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

Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Women and subjection and Breast feeding

Expand Messages
  • Gary Gearon
    Hi Leah, One more proof text is that the woman s sign of authority on her head is called power 11:10 For this cause ought the woman to have power
    Message 1 of 16 , Jan 3, 2003
      Hi Leah,
       
      One more proof text is that the woman's sign of authority on her head is called power
       
      11:10
      For this cause ought the woman to have power (priviledge/authority/exousia gr.) on her head because of the angels. This symbol represents the husband.
       
      Calvin:
       
      10. For this cause ought the woman to have power.20 From that authority he draws an argument21 in favor of outward decorum. "She is subject," says he, "let her then wear a token of subjection." In the term power, there is an instance of metonymy,22 for he means a token by which she declares herself to be under the power of her husband; and it is a covering, whether it be a robe, or a veil,23 or any other kind of covering.24

      It is asked, whether he speaks of married women exclusively, for there are some that restrict to them what Paul here teaches, on the ground that it does not belong to virgins to be under the authority of a husband. It is however a mistake, for Paul looks beyond this -- to God's eternal law, which has made the female sex subject to the authority of men. On this account all women are born, that they may acknowledge themselves inferior in consequence of the superiority of the male sex. Otherwise it were an inconclusive argument that Paul has drawn from nature, in saying that it were not one whit more seemly for a woman to have her head uncovered than to be shaven -- this being applicable to virgins also.

      GG

        
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 9:18 PM
      Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Women and subjection and Breast feeding

      Hi Leah,
       
      We can infer that man (Adam), is the covering of the eyes for Eve:
       
      (Abimelech speaking to Abraham and Sarah):
       
      Genesis 20:16
      "And unto Sarah he said, Behold, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver: behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she was reproved." 
       
      Abraham was not playing his part here, thus the reprovement. To me it seems like Abimelech was saying; "don't let this happen again Abraham and Sarah!"
       
      Eve in her pre-body, "rib" existence, if you would, was, in principal, covered in Adam. The Lord did not take her from without (external environment), but within Adam. She was "formed" without, obviously.
       
      Genesis 3:21
      Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
       
       
      God made a covering according to Adam and Eve's physical nature. Being an elder's daughter, as you have mentioned, I know you are aware of the distinction's God makes in dress, between Male and Female. The garments weren't "Unisex" garments. She had long hair and he didn't. This is inferred with no violence to Truth and in agreement with the WCF (that we can infer). To this, also agree many theologians i.e., that nature itself teaches covering for women (given Eve's physical characteristic). 
       
       
      P.S. Just to let you know (not trying to boot you from here, sister), but there is another younger Covenanter group that you can sign on to. Just ask Jer about it or pehaps young Master James is seeing this already. 
       
      GG
       
       
       
       
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 8:50 PM
      Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Women and subjection and Breast feeding

       
      Gary:
      <<Now, for one, it seems to me that Eve had really long hair; long enough to cover her upper torso and baby. She had a headcovering, in addition. Perhaps we can work from there. Maybe she wore her hair up, or maybe down, I dunno. >>
       
          Say what? Eve was wearing fig leaves and a headcovering? I've never heard that before. Do you have any Scripture references for this assumption?
       
       
      In Christ,
      Leah Dohms
       
      (daughter of Elder Lyndon and Ginny Dohms)


      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
      Leah, You have not been keeping up with the latest trends in fashion, or you would not speak so. Kidding aside, the fig leave aprons (man-made) had gone out of
      Message 2 of 16 , Jan 3, 2003
        Leah,
         
        You have not been keeping up with the latest trends in fashion, or you would not speak so. Kidding aside, the fig leave aprons (man-made) had gone out of fashion at this point in time (still on the first day mind you).
         
        Verse 7:
        3:7
        And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
         
         The Lord had killed animals by now, and he personally made them garments of skin, according to his Law against "transvestism."
         
