship,
                            > > > provided two things.
                            > > >
                            > > >   Number one: it is not meant as a distraction
                            > and
                            > > > to cause disorder in the house of God, and
                            > > >   Number two: it must not be worn as a testimony
                            > > > against sin toward others who are not practicing
                            > the
                            > > > same thing. But our advice, stay back from the
                            > line,
                            > > > be warned. Don't try to get as close to
                            > > > objectionable as possible.
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >   ----- Original Message -----
                            > > >   From: Gary Gearon
                            > > >   To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                            > > >   Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 5:37 PM
                            > > >   Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Sentence
                            > > > Correction: Law of Nature
                            > > >
                            > > >   Correction: I see my sentence needs some
                            > fixin':
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >   To be clearer on my use of the word LAWS, I
                            > mean
                            > > > that noone can make a law that states the Law of
                            > > > Nature no longer teaches anything in particular,
                            > or,
                            > > > that it once was thought to teach a thing, in a
                            > > > "supposed" time past, which it no longer
                            > teaches,
                            > > > because  customs have changed, contrary to the
                            > Law
                            > > > of Nature. The Law of Nature is how God
                            > expresses
                            > > > His will for His creatures. God does not change
                            > His
                            > > > mind, about what He has placed in nature, and
                            > the
                            > > > physical constitution of man or woman or ant.
                            > > >
                            > > >   Gary
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >   Grant answering:
                            > > >
                            > > >   As for nature, yes it teaches the principle,
                            > but
                            > > > as has been pointed out repeatedly, if it also
                            > > > taught the practice, Eve should have been
                            > covered
                            > > > even in her innocence. She was not.
                            > > >
                            > > >   In Pakistan where I was for a month in 1989. I
                            > saw
                            > > > firsthand how women show submission during
                            > > > worship...they all sit at the back during the
                            > > > worship service, the men at the front.
                            > Headcoverings
                            > > > aren't even an issue.
                            > > >
                            > > >   ~cis~
                            > > >
                            > > >   To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
                            > to:
                            > > > 
                            > > >
                            > >
                            >
                            covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > > >   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
                            > Yahoo!
                            > > > Terms of Service.
                            > > >
                            > > >
                            > >
                            > >
                            > > __________________________________________________
                            > > Do you Yahoo!?
                            > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
                            > now.
                            > > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
                            >
                            >


                            =====
                            Dr. Thomas P. Roche
                            Librarian
                            The Marvelwood School
                            476 Skiff Mtn. Rd.-- PO Box 3001
                            Kent, CT 06757
                            tertullianus_2000@...
                            (my opinions do not reflect those of my employer)

                            __________________________________________________
                            Do you Yahoo!?
                            Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
                            http://mailplus.yahoo.com

                            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

                            To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                            covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



                            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
                          • Gary Gearon
                            Thomas, Just because it is a large Presbyterian body and has its own customs... With your e-mail addy as it is, would you prefer to do it Tertullian the
                            Message 13 of 20 , Dec 30, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Thomas,

                              Just because it is a large Presbyterian body and has its own customs...

                              With your e-mail addy as it is, would you prefer to do it "Tertullian the
                              Master"'s way (as he was called by men)?

                              He definitely held to the custom of the Free Church and more....

                              :-)

                              Gary


                              ----- Original Message -----
                              From: "Thomas Roche" <tertullianus_2000@...>
                              To: <covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 8:53 PM
                              Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of Nature


                              >
                              > --- Gary Gearon <GGearon@...> wrote:
                              > > Do you think the practice of the Free Church of
                              > > Scotland in the UK and USA, and its custom of women
                              > > manditorily wearing headcoverings (during worship
                              > > only, granted), should count as a legitimate North
                              > > American customary observance?
                              > >
                              > >
                              > Why does the Free Church of Scotland get to set
                              > practice that should be counted as normative for
                              > others to have to observe?
                              >
                              > =====
                              > Dr. Thomas P. Roche
                              > Librarian
                              > The Marvelwood School
                              > 476 Skiff Mtn. Rd.-- PO Box 3001
                              > Kent, CT 06757
                              > tertullianus_2000@...
                              > (my opinions do not reflect those of my employer)
                              >
                              > __________________________________________________
                              > Do you Yahoo!?
                              > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
                              > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
                              >
                              > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                              > covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                              >
                              >
                              > ------------------------------------------------------
                              > [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Pike Online, Inc.]
                              >
                              >
                              >


                              ------------------------------------------------------
                              [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Pike Online, Inc.]
                            • Fredrick Fleming
                              ... The issue of a beard. First I would say that a man it to have a beard if he is able to grow won. Let us look at the reason for this. Easton’s Bible
                              Message 14 of 20 , Dec 30, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- "Susan <susan_wilkinson@...>"
                                <susan_wilkinson@...> wrote:
                                > Hi Fredrick,
                                The issue of a beard.
                                First I would say that a man it to have a beard if he
                                is able to grow won. Let us look at the reason for
                                this.

                                Easton�s Bible Dictionary said:
                                The mode of wearing it was definitely prescribed to
                                the Jews(Lev. 19:27; 21:5). Hence the import of
                                Ezekiel's (5:1-4)description of the "razor" i.e., the
                                agents of an angryprovidence being used against the
                                guilty nation of the Jews. Itwas a part of a Jew's
                                daily toilet to anoint his beard with oil and perfume
                                (Ps. 133:2). Beards were trimmed with the most
                                fastidious care (2 Sam. 19:24), and their neglet was
                                an
                                indication of deep sorrow (Isa. 15:2; Jer. 41:5). The
                                custom was to shave or pluck off the hair as a sign of
                                mourning (Isa. 50:6; Jer. 48:37; Ezra 9:3). The beards
                                of David's ambassadors were cut off by hanun (2 Sam.
                                10:4) as a mark of indignity.
                                On the other hand, the Egyptians carefully shaved
                                the hair off their faces, and they compelled their
                                slaves to do so also (Gen.41:14).

                                We see that the beard of a man show that he was
                                walking according to the Lord. A man beard was like a
                                woman�s hair, a shame to him if it was shorn. As
                                Christian men we should have a beard to let other know
                                that we are not in morning, Our Lord lives and we show
                                that we live in Him.


