Donations for the month of April


We have received a total of $240 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Mckinley
Mckinley
Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 116
Joined: May 2013
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,387
Posts49,969
Members908
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,121
Tom 3,086
chestnutmare 2,800
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,725
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,057
Top Posters(30 Days)
Pilgrim 66
Tom 52
Robin 5
John_C 5
Recent Posts
Reason in Apologetics
by Tom. Wed Apr 26, 2017 3:41 PM
Bahnsen vs Sproul Debate
by Tom. Wed Apr 26, 2017 12:56 PM
A Case For Christ Movie
by JesusFan. Tue Apr 25, 2017 2:56 PM
Why I believe in Presuppostional Apologetics
by JesusFan. Tue Apr 25, 2017 1:28 PM
Apologetics
by JesusFan. Mon Apr 24, 2017 10:39 AM
What makes a church confessional
by JesusFan. Mon Apr 24, 2017 10:38 AM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4
#53396 - Wed Mar 15, 2017 3:52 PM Christian Reformed Church  
Joined: May 2013
Posts: 116
Mckinley Offline
Member
Mckinley  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2013
Posts: 116
Ga. U.S.A.
Going through my email links I began to read an article published by ''Rev Sheila Holmes'' of the Christian Reformed Church,.. that's correct a woman holding an office that the pastoral epistles give regulations and the qualifications of that office of elder,.. my question and concern is with the body referred to a CRC.. how is it possible to have such a history that links to the Reformation but not with the holding to the scriptures when it deals with such easy topic as women in the pulpit?.. Who are the Christian Reformed Church?


"A man may be theologically knowing and spiritually ignorant." STEPHEN CHARNOCK
#53397 - Wed Mar 15, 2017 5:24 PM Re: Christian Reformed Church [Re: Mckinley]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,122
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,122
NH, USA
The Christian Reformed Church USED TO BE conservative but is no longer. It started going downhill rapidly in the late 1960s and was well on the way to apostasy in the late 1970s. Ordaining women in the CRC isn't a new decision.

Christian Reformed Church


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#53402 - Thu Mar 16, 2017 8:53 AM Re: Christian Reformed Church [Re: Mckinley]  
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 338
JesusFan Offline
Enthusiast
JesusFan  Offline
Enthusiast

Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 338
Macomb Michigan
It is now happening in certain Baptist circles also, as the churches are now deciding to ignore the Lord and scripture on ordination of woman as the pastor of the local assembly!

#53403 - Thu Mar 16, 2017 9:01 AM Re: Christian Reformed Church [Re: JesusFan]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,122
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,122
NH, USA
The ordination of women as either elders or deacons is the tip of the iceberg. Before a church or individual gets to that point, much more has happened, particularly at its root is the denial, either doctrinally or practically in regard to the divine inspiration and authority of the Bible. once that occurs, hermeneutical deviations come quickly afterward, which opens the door to virtually anything.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#53404 - Thu Mar 16, 2017 9:36 AM Re: Christian Reformed Church [Re: Pilgrim]  
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,725
John_C Offline
Permanent Resident
John_C  Offline

Permanent Resident

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 1,725
Mississippi Gulf Coast
An excellent point about how a particular church or denomination has denied Christian truths along the way to get to a certain point. The most recent example is the many Presbyerian churches pulling out of the PCUSA due to their accepting homosexuality. I mean the church has been going down the wrong path for decades without much protests. It didn't seem to bother them greatly when they accepted ordained pastors who denied central truths regarding Jesus Christ. So why now. What's sad is that I know of a couple of men ordained as Elders in the PCA who because of family or church issues have joined the EPC church with their women elders and etc.


John Chaney

"having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ." Colossians 2:7
#53406 - Thu Mar 16, 2017 10:09 AM Re: Christian Reformed Church [Re: Mckinley]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,088
Tom Offline
Needs to get a Life
Tom  Offline
Needs to get a Life

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,088
Kelowna, British Columbia, Can...
That would not surprise me to find out that it is happening in Baptist Churches.
Though I do not think it is happening yet in Baptist Churches that identify as Reformed.
Tom

#53409 - Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:59 AM Re: Christian Reformed Church [Re: Pilgrim]  
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 338
JesusFan Offline
Enthusiast
JesusFan  Offline
Enthusiast

Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 338
Macomb Michigan
That is a good point,as almost all major problems in theology and in application spring out from denying the inerrancy/inspiration of the scriptures, and an attempt to update them into current cultural understandings, such as Homosexual, all religions lead to same God, women Pastors etc!

#53410 - Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:45 AM Re: Christian Reformed Church [Re: Pilgrim]  
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 41
goldenoldie Offline
Newbie
goldenoldie  Offline
Newbie

Joined: May 2012
Posts: 41
Masschusetts, USA
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
The ordination of women as either elders or deacons is the tip of the iceberg. Before a church or individual gets to that point, much more has happened, particularly at its root is the denial, either doctrinally or practically in regard to the divine inspiration and authority of the Bible. once that occurs, hermeneutical deviations come quickly afterward, which opens the door to virtually anything.


The Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America allows woman deacons based on textual grounds. When I attended one long ago, a godly sister was nominated for deaconess. She declined.

Sexual degeneration in the church is accelerating... and it begins with women worshiping in pubic without a head covering. Reformed people, in their general distaste (rightly so) for icons, pictures of Jesus, crucifixes, vestments and other trappings, miss the significance of scripturally prescribed symbols such as women's head coverings and actual wine in the Lord's Supper.