        GG
         
         
        ----- Original Message -----
        Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 8:50 PM
        Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Women and subjection and Breast feeding

         
        Gary:
        <<Now, for one, it seems to me that Eve had really long hair; long enough to cover her upper torso and baby. She had a headcovering, in addition. Perhaps we can work from there. Maybe she wore her hair up, or maybe down, I dunno. >>
         
            Say what? Eve was wearing fig leaves and a headcovering? I've never heard that before. Do you have any Scripture references for this assumption?
         
         
        In Christ,
        Leah Dohms
         
        (daughter of Elder Lyndon and Ginny Dohms)


        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.
      • Soles
        Hey Leah dear, Great to see you posting here...I immediately thought about those pictures that folks did up for the Sunday school classes that I once taught
        Message 3 of 16 , Jan 3, 2003
          Hey Leah dear,
           
          Great to see you posting here...I immediately thought about those pictures that folks did up for the Sunday school classes that I once taught many years ago,...lol..many as in I am getting old....I think all those illustrators had very vivid imaginations and were certainly uninformed in truth.....I totally agree with the words of David Steele...that the Sunday school movement would be the great weakening of the church...no accountability for untruths, and teachers spouting off stuff and teaching when God had not sent them.
           
          Again glad you are here, and that the Lord kept you and your mom safe during that ice rain....you must be a good driver.
           
          ~cis~
          ----- Original Message -----
          Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 5:50 PM
          Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Women and subjection and Breast feeding

           
          Gary:
          <<Now, for one, it seems to me that Eve had really long hair; long enough to cover her upper torso and baby. She had a headcovering, in addition. Perhaps we can work from there. Maybe she wore her hair up, or maybe down, I dunno. >>
           
              Say what? Eve was wearing fig leaves and a headcovering? I've never heard that before. Do you have any Scripture references for this assumption?
           
           
          In Christ,
          Leah Dohms
           
          (daughter of Elder Lyndon and Ginny Dohms)


          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
          It is also intresting that all man-made customs and laws concerning modesty affect women. Such as women can only wear dresses then come laws about length,
          Message 4 of 16 , Jan 3, 2003
            It is also intresting that all man-made customs and laws concerning modesty affect women.  Such as women can only wear dresses then come laws about length, cut, size, shape, etc.  head-coverings, whether they can put their hair up, decorate themselves etc.  I believe in modesty and a woman honoring herself by not over-exposing herself, but I also dislike tryanny over a woman and causing them to be un-necessarily burdened.  Many men in the latin american culture tend to put the woman down and place all sorts of laws on them, and then one wonders why the woman is so sad, depressed, and unhappy.
             
            An over-kill on how women are treated will cause a blight in Christ's Church, so will the other extreme: feminism. 
             
            We should treat our wives as Christ has treated His Church.
             
            Edgar
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: Cheryl
            Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 3:59 PM
            Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Women and subjection and Breast feeding

            Dear Mr. Fleming,
             
            Your implied stance that women are to be in subjection to all men places all women on the horns of a dilemma. 
            Who do we submit to?  You or our husbands who believe that we are not immodest and are not acting in an inappropriate manner when we cover ourselves to feed our babies? 
             
            Last night I had a chat with a brother who fellowshipped with churches in Latin America.  There, the women feed their children in the service and no one thinks anything of it.  If anything, you have proven my point that the issue is one where our over-sexed culture has affected how we in this culture view the God given role of childbearing and child nurture. 
             
            If men disagree with you do you call them headstrong  too, or is this only reserved for women?  You betray not a little misogyny or condescension to women in your post.  It never fails to amaze me how men always pull out the "subjection" word when a woman disagrees with them as though this is a trump card that will not fail to win the argument. 
             
             None of the women who posted are defending immodesty or baring all for the sake of feeding a baby or to make a political statement.  In fact, we have accomodated the scruples of brothers by covering ourselves with blankets so that not only are we not exposed, you can't even see the baby.  But this is not enough -- we must be banished from God's worship, despite our husband's approval, and despite the fact that none of us have been disciplined by our elders for being immodest.  And then we are called headstrong and unsubmissive to Christ to boot because we dared to disagree with Frederick Fleming.
             