                                > I'm curious as to why you think men should wear
                                > beards? Is this
                                > something you think men ~should~ do, or something
                                > that would be your
                                > personal preference?
                                >
                                > Susan
                                >
                                > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com,
                                > Fredrick Fleming
                                > <followerofhim2001@y...> wrote:
                                > > YES!!!!! Oh if only the christian church would do
                                > > this! It would be good if men also wore Beard.
                                > > --- Gary Gearon <GGearon@p...> wrote:
                                > > > Do you think the practice of the Free Church of
                                > > > Scotland in the UK and USA, and its custom of
                                > women
                                > > > manditorily wearing headcoverings (during
                                > worship
                                > > > only, granted), should count as a legitimate
                                > North
                                > > > American customary observance?
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > > ----- Original Message -----
                                > > > From: Soles
                                > > > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                                > > > Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 1:28 PM
                                > > > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of
                                > Nature
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > > ----- Original Message -----
                                > > > From: Gary Gearon
                                > > > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                                > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 11:44 AM
                                > > > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of
                                > Nature
                                > > > Dear Grant and Cathie,
                                > > >
                                > > > Here are some words of Gillespie that we
                                > covered
                                > > > in a Friday night Bible study at the Covenanted
                                > > > Reformed Presbyterian Church where we attend:
                                > > >
                                > > > I hope you find this edifying. English Popish
                                > > > Ceremonies, pg. 13, by Covenanted Pastor, George
                                > > > Gillespie.
                                > > >
                                > > > If it is demanded to what purpose serves then
                                > the
                                > > > enacting of ecclesiastical laws, since they have
                                > not
                                > > > in them any power to bind the conscience, I
                                > answer,
                                > > > The use and end for which ecclesiastical laws do
                                > > > serve is:
                                > > >
                                > > > 1. For the plain discovery of such things as
                                > the
                                > > > Law of God or nature (Law of - emphasis mine)
                                > does
                                > > > require of us, so that law which of itself has
                                > power
                                > > > to bind, comes from the priests and ministers of
                                > the
                                > > > Lord neither independently, nor as lawgivers,
                                > but
                                > > > declarative (Mal. 2:7).
                                > > >
                                > > > 2. For declaring to us what is fittest in such
                                > > > things as are, in their own nature, indifferent,
                                > and
                                > > > neither enforced by the Law of God or nature,
                                > and
                                > > > which part should be followed in these things as
                                > > > most convenient. The laws of the church, then,
                                > are
                                > > > appointed to let us see the necessity of the
                                > first
                                > > > kind of things, and what is expedient in the
                                > other
                                > > > kind of things, and therefore they are more
                                > properly
                                > > > called directions, instructions, admonitions,
                                > than
                                > > > laws. For I speak of ecclesiastical laws qua
                                > tales
                                > > > [as such], that is, as they are the
                                > constitutions of
                                > > > men who are set over us; thus considered, they
                                > have
                                > > > only the strength of directing and warning (that
                                > is
                                > > > no one can make LAWS about these things -
                                > emphasis
                                > > > mine).
                                > > >
                                > > > Brother and sister, please feel free to share
                                > this
                                > > > with whoever you like.
                                > > >
                                > > > Sincerely yours, in our most illustrious and
                                > > > merciful Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, the
                                > True
                                > > > LION of the Covenant,
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > > Gary
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > > Grant answering:
                                > > >
                                > > > The two notes by Geo G. are good points. And
                                > this
                                > > > is what the RPNA had in mind when they wrote the
                                > > > much maligned ruling.
                                > > >
                                > > > In accordance with number one, they did
                                > exactly
                                > > > what Paul did in 1Cor.11:3, declaring the
                                > principle
                                > > > of headship in its various ramifications, the
                                > very
                                > > > thing that both nature and the law of God teach.
                                > > > They went on to declare what the Word does in
                                > > > showing the impossiblity of the practise to be
                                > an
                                > > > essential in the exercises of worshiping, while
                                > the
                                > > > principle is essential for the purposes of
                                > church
                                > > > order.
                                > > >
                                > > > In accordance with number two, the admonition
                                > is,
                                > > > unless the church lives in a culture where
                                > women's
                                > > > headcoverings are universally understood to
                                > signify
                                > > > female submission, in which men not wearing a
                                > > > covering is well known to signify subjection to
                                > > > Christ, it is to be discouraged that you
                                > wear/don't
                                > > > wear these articles. However if it is your
                                > practice
                                > > > in your community and household to wear
                                > something on
                                > > > your head ladies, you may freely wear it to
                                > worship,
                                > > > provided two things.
                                > > >
                                > > > Number one: it is not meant as a distraction
                                > and
                                > > > to cause disorder in the house of God, and
                                > > > Number two: it must not be worn as a testimony
                                > > > against sin toward others who are not practicing
                                > the
                                > > > same thing. But our advice, stay back from the
                                > line,
                                > > > be warned. Don't try to get as close to
                                > > > objectionable as possible.
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > > ----- Original Message -----
                                > > > From: Gary Gearon
                                > > > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                                > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 5:37 PM
                                > > > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Sentence
                                > > > Correction: Law of Nature
                                > > >
                                > > > Correction: I see my sentence needs some
                                > fixin':
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > > To be clearer on my use of the word LAWS, I
                                > mean
                                > > > that noone can make a law that states the Law of
                                > > > Nature no longer teaches anything in particular,
                                > or,
                                > > > that it once was thought to teach a thing, in a
                                > > > "supposed" time past, which it no longer
                                > teaches,
                                > > > because customs have changed, contrary to the
                                > Law
                                > > > of Nature. The Law of Nature is how God
                                > expresses
                                > > > His will for His creatures. God does not change
                                > His
                                > > > mind, about what He has placed in nature, and
                                > the
                                > > > physical constitution of man or woman or ant.
                                > > >
                                > > > Gary
                                > > >
                                > > >
                                > > > Grant answering:
                                > > >
                                > > > As for nature, yes it teaches the principle,
                                > but
                                >
                                === message truncated ===


                                __________________________________________________
                                Do you Yahoo!?
                                Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
                                http://mailplus.yahoo.com
                              • Fredrick Fleming
                                Here, here, or Amen and Amen!!! ... === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful.
                                Message 15 of 20 , Dec 30, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Here, here, or Amen and Amen!!!

                                  --- Thomas Roche <tertullianus_2000@...> wrote:
                                  > The standard argument, seen as far back as
                                  > Tertullian,
                                  > is that God gave males beards and withheld them from
                                  > females, as just another of His intentional designs
                                  > to
                                  > differentiate the genders, in the same way that he
                                  > also forbids the practice of transvestism, and that
                                  > men should not seek to make themselves look feminine
                                  > by shaving off their beards.
                                  >
                                  > --- "Susan <susan_wilkinson@...>"
                                  > <susan_wilkinson@...> wrote:
                                  > > Hi Fredrick,
                                  > >
                                  > > I'm curious as to why you think men should wear
                                  > > beards? Is this
                                  > > something you think men ~should~ do, or something
                                  > > that would be your
                                  > > personal preference?
                                  > >
                                  > > Susan
                                  > >
                                  > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com,
                                  > > Fredrick Fleming
                                  > > <followerofhim2001@y...> wrote:
                                  > > > YES!!!!! Oh if only the christian church would
                                  > do
                                  > > > this! It would be good if men also wore Beard.
                                  > > > --- Gary Gearon <GGearon@p...> wrote:
                                  > > > > Do you think the practice of the Free Church
                                  > of
                                  > > > > Scotland in the UK and USA, and its custom of
                                  > > women
                                  > > > > manditorily wearing headcoverings (during
                                  > > worship
                                  > > > > only, granted), should count as a legitimate
                                  > > North
                                  > > > > American customary observance?
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > ----- Original Message -----
                                  > > > > From: Soles
                                  > > > > To:
                                  > covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                                  > > > > Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 1:28 PM
                                  > > > > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of
                                  > > Nature
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > ----- Original Message -----
                                  > > > > From: Gary Gearon
                                  > > > > To:
                                  > covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                                  > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 11:44 AM
                                  > > > > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of
                                  > > Nature
                                  > > > > Dear Grant and Cathie,
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > Here are some words of Gillespie that we
                                  > > covered
                                  > > > > in a Friday night Bible study at the
                                  > Covenanted
                                  > > > > Reformed Presbyterian Church where we attend:
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > I hope you find this edifying. English
                                  > Popish
                                  > > > > Ceremonies, pg. 13, by Covenanted Pastor,
                                  > George
                                  > > > > Gillespie.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > If it is demanded to what purpose serves
                                  > then
                                  > > the
                                  > > > > enacting of ecclesiastical laws, since they
                                  > have
                                  > > not
                                  > > > > in them any power to bind the conscience, I
                                  > > answer,
                                  > > > > The use and end for which ecclesiastical laws
                                  > do
                                  > > > > serve is:
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > 1. For the plain discovery of such things as
                                  > > the
                                  > > > > Law of God or nature (Law of - emphasis mine)
                                  > > does
                                  > > > > require of us, so that law which of itself has
                                  > > power
                                  > > > > to bind, comes from the priests and ministers
                                  > of
                                  > > the
                                  > > > > Lord neither independently, nor as lawgivers,
                                  > > but
                                  > > > > declarative (Mal. 2:7).
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > 2. For declaring to us what is fittest in
                                  > such
                                  > > > > things as are, in their own nature,
                                  > indifferent,
                                  > > and
                                  > > > > neither enforced by the Law of God or nature,
                                  > > and
                                  > > > > which part should be followed in these things
                                  > as
                                  > > > > most convenient. The laws of the church, then,
                                  > > are
                                  > > > > appointed to let us see the necessity of the
                                  > > first
                                  > > > > kind of things, and what is expedient in the
                                  > > other
                                  > > > > kind of things, and therefore they are more
                                  > > properly
                                  > > > > called directions, instructions, admonitions,
                                  > > than
                                  > > > > laws. For I speak of ecclesiastical laws qua
                                  > > tales
                                  > > > > [as such], that is, as they are the
                                  > > constitutions of
                                  > > > > men who are set over us; thus considered, they
                                  > > have
                                  > > > > only the strength of directing and warning
                                  > (that
                                  > > is
                                  > > > > no one can make LAWS about these things -
                                  > > emphasis
                                  > > > > mine).
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > Brother and sister, please feel free to
                                  > share
                                  > > this
                                  > > > > with whoever you like.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > Sincerely yours, in our most illustrious and
                                  > > > > merciful Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, the
                                  > > True
                                  > > > > LION of the Covenant,
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > Gary
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > Grant answering:
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > The two notes by Geo G. are good points. And
                                  > > this
                                  > > > > is what the RPNA had in mind when they wrote
                                  > the
                                  > > > > much maligned ruling.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > In accordance with number one, they did
                                  > > exactly
                                  > > > > what Paul did in 1Cor.11:3, declaring the
                                  > > principle
                                  > > > > of headship in its various ramifications, the
                                  > > very
                                  > > > > thing that both nature and the law of God
                                  > teach.
                                  > > > > They went on to declare what the Word does in
                                  > > > > showing the impossiblity of the practise to be
                                  > > an
                                  > > > > essential in the exercises of worshiping,
                                  > while
                                  > > the
                                  > > > > principle is essential for the purposes of
                                  > > church
                                  > > > > order.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > In accordance with number two, the
                                  > admonition
                                  > > is,
                                  > > > > unless the church lives in a culture where
                                  > > women's
                                  > > > > headcoverings are universally understood to
                                  > > signify
                                  > > > > female submission, in which men not wearing a
                                  > > > > covering is well known to signify subjection
                                  > to
                                  > > > > Christ, it is to be discouraged that you
                                  > > wear/don't
                                  > > > > wear these articles. However if it is your
                                  > > practice
                                  > > > > in your community and household to wear
                                  > > something on
                                  > > > > your head ladies, you may freely wear it to
                                  > > worship,
                                  > > > > provided two things.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > > Number one: it is not meant as a distraction
                                  > > and
                                  > > > > to cause disorder in the house of God, and
                                  > > > > Number two: it must not be worn as a
                                  > testimony
                                  > > > > against sin toward others who are not
                                  > practicing
                                  > > the
                                  > > > > same thing. But our advice, stay back from the
                                  > > line,
                                  > > > > be warned. Don't try to get as close to
                                  > > > > objectionable as possible.
                                  > > > >
                                  > > > >
                                  >
                                  === message truncated ===


                                  __________________________________________________
                                  Do you Yahoo!?
                                  Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
                                  http://mailplus.yahoo.com
                                • PuritanPresbyterian
                                  customs, customs, customs. no room for them here as a requirement for salvation. no one in this society goes beardless because they are in mourning, so the
                                  Message 16 of 20 , Dec 30, 2002
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    customs, customs, customs. no room for them here as a requirement for
                                    salvation.