            This is tyranny. 
            Yours and His,
            Mrs. Cheryl Grenon
            ----- Original Message -----
            Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 1:00 AM
            Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Women and subjection and Breast feeding

            It seems to me that the women in these group are very
            headstrong. They are going to tell us men, what we are
            to do. With no, if, and or, buts about it.  The fact
            that several of us have said things different to them
            and say things that they do not like. I get the very
            strong impression that they are going to set us
            RIGHT!!! It is a MALE Lust PROBLEM and they are not
            the one with the problem. JUST the MEN are.
            I see no submission to Christ in this at all. It would
            be fine if they were to say what do you feel about
            this issue. I have said on several times in here, that
            this must be done in love. I have said, do things that
            you know the Lord wants to do in this matter.

            Not one person has said that they are seeking to do
            this that for the Glory of God. Where is the Love of
            Christ for brother or the ungodly. No it seems to be a
            fight issue. There is no love in this, there is no,
            "Father, how can I do this so others will not be
            offended." No it is a fight to the end.
            Well ladies, I give up, you win. But I feel you need
            to really to to the Lord and say, "Father, have I done
            this to the glory of you?"  If you want I will find
            another conference to me in instead of here.
            I cannot deal with a fight to set forth, that you are
            right, with no Love of the brother, that might be
            here.
            You Have to say, Lord, let me be a peace maker, Let my
            life be alway seeking to that which Glory God.

            May our Lord and Saviour grant each of us a heart that
            seeks to please him and that will seek ways to not
            hurt others.
            God bless each of you.


            =====
            Looking unto Christ as Lord and Saviour.  No one but Him will save me or you.

            __________________________________________________
            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.
          • PuritanPresbyterian
            Gary, ... So she had long-hair, one can safely assume, but whence this additional head-covering? Never have read that in the Bible. Could you cite the verse
            Message 5 of 16 , Jan 3, 2003
              Gary,
               
              you wrote:
              >it seems to me that Eve had really long hair; long enough to cover her upper torso and baby. She had a headcovering, in addition
               
              So she had long-hair, one can safely assume, but whence this additional head-covering?  Never have read that in the Bible.  Could you cite the verse for that? 
               
              Thank you.
               
              Edgar
               
              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 4:21 PM
              Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Women and subjection and Breast feeding

              You know, I think that someone needs to do a sermon on this topic i.e., breast feeding in public, and put it on sermonaudio.
               
              Now, for one, it seems to me that Eve had really long hair; long enough to cover her upper torso and baby. She had a headcovering, in addition. Perhaps we can work from there. Maybe she wore her hair up, or maybe down, I dunno.
               
              I wonder how Gloria Steinem feels about this???
               
              GG
              ----- Original Message -----
              From: Cheryl
              Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 6:59 PM
              Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Women and subjection and Breast feeding

              Dear Mr. Fleming,
               
              Your implied stance that women are to be in subjection to all men places all women on the horns of a dilemma. 
              Who do we submit to?  You or our husbands who believe that we are not immodest and are not acting in an inappropriate manner when we cover ourselves to feed our babies? 
               
              Last night I had a chat with a brother who fellowshipped with churches in Latin America.  There, the women feed their children in the service and no one thinks anything of it.  If anything, you have proven my point that the issue is one where our over-sexed culture has affected how we in this culture view the God given role of childbearing and child nurture. 
               
              If men disagree with you do you call them headstrong  too, or is this only reserved for women?  You betray not a little misogyny or condescension to women in your post.  It never fails to amaze me how men always pull out the "subjection" word when a woman disagrees with them as though this is a trump card that will not fail to win the argument. 
               