                                    no one in this society goes beardless because they are in mourning, so the
                                    use of a beard would be meaningless. In my case, many would think i'm
                                    Muslim if I had a beard, because I have brown/olive skin. In the past, as I
                                    was growing one out, many thiought I was a Muslim. I rather have a
                                    goat-tee, or something like that. Beards are a bother to me.

                                    Edgar

                                    ----- Original Message -----
                                    From: Fredrick Fleming <followerofhim2001@...>
                                    To: <covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com>
                                    Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 5:36 AM
                                    Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of Nature


                                    >
                                    > --- "Susan <susan_wilkinson@...>"
                                    > <susan_wilkinson@...> wrote:
                                    > > Hi Fredrick,
                                    > The issue of a beard.
                                    > First I would say that a man it to have a beard if he
                                    > is able to grow won. Let us look at the reason for
                                    > this.
                                    >
                                    > Easton's Bible Dictionary said:
                                    > The mode of wearing it was definitely prescribed to
                                    > the Jews(Lev. 19:27; 21:5). Hence the import of
                                    > Ezekiel's (5:1-4)description of the "razor" i.e., the
                                    > agents of an angryprovidence being used against the
                                    > guilty nation of the Jews. Itwas a part of a Jew's
                                    > daily toilet to anoint his beard with oil and perfume
                                    > (Ps. 133:2). Beards were trimmed with the most
                                    > fastidious care (2 Sam. 19:24), and their neglet was
                                    > an
                                    > indication of deep sorrow (Isa. 15:2; Jer. 41:5). The
                                    > custom was to shave or pluck off the hair as a sign of
                                    > mourning (Isa. 50:6; Jer. 48:37; Ezra 9:3). The beards
                                    > of David's ambassadors were cut off by hanun (2 Sam.
                                    > 10:4) as a mark of indignity.
                                    > On the other hand, the Egyptians carefully shaved
                                    > the hair off their faces, and they compelled their
                                    > slaves to do so also (Gen.41:14).
                                    >
                                    > We see that the beard of a man show that he was
                                    > walking according to the Lord. A man beard was like a
                                    > woman's hair, a shame to him if it was shorn. As
                                    > Christian men we should have a beard to let other know
                                    > that we are not in morning, Our Lord lives and we show
                                    > that we live in Him.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > > I'm curious as to why you think men should wear
                                    > > beards? Is this
                                    > > something you think men ~should~ do, or something
                                    > > that would be your
                                    > > personal preference?
                                    > >
                                    > > Susan
                                    > >
                                    > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com,
                                    > > Fredrick Fleming
                                    > > <followerofhim2001@y...> wrote:
                                    > > > YES!!!!! Oh if only the christian church would do
                                    > > > this! It would be good if men also wore Beard.
                                    > > > --- Gary Gearon <GGearon@p...> wrote:
                                    > > > > Do you think the practice of the Free Church of
                                    > > > > Scotland in the UK and USA, and its custom of
                                    > > women
                                    > > > > manditorily wearing headcoverings (during
                                    > > worship
                                    > > > > only, granted), should count as a legitimate
                                    > > North
                                    > > > > American customary observance?
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > ----- Original Message -----
                                    > > > > From: Soles
                                    > > > > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                                    > > > > Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 1:28 PM
                                    > > > > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of
                                    > > Nature
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > ----- Original Message -----
                                    > > > > From: Gary Gearon
                                    > > > > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                                    > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 11:44 AM
                                    > > > > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of
                                    > > Nature
                                    > > > > Dear Grant and Cathie,
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Here are some words of Gillespie that we
                                    > > covered
                                    > > > > in a Friday night Bible study at the Covenanted
                                    > > > > Reformed Presbyterian Church where we attend:
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > I hope you find this edifying. English Popish
                                    > > > > Ceremonies, pg. 13, by Covenanted Pastor, George
                                    > > > > Gillespie.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > If it is demanded to what purpose serves then
                                    > > the
                                    > > > > enacting of ecclesiastical laws, since they have
                                    > > not
                                    > > > > in them any power to bind the conscience, I
                                    > > answer,
                                    > > > > The use and end for which ecclesiastical laws do
                                    > > > > serve is:
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > 1. For the plain discovery of such things as
                                    > > the
                                    > > > > Law of God or nature (Law of - emphasis mine)
                                    > > does
                                    > > > > require of us, so that law which of itself has
                                    > > power
                                    > > > > to bind, comes from the priests and ministers of
                                    > > the
                                    > > > > Lord neither independently, nor as lawgivers,
                                    > > but
                                    > > > > declarative (Mal. 2:7).
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > 2. For declaring to us what is fittest in such
                                    > > > > things as are, in their own nature, indifferent,
                                    > > and
                                    > > > > neither enforced by the Law of God or nature,
                                    > > and
                                    > > > > which part should be followed in these things as
                                    > > > > most convenient. The laws of the church, then,
                                    > > are
                                    > > > > appointed to let us see the necessity of the
                                    > > first
                                    > > > > kind of things, and what is expedient in the
                                    > > other
                                    > > > > kind of things, and therefore they are more
                                    > > properly
                                    > > > > called directions, instructions, admonitions,
                                    > > than
                                    > > > > laws. For I speak of ecclesiastical laws qua
                                    > > tales
                                    > > > > [as such], that is, as they are the
                                    > > constitutions of
                                    > > > > men who are set over us; thus considered, they
                                    > > have
                                    > > > > only the strength of directing and warning (that
                                    > > is
                                    > > > > no one can make LAWS about these things -
                                    > > emphasis
                                    > > > > mine).
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Brother and sister, please feel free to share
                                    > > this
                                    > > > > with whoever you like.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Sincerely yours, in our most illustrious and
                                    > > > > merciful Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, the
                                    > > True
                                    > > > > LION of the Covenant,
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Gary
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Grant answering:
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > The two notes by Geo G. are good points. And
                                    > > this
                                    > > > > is what the RPNA had in mind when they wrote the
                                    > > > > much maligned ruling.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > In accordance with number one, they did
                                    > > exactly
                                    > > > > what Paul did in 1Cor.11:3, declaring the
                                    > > principle
                                    > > > > of headship in its various ramifications, the
                                    > > very
                                    > > > > thing that both nature and the law of God teach.
                                    > > > > They went on to declare what the Word does in
                                    > > > > showing the impossiblity of the practise to be
                                    > > an
                                    > > > > essential in the exercises of worshiping, while
                                    > > the
                                    > > > > principle is essential for the purposes of
                                    > > church
                                    > > > > order.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > In accordance with number two, the admonition
                                    > > is,
                                    > > > > unless the church lives in a culture where
                                    > > women's
                                    > > > > headcoverings are universally understood to
                                    > > signify
                                    > > > > female submission, in which men not wearing a
                                    > > > > covering is well known to signify subjection to
                                    > > > > Christ, it is to be discouraged that you
                                    > > wear/don't
                                    > > > > wear these articles. However if it is your
                                    > > practice
                                    > > > > in your community and household to wear
                                    > > something on
                                    > > > > your head ladies, you may freely wear it to
                                    > > worship,
                                    > > > > provided two things.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Number one: it is not meant as a distraction
                                    > > and
                                    > > > > to cause disorder in the house of God, and
                                    > > > > Number two: it must not be worn as a testimony
                                    > > > > against sin toward others who are not practicing
                                    > > the
                                    > > > > same thing. But our advice, stay back from the
                                    > > line,
                                    > > > > be warned. Don't try to get as close to
                                    > > > > objectionable as possible.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > ----- Original Message -----
                                    > > > > From: Gary Gearon
                                    > > > > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                                    > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 5:37 PM
                                    > > > > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Sentence
                                    > > > > Correction: Law of Nature
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Correction: I see my sentence needs some
                                    > > fixin':
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > To be clearer on my use of the word LAWS, I
                                    > > mean
                                    > > > > that noone can make a law that states the Law of
                                    > > > > Nature no longer teaches anything in particular,
                                    > > or,
                                    > > > > that it once was thought to teach a thing, in a
                                    > > > > "supposed" time past, which it no longer
                                    > > teaches,
                                    > > > > because customs have changed, contrary to the
                                    > > Law
                                    > > > > of Nature. The Law of Nature is how God
                                    > > expresses
                                    > > > > His will for His creatures. God does not change
                                    > > His
                                    > > > > mind, about what He has placed in nature, and
                                    > > the
                                    > > > > physical constitution of man or woman or ant.
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Gary
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > Grant answering:
                                    > > > >
                                    > > > > As for nature, yes it teaches the principle,
                                    > > but
                                    > >
                                    > === message truncated ===
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > __________________________________________________
                                    > Do you Yahoo!?
                                    > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
                                    > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
                                    >
                                    > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                    > covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                  • Thomas Roche
                                    No one is arguing that the wearing of the beard is a salvation issue for men, even those men whose genetic heritage allows them to grown a full, flowing beard.
                                    Message 17 of 20 , Dec 31, 2002
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      No one is arguing that the wearing of the beard is a
                                      salvation issue for men, even those men whose genetic
                                      heritage allows them to grown a full, flowing beard.
                                      Currently I sport a goatee myself. I have also spent
                                      various periods clean-shaven, largely for ulterior
                                      motives-- it was simply easier to look for a
                                      professional job while clean-shaven, owing to the
                                      prejudice against the beard seen in our society. But
                                      the central point made by Tertullian remains, that
                                      beards, being natural only to one gender of adults (at
                                      least in most racial groups) are a natural marker of
                                      gender distinction, and as such they should be
                                      retained as one marker. The argument is not using the
                                      OT beard laws, any more than he argues for the need to
                                      wear Hasidic-style hair locks, etc., but rather it is
                                      a NT-based argument, based on Paul's teaching about
                                      the difference between man and woman, as well as the
                                      Mosaic prohibition of transvestitism.

                                      --- PuritanPresbyterian <PuritanPresbyterian@...>
                                      wrote:
                                      > customs, customs, customs. no room for them here as
                                      > a requirement for
                                      > salvation.
                                      >
                                      > no one in this society goes beardless because they
                                      > are in mourning, so the
                                      > use of a beard would be meaningless. In my case,
                                      > many would think i'm
                                      > Muslim if I had a beard, because I have brown/olive
                                      > skin. In the past, as I
                                      > was growing one out, many thiought I was a Muslim.
                                      > I rather have a
                                      > goat-tee, or something like that. Beards are a
                                      > bother to me.
                                      >
                                      > Edgar
                                      >
                                      > ----- Original Message -----
                                      > From: Fredrick Fleming <followerofhim2001@...>
                                      > To: <covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com>
                                      > Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 5:36 AM
                                      > Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of Nature
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > >
                                      > > --- "Susan <susan_wilkinson@...>"
                                      > > <susan_wilkinson@...> wrote:
                                      > > > Hi Fredrick,
                                      > > The issue of a beard.
                                      > > First I would say that a man it to have a beard if
                                      > he
                                      > > is able to grow won. Let us look at the reason for
                                      > > this.
                                      > >
                                      > > Easton's Bible Dictionary said:
                                      > > The mode of wearing it was definitely prescribed
                                      > to
                                      > > the Jews(Lev. 19:27; 21:5). Hence the import of
                                      > > Ezekiel's (5:1-4)description of the "razor" i.e.,
                                      > the
                                      > > agents of an angryprovidence being used against
                                      > the
                                      > > guilty nation of the Jews. Itwas a part of a Jew's
                                      > > daily toilet to anoint his beard with oil and
                                      > perfume
                                      > > (Ps. 133:2). Beards were trimmed with the most
                                      > > fastidious care (2 Sam. 19:24), and their neglet
                                      > was
                                      > > an
                                      > > indication of deep sorrow (Isa. 15:2; Jer. 41:5).
                                      > The
                                      > > custom was to shave or pluck off the hair as a
                                      > sign of
                                      > > mourning (Isa. 50:6; Jer. 48:37; Ezra 9:3). The
                                      > beards
                                      > > of David's ambassadors were cut off by hanun (2
                                      > Sam.
                                      > > 10:4) as a mark of indignity.
                                      > > On the other hand, the Egyptians carefully
                                      > shaved
                                      > > the hair off their faces, and they compelled their
                                      > > slaves to do so also (Gen.41:14).
                                      > >
                                      > > We see that the beard of a man show that he was
                                      > > walking according to the Lord. A man beard was
                                      > like a
                                      > > woman's hair, a shame to him if it was shorn. As
                                      > > Christian men we should have a beard to let other
                                      > know
                                      > > that we are not in morning, Our Lord lives and we
                                      > show
                                      > > that we live in Him.
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > > I'm curious as to why you think men should wear
                                      > > > beards? Is this
                                      > > > something you think men ~should~ do, or
                                      > something
                                      > > > that would be your
                                      > > > personal preference?
                                      > > >
                                      > > > Susan
                                      > > >
                                      > > > --- In
                                      > covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com,
                                      > > > Fredrick Fleming
                                      > > > <followerofhim2001@y...> wrote:
                                      > > > > YES!!!!! Oh if only the christian church would
                                      > do
                                      > > > > this! It would be good if men also wore Beard.
                                      > > > > --- Gary Gearon <GGearon@p...> wrote:
                                      > > > > > Do you think the practice of the Free Church
                                      > of
                                      > > > > > Scotland in the UK and USA, and its custom
                                      > of
                                      > > > women
                                      > > > > > manditorily wearing headcoverings (during
                                      > > > worship
                                      > > > > > only, granted), should count as a legitimate
                                      > > > North
                                      > > > > > American customary observance?
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
                                      > > > > > From: Soles
                                      > > > > > To:
                                      > covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                                      > > > > > Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 1:28 PM
                                      > > > > > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of
                                      > > > Nature
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
                                      > > > > > From: Gary Gearon
                                      > > > > > To:
                                      > covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                                      > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 11:44
                                      > AM
                                      > > > > > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of
                                      > > > Nature
                                      > > > > > Dear Grant and Cathie,
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > Here are some words of Gillespie that we
                                      > > > covered
                                      > > > > > in a Friday night Bible study at the
                                      > Covenanted
                                      > > > > > Reformed Presbyterian Church where we
                                      > attend:
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > I hope you find this edifying. English
                                      > Popish
                                      > > > > > Ceremonies, pg. 13, by Covenanted Pastor,
                                      > George
                                      > > > > > Gillespie.
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > If it is demanded to what purpose serves
                                      > then
                                      > > > the
                                      > > > > > enacting of ecclesiastical laws, since they
                                      > have
                                      > > > not
                                      > > > > > in them any power to bind the conscience, I
                                      > > > answer,
                                      > > > > > The use and end for which ecclesiastical
                                      > laws do
                                      > > > > > serve is:
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > 1. For the plain discovery of such things
                                      > as
                                      > > > the
                                      > > > > > Law of God or nature (Law of - emphasis
                                      > mine)
                                      > > > does
                                      > > > > > require of us, so that law which of itself
                                      > has
                                      > > > power
                                      > > > > > to bind, comes from the priests and
                                      > ministers of
                                      > > > the
                                      > > > > > Lord neither independently, nor as
                                      > lawgivers,
                                      > > > but
                                      > > > > > declarative (Mal. 2:7).