               None of the women who posted are defending immodesty or baring all for the sake of feeding a baby or to make a political statement.  In fact, we have accomodated the scruples of brothers by covering ourselves with blankets so that not only are we not exposed, you can't even see the baby.  But this is not enough -- we must be banished from God's worship, despite our husband's approval, and despite the fact that none of us have been disciplined by our elders for being immodest.  And then we are called headstrong and unsubmissive to Christ to boot because we dared to disagree with Frederick Fleming.
               
              This is tyranny. 
              Yours and His,
              Mrs. Cheryl Grenon
              ----- Original Message -----
              Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 1:00 AM
              Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Women and subjection and Breast feeding

              It seems to me that the women in these group are very
              headstrong. They are going to tell us men, what we are
              to do. With no, if, and or, buts about it.  The fact
              that several of us have said things different to them
              and say things that they do not like. I get the very
              strong impression that they are going to set us
              RIGHT!!! It is a MALE Lust PROBLEM and they are not
              the one with the problem. JUST the MEN are.
              I see no submission to Christ in this at all. It would
              be fine if they were to say what do you feel about
              this issue. I have said on several times in here, that
              this must be done in love. I have said, do things that
              you know the Lord wants to do in this matter.

              Not one person has said that they are seeking to do
              this that for the Glory of God. Where is the Love of
              Christ for brother or the ungodly. No it seems to be a
              fight issue. There is no love in this, there is no,
              "Father, how can I do this so others will not be
              offended." No it is a fight to the end.
              Well ladies, I give up, you win. But I feel you need
              to really to to the Lord and say, "Father, have I done
              this to the glory of you?"  If you want I will find
              another conference to me in instead of here.
              I cannot deal with a fight to set forth, that you are
              right, with no Love of the brother, that might be
              here.
              You Have to say, Lord, let me be a peace maker, Let my
              life be alway seeking to that which Glory God.

              May our Lord and Saviour grant each of us a heart that
              seeks to please him and that will seek ways to not
              hurt others.
              God bless each of you.


              =====
              Looking unto Christ as Lord and Saviour.  No one but Him will save me or you.

              __________________________________________________
              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.


              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
              Actually it was lamb s skin after God slayed an animal to cover their sin. Sin requires blood so that one may be cleansed of that. Just a correction on that
              Message 6 of 16 , Jan 3, 2003
                Actually it was lamb's skin after God slayed an animal to cover their sin.   Sin requires blood so that one may be cleansed of that.
                 
                Just a correction on that part.
                 
                Edgar
                ----- Original Message -----
                Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 5:50 PM
                Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Women and subjection and Breast feeding

                 
                Gary:
                <<Now, for one, it seems to me that Eve had really long hair; long enough to cover her upper torso and baby. She had a headcovering, in addition. Perhaps we can work from there. Maybe she wore her hair up, or maybe down, I dunno. >>
                 
                    Say what? Eve was wearing fig leaves and a headcovering? I've never heard that before. Do you have any Scripture references for this assumption?
                 
                 
                In Christ,
                Leah Dohms
                 
                (daughter of Elder Lyndon and Ginny Dohms)


                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
                DO NOT SEND ME YOUR PRIVATE MAIL!!!!! ... covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com ... __________________________________________________ Do you
                Message 7 of 16 , Jan 4, 2003
                  DO NOT SEND ME YOUR PRIVATE MAIL!!!!!
                  --- Cheryl <cheryl@...> wrote:
                  > Private reply
                  >
                  > Dear Mr. Fleming,
                  >
                  > Your implied stance that women are to be in
                  > subjection to all men places all women on the horns
                  > of a dilemma.
                  > Who do we submit to? You or our husbands who
                  > believe that we are not immodest and are not acting
                  > in an inappropriate manner when we cover ourselves
                  > to feed our babies?
                  >
                  > Last night I had a chat with a brother who
                  > fellowshipped with churches in Latin America.
                  > There, the women feed their children in the service
                  > and no one thinks anything of it. If anything, you
                  > have proven my point that the issue is one where our
                  > over-sexed culture has affected how we in this
                  > culture view the God given role of childbearing and
                  > nurture.
                  >
                  > If men disagree with you do you call them headstrong
                  > too, or is this only reserved for women? You
                  > betray not a little misogyny or condescension to
                  > women in your post. It never fails to amaze me how
                  > men always pull out the "subjection" word when a
                  > woman disagrees with them as though this is a trump
                  > card that will not fail to win the argument.
                  >
                  > None of the women who posted are defending
                  > immodesty or baring all for the sake of feeding a
                  > baby or to make a political statement. In fact, we
                  > have accomodated the scruples of brothers by
                  > covering ourselves with blankets so that not only
                  > are we not exposed, you can't even see the baby.
                  > But this is not enough -- we must be banished from
                  > God's worship, despite our husband's approval, and
                  > despite the fact that none of us have been
                  > disciplined by our elders for being immodest. And
                  > then we are called headstrong and unsubmissive to
                  > Christ to boot because we dared to disagree with
                  > Frederick Fleming.
                  >
                  > This is tyranny.
                  > Yours and His,
                  > Mrs. Cheryl Grenon
                  >
                  >
                  > ----- Original Message -----
                  > From: Fredrick Fleming
                  > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                  > Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 1:00 AM
                  > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Women and
                  > subjection and Breast feeding
                  >
                  >
                  > It seems to me that the women in these group are
                  > very
                  > headstrong. They are going to tell us men, what we
                  > are
                  > to do. With no, if, and or, buts about it. The
                  > fact
                  > that several of us have said things different to
                  > them
                  > and say things that they do not like. I get the
                  > very
                  > strong impression that they are going to set us
                  > RIGHT!!! It is a MALE Lust PROBLEM and they are
                  > not
                  > the one with the problem. JUST the MEN are.
                  > I see no submission to Christ in this at all. It
                  > would
                  > be fine if they were to say what do you feel about
                  > this issue. I have said on several times in here,
                  > that
                  > this must be done in love. I have said, do things
                  > that
                  > you know the Lord wants to do in this matter.
                  >
                  > Not one person has said that they are seeking to
                  > do
                  > this that for the Glory of God. Where is the Love
                  > of
                  > Christ for brother or the ungodly. No it seems to
                  > be a
                  > fight issue. There is no love in this, there is
                  > no,
                  > "Father, how can I do this so others will not be
                  > offended." No it is a fight to the end.
                  > Well ladies, I give up, you win. But I feel you
                  > need
                  > to really to to the Lord and say, "Father, have I
                  > done
                  > this to the glory of you?" If you want I will
                  > find
                  > another conference to me in instead of here.
                  > I cannot deal with a fight to set forth, that you
                  > are
                  > right, with no Love of the brother, that might be
                  > here.
                  > You Have to say, Lord, let me be a peace maker,
                  > Let my
                  > life be alway seeking to that which Glory God.
                  >
                  > May our Lord and Saviour grant each of us a heart
                  > that
                  > seeks to please him and that will seek ways to not
                  > hurt others.
                  > God bless each of you.
                  >
                  >
                  > =====
                  > Looking unto Christ as Lord and Saviour. No one
                  > but Him will save me or you.
                  >
                  > __________________________________________________
                  > Do you Yahoo!?
                  > Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
                  > now.
                  > http://mailplus.yahoo.com
                  >
                  > Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                  > ADVERTISEMENT
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > 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
                • Leah Dohms
                  Gary,
                  Message 8 of 16 , Jan 4, 2003
                    Gary,
                     