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > 2. For declaring to us what is fittest in
                                      > such
                                      > > > > > things as are, in their own nature,
                                      > indifferent,
                                      > > > and
                                      > > > > > neither enforced by the Law of God or
                                      > nature,
                                      > > > and
                                      > > > > > which part should be followed in these
                                      > things as
                                      > > > > > most convenient. The laws of the church,
                                      > then,
                                      > > > are
                                      > > > > > appointed to let us see the necessity of the
                                      > > > first
                                      > > > > > kind of things, and what is expedient in the
                                      > > > other
                                      > > > > > kind of things, and therefore they are more
                                      > > > properly
                                      > > > > > called directions, instructions,
                                      > admonitions,
                                      > > > than
                                      > > > > > laws. For I speak of ecclesiastical laws qua
                                      > > > tales
                                      > > > > > [as such], that is, as they are the
                                      > > > constitutions of
                                      > > > > > men who are set over us; thus considered,
                                      > they
                                      > > > have
                                      > > > > > only the strength of directing and warning
                                      > (that
                                      > > > is
                                      > > > > > no one can make LAWS about these things -
                                      > > > emphasis
                                      > > > > > mine).
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > Brother and sister, please feel free to
                                      > share
                                      > > > this
                                      > > > > > with whoever you like.
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > Sincerely yours, in our most illustrious
                                      > and
                                      > > > > > merciful Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, the
                                      > > > True
                                      > > > > > LION of the Covenant,
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > Gary
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > Grant answering:
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > The two notes by Geo G. are good points.
                                      > And
                                      > > > this
                                      > > > > > is what the RPNA had in mind when they wrote
                                      > the
                                      > > > > > much maligned ruling.
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > In accordance with number one, they did
                                      > > > exactly
                                      > > > > > what Paul did in 1Cor.11:3, declaring the
                                      > > > principle
                                      > > > > > of headship in its various ramifications,
                                      > the
                                      > > > very
                                      > > > > > thing that both nature and the law of God
                                      > teach.
                                      > > > > > They went on to declare what the Word does
                                      > in
                                      > > > > > showing the impossiblity of the practise to
                                      > be
                                      > > > an
                                      > > > > > essential in the exercises of worshiping,
                                      > while
                                      > > > the
                                      > > > > > principle is essential for the purposes of
                                      > > > church
                                      > > > > > order.
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > In accordance with number two, the
                                      > admonition
                                      > > > is,
                                      > > > > > unless the church lives in a culture where
                                      > > > women's
                                      > > > > > headcoverings are universally understood to
                                      > > > signify
                                      > > > > > female submission, in which men not wearing
                                      > a
                                      > > > > > covering is well known to signify subjection
                                      > to
                                      > > > > > Christ, it is to be discouraged that you
                                      > > > wear/don't
                                      > > > > > wear these articles. However if it is your
                                      > > > practice
                                      > > > > > in your community and household to wear
                                      > > > something on
                                      > > > > > your head ladies, you may freely wear it to
                                      > > > worship,
                                      > > > > > provided two things.
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > Number one: it is not meant as a
                                      > distraction
                                      > > > and
                                      > > > > > to cause disorder in the house of God, and
                                      > > > > > Number two: it must not be worn as a
                                      > testimony
                                      > > > > > against sin toward others who are not
                                      > practicing
                                      > > > the
                                      > > > > > same thing. But our advice, stay back from
                                      > the
                                      > > > line,
                                      > > > > > be warned. Don't try to get as close to
                                      > > > > > objectionable as possible.
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
                                      > > > > > From: Gary Gearon
                                      > > > > > To:
                                      > covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                                      > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 5:37 PM
                                      > > > > > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Sentence
                                      > > > > > Correction: Law of Nature
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > Correction: I see my sentence needs some
                                      > > > fixin':
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > To be clearer on my use of the word LAWS,
                                      > I
                                      > > > mean
                                      > > > > > that noone can make a law that states the
                                      > Law of
                                      > > > > > Nature no longer teaches anything in
                                      > particular,
                                      > > > or,
                                      > > > > > that it once was thought to teach a thing,
                                      > in a
                                      > > > > > "supposed" time past, which it no longer
                                      > > > teaches,
                                      > > > > > because customs have changed, contrary to
                                      > the
                                      > > > Law
                                      > > > > > of Nature. The Law of Nature is how God
                                      > > > expresses
                                      > > > > > His will for His creatures. God does not
                                      > change
                                      > > > His
                                      > > > > > mind, about what He has placed in nature,
                                      > and
                                      > > > the
                                      > > > > > physical constitution of man or woman or
                                      > ant.
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > Gary
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > Grant answering:
                                      > > > > >
                                      > > > > > As for nature, yes it teaches the
                                      > principle,
                                      > > > but
                                      > > >
                                      > > === message truncated ===
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > __________________________________________________
                                      > > Do you Yahoo!?
                                      > > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
                                      > now.
                                      > > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
                                      > >
                                      > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                                      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      > >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >


                                      =====
                                      Dr. Thomas P. Roche
                                      Librarian
                                      The Marvelwood School
                                      476 Skiff Mtn. Rd.-- PO Box 3001
                                      Kent, CT 06757
                                      tertullianus_2000@...
                                      (my opinions do not reflect those of my employer)

                                      __________________________________________________
                                      Do you Yahoo!?
                                      Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
                                      http://mailplus.yahoo.com
                                    • Cheryl
                                      ... From: Thomas Roche But the central point made by Tertullian remains, that beards, being natural only to one gender of adults (at least in most racial
                                      Message 18 of 20 , Dec 31, 2002
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                         
                                        ----- Original Message -----
                                        But
                                        the central point made by Tertullian remains, that
                                        beards, being natural only to one gender of adults (at
                                        least in most racial groups) are a natural marker of
                                        gender distinction, and as such they should be
                                        retained as one marker. 
                                         
                                        Hah!  For some reason women's faces can run amuck as they get older and start sprouting whiskers that make adolescent boys envious.  So much for that gender distinction.
                                         
                                        Cheryl -- thankful for electrolysis, waxing and tweezers
                                      • Fredrick Fleming
                                        Amen! Are no time would I ever say that salvation is a part of it, but it is a part of our makeup and a very strong statement. David s men were told to go and
                                        Message 19 of 20 , Dec 31, 2002
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Amen! Are no time would I ever say that salvation is
                                          a part of it, but it is a part of our makeup and a
                                          very strong statement. David's men were told to go and
                                          hide them self, till there beard were regrown.