                     
                    <<We can infer that man (Adam), is the covering of the eyes for Eve: (Abimelech speaking to Abraham and Sarah):Genesis 20:16 "And unto Sarah he said, Behold, I have given thy brother a thousand pieces of silver: behold, he is to thee a covering of the eyes, unto all that are with thee, and with all other: thus she was reproved."  Abraham was not playing his part here, thus the reprovement. To me it seems like Abimelech was saying; "don't let this happen again Abraham and Sarah!" Eve in her pre-body, "rib" existence, if you would, was, in principal, covered in Adam. The Lord did not take her from without (external environment), but within Adam. She was "formed" without, obviously.Genesis 3:21
                    Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.
                    God made a covering according to Adam and Eve's physical nature. Being an elder's daughter, as you have mentioned, I know you are aware of the distinction's God makes in dress, between Male and Female. The garments weren't "Unisex" garments. She had long hair and he didn't. This is inferred with no violence to Truth and in agreement with the WCF (that we can infer). To this, also agree many theologians i.e., that nature itself teaches covering for women (given Eve's physical characteristic). >>
                     
                        I'm afraid I don't see any proof from that, to infer that Eve wore an actual headcovering, beside or in addition to her hair. I was hoping for a Scripture reference with some clear proof, but I guess there isn't one.
                     
                     
                    <<P.S. Just to let you know (not trying to boot you from here, sister), but there is another younger Covenanter group that you can sign on to. Just ask Jer about it or pehaps young Master James is seeing this already. >>
                     
                        I understand what you're saying. I'm actually already a moderator of a Covenanter youth e-group, so thanks but no thanks. :)
                     
                    <<You have not been keeping up with the latest trends in fashion, or you would not speak so. Kidding aside, the fig leave aprons (man-made) had gone out of fashion at this point in time (still on the first day mind you).>>
                     
                        My apologies! A mistake on my part!
                     
                     
                        Just so you know, I have seen your arguments on the subject of headcoverings (on the "covenanters" e-group), so I've seen where you're coming from. I know on which side I stand; and that won't change until I see more Biblically conclusive proof from the headcoverings-always side. I merely brought up the issue of Eve and headcoverings, since I'd seen no proof to support that idea.
                     
                     
                    Cathie:
                    <<Hey Leah dear, Great to see you posting here Again glad you are here, and that the Lord kept you and your mom safe during that ice rain....you must be a good driver.>>
                     
                        Thanks, Cathie, for the welcome! :) The Lord was indeed merciful to us. Take care!
                     
                     
                    In Christ,
                    Leah

                     
                  • objkofmersee <objkofmersee@netzero.com>
                    ... Greetings-- Is it the consensus view here that women ought to wear head-coverings in church? That is, that the head-covering of 1 Cor 11 is _not_ her hair?
                    Message 9 of 16 , Jan 4, 2003
                      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Leah Dohms"
                      <malia_dawn@s...> wrote:

                      > I know on which side I stand; and that won't change until I see
                      >more Biblically conclusive proof from the headcoverings-always side.

                      Greetings--

                      Is it the consensus view here that women ought to wear head-coverings
                      in church? That is, that the head-covering of 1 Cor 11 is _not_ her
                      hair?

                      I apologize if you've already been 'round and 'round this block.

                      Kevin
                    • Fredrick Fleming
                      Dear Brother and Sister in the Lord Yeshua: (Jesus) As I have been thinking about the things that went forth in this room and having prayed about it. I find
                      Message 10 of 16 , Jan 6, 2003
                        Dear Brother and Sister in the Lord Yeshua: (Jesus)
                        As I have been thinking about the things that went
                        forth in this room and having prayed about it. I find
                        that I cannot continue in this conference. Yet, as the
                        founding father�s said, in the Declaration of
                        Independence, �When in the Course of human evens, it
                        becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the
                        political bands which have connected them with
                        another�. A decent respect to the opinions of mankind
                        required that they should declare the causes which
                        impel them to the separation.�

                        First, I must say that I really do believe that many
                        in this conference are really Christians. And for
                        this I must say praise to the Lord for what he has
                        done with you. I think you are close to some
                        wonderful truth. Your reformed, you sing the Lord's
                        Psalms, clearly you want to stay in covenant. And I
                        even see in some here a desire to bring others to your
                        Lord and Saviour. For all of this I lift up my voice
                        to Him and say thank you my Father.

                        Yet, as our Lord spoke to the churches, I have to say
                        that I do not see the Love of our Lord in you. Now
                        this is not all of you, for some have spoken to me
                        about it and you know who you are. Tell me say to
                        you, I am a minister of the gospel of our Lord and
                        Saviour. I was ordained in 1976. Am I a minister of
                        your denomination? No, but I am still in the body of
                        Christ, am a minister. With such a place in the Lord I
                        could say give me at least some common Courtesy. Is
                        calling me a tyranny the love of God.
                        Will you please read the messages I send about the
                        issue of breast feeding? Over and over I said, LOVE.
                        Liberty is the ability to stop doing something. If
                        your heart is seeking the Lord, you can have a
                        different opinion with others and seek to share it in
                        LOVE. I have see people in this conference attacking
                        other. The name calling, is this the Love of God?
                        After seeing this, I want to run away from you. Join
                        you, as a Steeler�s Covenanter? I am sorry, but I will
                        not. Even if your doctrine is right, without Love, you
                        are very wrong. When Kevin came into the conference I
                        was shocked at the was he was treated. It was Cathie
                        that told you do behave Where is the Love of God in
                        all of this?
                        As the apostle said, I am afraid of you, lest I
                        have labor in vain.
                        All your right teaching is nothing, the truth can be a
                        weapon if it is not used with Love. My heart breaks to
                        ever say these things to you, I wanted to be with real
                        christian friends, and there are some here, but there
                        bitterness of some here overwhelms you. I am trying to
                        recover from a stroke and I am not going to battle
                        with you here. I have to ask. Please remove me from
                        your list. I will find another conference to be with.

                        As I go, I want you to know, you will be in my
                        prays and on my heart. May the Love of our Lord
                        Christ, be with you and may you grow in his Love.

                        With the Love of my Lord and Saviour, His servant,
                        Fredrick Edward Fleming.