                                          --- Thomas Roche <tertullianus_2000@...> wrote:
                                          > No one is arguing that the wearing of the beard is a
                                          > salvation issue for men, even those men whose
                                          > genetic
                                          > heritage allows them to grown a full, flowing beard.
                                          >
                                          > Currently I sport a goatee myself. I have also
                                          > spent
                                          > various periods clean-shaven, largely for ulterior
                                          > motives-- it was simply easier to look for a
                                          > professional job while clean-shaven, owing to the
                                          > prejudice against the beard seen in our society.
                                          > But
                                          > the central point made by Tertullian remains, that
                                          > beards, being natural only to one gender of adults
                                          > (at
                                          > least in most racial groups) are a natural marker of
                                          > gender distinction, and as such they should be
                                          > retained as one marker. The argument is not using
                                          > the
                                          > OT beard laws, any more than he argues for the need
                                          > to
                                          > wear Hasidic-style hair locks, etc., but rather it
                                          > is
                                          > a NT-based argument, based on Paul's teaching about
                                          > the difference between man and woman, as well as the
                                          > Mosaic prohibition of transvestitism.
                                          >
                                          > --- PuritanPresbyterian
                                          > <PuritanPresbyterian@...>
                                          > wrote:
                                          > > customs, customs, customs. no room for them here
                                          > as
                                          > > a requirement for
                                          > > salvation.
                                          > >
                                          > > no one in this society goes beardless because they
                                          > > are in mourning, so the
                                          > > use of a beard would be meaningless. In my case,
                                          > > many would think i'm
                                          > > Muslim if I had a beard, because I have
                                          > brown/olive
                                          > > skin. In the past, as I
                                          > > was growing one out, many thiought I was a Muslim.
                                          >
                                          > > I rather have a
                                          > > goat-tee, or something like that. Beards are a
                                          > > bother to me.
                                          > >
                                          > > Edgar
                                          > >
                                          > > ----- Original Message -----
                                          > > From: Fredrick Fleming
                                          > <followerofhim2001@...>
                                          > > To: <covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com>
                                          > > Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 5:36 AM
                                          > > Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of
                                          > Nature
                                          > >
                                          > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > > --- "Susan <susan_wilkinson@...>"
                                          > > > <susan_wilkinson@...> wrote:
                                          > > > > Hi Fredrick,
                                          > > > The issue of a beard.
                                          > > > First I would say that a man it to have a beard
                                          > if
                                          > > he
                                          > > > is able to grow won. Let us look at the reason
                                          > for
                                          > > > this.
                                          > > >
                                          > > > Easton's Bible Dictionary said:
                                          > > > The mode of wearing it was definitely prescribed
                                          > > to
                                          > > > the Jews(Lev. 19:27; 21:5). Hence the import of
                                          > > > Ezekiel's (5:1-4)description of the "razor"
                                          > i.e.,
                                          > > the
                                          > > > agents of an angryprovidence being used against
                                          > > the
                                          > > > guilty nation of the Jews. Itwas a part of a
                                          > Jew's
                                          > > > daily toilet to anoint his beard with oil and
                                          > > perfume
                                          > > > (Ps. 133:2). Beards were trimmed with the most
                                          > > > fastidious care (2 Sam. 19:24), and their neglet
                                          > > was
                                          > > > an
                                          > > > indication of deep sorrow (Isa. 15:2; Jer.
                                          > 41:5).
                                          > > The
                                          > > > custom was to shave or pluck off the hair as a
                                          > > sign of
                                          > > > mourning (Isa. 50:6; Jer. 48:37; Ezra 9:3). The
                                          > > beards
                                          > > > of David's ambassadors were cut off by hanun (2
                                          > > Sam.
                                          > > > 10:4) as a mark of indignity.
                                          > > > On the other hand, the Egyptians carefully
                                          > > shaved
                                          > > > the hair off their faces, and they compelled
                                          > their
                                          > > > slaves to do so also (Gen.41:14).
                                          > > >
                                          > > > We see that the beard of a man show that he was
                                          > > > walking according to the Lord. A man beard was
                                          > > like a
                                          > > > woman's hair, a shame to him if it was shorn. As
                                          > > > Christian men we should have a beard to let
                                          > other
                                          > > know
                                          > > > that we are not in morning, Our Lord lives and
                                          > we
                                          > > show
                                          > > > that we live in Him.
                                          > > >
                                          > > >
                                          > > > > I'm curious as to why you think men should
                                          > wear
                                          > > > > beards? Is this
                                          > > > > something you think men ~should~ do, or
                                          > > something
                                          > > > > that would be your
                                          > > > > personal preference?
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > Susan
                                          > > > >
                                          > > > > --- In
                                          > > covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com,
                                          > > > > Fredrick Fleming
                                          > > > > <followerofhim2001@y...> wrote:
                                          > > > > > YES!!!!! Oh if only the christian church
                                          > would
                                          > > do
                                          > > > > > this! It would be good if men also wore
                                          > Beard.
                                          > > > > > --- Gary Gearon <GGearon@p...> wrote:
                                          > > > > > > Do you think the practice of the Free
                                          > Church
                                          > > of
                                          > > > > > > Scotland in the UK and USA, and its custom
                                          > > of
                                          > > > > women
                                          > > > > > > manditorily wearing headcoverings (during
                                          > > > > worship
                                          > > > > > > only, granted), should count as a
                                          > legitimate
                                          > > > > North
                                          > > > > > > American customary observance?
                                          > > > > > >
                                          > > > > > >
                                          > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
                                          > > > > > > From: Soles
                                          > > > > > > To:
                                          > > covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                                          > > > > > > Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 1:28 PM
                                          > > > > > > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of
                                          > > > > Nature
                                          > > > > > >
                                          > > > > > >
                                          > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
                                          > > > > > > From: Gary Gearon
                                          > > > > > > To:
                                          > > covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                                          > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 25, 2002 11:44
                                          > > AM
                                          > > > > > > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Law of
                                          > > > > Nature
                                          > > > > > > Dear Grant and Cathie,
                                          > > > > > >
                                          > > > > > > Here are some words of Gillespie that we
                                          > > > > covered
                                          > > > > > > in a Friday night Bible study at the
                                          > > Covenanted
                                          > > > > > > Reformed Presbyterian Church where we
                                          > > attend:
                                          > > > > > >
                                          > > > > > > I hope you find this edifying. English
                                          > > Popish
                                          > > > > > > Ceremonies, pg. 13, by Covenanted Pastor,
                                          > > George
                                          > > > > > > Gillespie.
                                          > > > > > >
                                          > > > > > > If it is demanded to what purpose serves
                                          > > then
                                          > > > > the
                                          > > > > > > enacting of ecclesiastical laws, since
                                          > they
                                          > > have
                                          > > > > not
                                          > > > > > > in them any power to bind the conscience,
                                          > I
                                          > > > > answer,
                                          > > > > > > The use and end for which ecclesiastical
                                          > > laws do
                                          > > > > > > serve is:
                                          > > > > > >
                                          > > > > > > 1. For the plain discovery of such
                                          > things
                                          > > as
                                          > > > > the
                                          >
                                          === message truncated ===


                                          __________________________________________________
                                          Do you Yahoo!?
                                          Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
                                          http://mailplus.yahoo.com
                                        • Thomas Roche
                                          Don t be foolish or deliberately disingenuous-- you know the point I am making and the general principles on which I make it. Your points no more disqualify
                                          Message 20 of 20 , Jan 1, 2003
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Don't be foolish or deliberately disingenuous-- you
                                            know the point I am making and the general principles
                                            on which I make it. Your points no more disqualify
                                            this point than does the counter argument noting that
                                            some, mostly middle aged or older, men, develop
                                            enlarged breasts, does to the reality that breast size
                                            is a similar gender marker.

                                            --- Cheryl <cheryl@...> wrote:
                                            >
                                            > ----- Original Message -----
                                            > From: Thomas Roche
                                            > But
                                            > the central point made by Tertullian remains, that
                                            > beards, being natural only to one gender of adults
                                            > (at
                                            > least in most racial groups) are a natural marker
                                            > of
                                            > gender distinction, and as such they should be
                                            > retained as one marker.
                                            >
                                            > Hah! For some reason women's faces can run amuck
                                            > as they get older and start sprouting whiskers that
                                            > make adolescent boys envious. So much for that
                                            > gender distinction.
                                            >
                                            > Cheryl -- thankful for electrolysis, waxing and
                                            tweezers


                                            =====
                                            Dr. Thomas P. Roche
                                            Librarian
                                            The Marvelwood School
                                            476 Skiff Mtn. Rd.-- PO Box 3001
                                            Kent, CT 06757
                                            tertullianus_2000@...
                                            (my opinions do not reflect those of my employer)

                                            __________________________________________________
                                            Do you Yahoo!?
                                            Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
                                            http://mailplus.yahoo.com
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.