                        --- Soles <dsranch@...> wrote:
                        > Common Ladies,
                        >
                        > I think we need to lighten up on Fredrick and
                        > company...you know I am mindful of sayings like "she
                        > has got a bee in her bonnet"....now I wonder where
                        > that first started.
                        >
                        > And if you stop to think about some of the things,
                        > why he is correct...most of us are strongly
                        > opinionated, and we certainly are not bashful at
                        > giving that opinion out to others, sometimes when it
                        > is not even asked for...<grin>
                        > And in fairness to Fredrick and most others writing
                        > here, they have never met any of us, face to
                        > face....for if they had worshiped with any of you
                        > this
                        > conversation would not be happening for they would
                        > not have been offended: they not mind how you take
                        > care of your infants.
                        >
                        > It would not harm any of us to act more graciously
                        > towards those of differing opinions.....
                        >
                        > And you know he may even be correct about us being
                        > headstronged..in the sense that we, ladies do not
                        > follow the crowd or
                        > the world's ideas on much...just think about how us
                        > Ladies are always studying and not excepting the
                        > world's view that comes our way by news or book on
                        > anything...we are strong, we do not cave into peer
                        > pressure. <grin>
                        >
                        > And also being women and not men, we will never
                        > fully understand men and how the Lord has made them
                        > different......even if we study it much we can never
                        > live it.
                        >
                        > It is not a bad thing for a man to point out that we
                        > ladies can be more loving in our approach to
                        > others...after all was it not Christ that gave that
                        > new commandment..... To love our neighbors.....
                        >
                        > I do like Frederick's closing line and I do believe
                        > he fully meant those words.
                        >
                        >
                        > paste:
                        > "May our Lord and Saviour grant each of us a heart
                        > that
                        > seeks to please him and that will seek ways to not
                        > hurt others.
                        > God bless each of you."
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > ----- Original Message -----
                        > From: Cheryl
                        > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                        > Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 3:59 PM
                        > Subject: Re: [Covenanted Reformation] Women and
                        > subjection and Breast feeding
                        >
                        >
                        > Dear Mr. Fleming,
                        >
                        > Your implied stance that women are to be in
                        > subjection to all men places all women on the horns
                        > of a dilemma.
                        > Who do we submit to? You or our husbands who
                        > believe that we are not immodest and are not acting
                        > in an inappropriate manner when we cover ourselves
                        > to feed our babies?
                        >
                        > Last night I had a chat with a brother who
                        > fellowshipped with churches in Latin America.
                        > There, the women feed their children in the service
                        > and no one thinks anything of it. If anything, you
                        > have proven my point that the issue is one where our
                        > over-sexed culture has affected how we in this
                        > culture view the God given role of childbearing and
                        > child nurture.
                        >
                        > If men disagree with you do you call them
                        > headstrong too, or is this only reserved for women?
                        > You betray not a little misogyny or condescension
                        > to women in your post. It never fails to amaze me
                        > how men always pull out the "subjection" word when a
                        > woman disagrees with them as though this is a trump
                        > card that will not fail to win the argument.
                        >
                        > None of the women who posted are defending
                        > immodesty or baring all for the sake of feeding a
                        > baby or to make a political statement. In fact, we
                        > have accomodated the scruples of brothers by
                        > covering ourselves with blankets so that not only
                        > are we not exposed, you can't even see the baby.
                        > But this is not enough -- we must be banished from
                        > God's worship, despite our husband's approval, and
                        > despite the fact that none of us have been
                        > disciplined by our elders for being immodest. And
                        > then we are called headstrong and unsubmissive to
                        > Christ to boot because we dared to disagree with
                        > Frederick Fleming.
                        >
                        > This is tyranny.
                        > Yours and His,
                        > Mrs. Cheryl Grenon
                        > ----- Original Message -----
                        > From: Fredrick Fleming
                        > To: covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com
                        > Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 1:00 AM
                        > Subject: [Covenanted Reformation] Women and
                        > subjection and Breast feeding
                        >
                        >
                        > It seems to me that the women in these group are
                        > very
                        > headstrong. They are going to tell us men, what
                        > we are
                        > to do. With no, if, and or, buts about it. The
                        > fact
                        > that several of us have said things different to
                        > them
                        > and say things that they do not like. I get the
                        > very
                        > strong impression that they are going to set us
                        > RIGHT!!! It is a MALE Lust PROBLEM and they are
                        > not
                        > the one with the problem. JUST the MEN are.
                        > I see no submission to Christ in this at all. It
                        > would
                        > be fine if they were to say what do you feel
                        > about
                        > this issue. I have said on several times in
                        > here, that
                        > this must be done in love. I have said, do
                        > things that
                        > you know the Lord wants to do in this matter.
                        >
                        > Not one person has said that they are seeking to
                        > do
                        > this that for the Glory of God. Where is the
                        > Love of
                        > Christ for brother or the ungodly. No it seems
                        > to be a
                        > fight issue. There is no love in this, there is
                        > no,
                        > "Father, how can I do this so others will not be
                        > offended." No it is a fight to the end.
                        > Well ladies, I give up, you win. But I feel you
                        > need
                        > to really to to the Lord and say, "Father, have
                        > I done
                        > this to the glory of you?" If you want I will
                        > find
                        > another conference to me in instead of here.
                        > I cannot deal with a fight to set forth, that
                        > you are
                        > right, with no Love of the brother, that might
                        > be
                        > here.
                        > You Have to say, Lord, let me be a peace maker,
                        > Let my
                        > life be alway seeking to that which Glory God.
                        >
                        > May our Lord and Saviour grant each of us a
                        > heart that
                        > seeks to please him and that will seek ways to
                        > not
                        > hurt others.
                        > God bless each of you.
                        >
                        >
                        > =====
                        > Looking unto Christ as Lord and Saviour. No one
                        > but Him will save me or you.
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        >


                        __________________________________________________
                        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.