In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
#53411 - Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:47 AM Re: Christian Reformed Church [Re: goldenoldie]  
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 338
JesusFan Offline
Enthusiast
JesusFan  Offline
Enthusiast

Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 338
Macomb Michigan
There are some textual poof for a Deaconese within the local church , but there are none to support either women elders/pastors...

#53413 - Fri Mar 17, 2017 7:08 PM Re: Christian Reformed Church [Re: JesusFan]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,122
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,122
NH, USA
Originally Posted by JesusFan
There are some textual poof for a Deaconese within the local church , but there are none to support either women elders/pastors...

Please supply these "some textual proof" passages that women are allowed to be Deacons.

The PROPOSITIONAL statements concerning the qualifications for the OFFICE of elder and for deacon are clear.

Quote
1 Timothy 3:12 (ASV) "Let deacons be husbands of one wife, ruling [their] children and their own houses well."

So, pray tell, how can a woman be "one wife's husband" (literal Greek translation)? And, rule their house, when both are things which pertain only to males? scratchchin


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#53414 - Sat Mar 18, 2017 9:50 AM Re: Christian Reformed Church [Re: Pilgrim]  
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 338
JesusFan Offline
Enthusiast
JesusFan  Offline
Enthusiast

Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 338
Macomb Michigan
Isn't there a situation where Phoebe is listed as being among them as a deaconess though?

#53415 - Sat Mar 18, 2017 11:05 AM Re: Christian Reformed Church [Re: JesusFan]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,122
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,122
NH, USA
Originally Posted by JesusFan
Isn't there a situation where Phoebe is listed as being among them as a deaconess though?

No, there is no such text that says that Phoebe occupies the office of Deacon. There is no designation of an office of Deaconess.

Here is the verse you referred to:

Quote
Romans 16:1 (ASV) "I commend unto you Phoebe our sister, who is a servant of the church that is at Cenchreae:"

The word translated "servant" in English is correct. The fact that the Greek word found in that text is diaconos does not automatically equate with the office of Deacon. There were many individuals, men and women who "served" the church in various capacities and they are thus "servants". Even Christ is referred to as a "servant" diaconos in Rom 15:8. The word is thus used in a general sense "servant" and in a technical sense which we find in 1Tim 3 and Titus 1 which designates such servants as Deacons, an official office of the Church. So again, there is no biblical warrant that would allow for the view that there was either an official office or even an unofficial office (non-ordained) called Deaconess.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#53416 - Sat Mar 18, 2017 1:37 PM Re: Christian Reformed Church [Re: Pilgrim]  
Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 338
JesusFan Offline
Enthusiast
JesusFan  Offline
Enthusiast

Joined: Jan 2017
Posts: 338
Macomb Michigan
Thanks for the clarification, as that was the very verse was using in my response!

Another issue is that some, such as Niv 2011 I believe, would see Junias listed among the Apostles, as a feminine name?

#53417 - Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:55 PM Re: Christian Reformed Church [Re: JesusFan]  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,122
Pilgrim Offline
Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,122
NH, USA
Originally Posted by JesusFan
Another issue is that some, such as Niv 2011 I believe, would see Junias listed among the Apostles, as a feminine name?

I believe it is masculine. No woman is ever mentioned as being an "Apostle" in either the strict sense (of the 12) or in the broader sense (evangelists). William Hendriksen I believe has the proper view and explanation of that text (Rom 16:7):

Quote
An attempt should be made to answer the following questions with respect to which opinions vary:
a. Should be read Junias (masc.) or Junia (fem.)? In the latter case Andronicus and Junia could be husband and wife.
b. Did Paul say, "my fellow-countrymen" or "my relatives"?
c. Does "who are outstanding among the apostles" mean "outstanding in the estimation of "The Twelve" or does it mean, "who, as apostles, are outstanding"?
I suggest the following answers:
As to a. The continuation which can be rendered "men of note among the apostles" (R.S.V.) favors the conclusion that both were men.
As to b. When for the first time in Romans the apostle uses the word in question, namely, in 9:3, it must mean fellow-countrymen; that is, fellow-Jews. No good reason has been shown for adopting a different meaning for this word as used here in 16:7. It is hard to believe that Paul had three "relatives" (verses 7 and 11) in Rome, and three other "relatives" (verse 21) around him in Corinth. When Paul became a Christian, by far the most of his "relatives" must have given up on him. Cf. Phil 3:7.
As to c. The Twelve are not in the picture here. Besides, in the New Testament the word apostle is used in a looser and in a stricter sense. According to the broader application of the term, such men as Barnabas, Epaphroditus, Apollos, Silvanus, and Timothy are all called "apostles." They all evangelize. They can be described as missionaries or itinerant Christian evangelists. What Paul is saying, then, is this:

Extend greetings to Andronicus and Junias, fellow-countrymen of mine; that is, fellow-Jews, former fellow-prisoners (cf. II Cor. 5:4; 11:23), men who are apostles, and as such, of note, and who were Christians even before I was."

The possibility must be allowed that what Paul meant was that the very fact that these men had embraced Christ even before he did made them outstanding among apostles.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
#53419 - Sun Mar 19, 2017 6:40 PM Re: Christian Reformed Church [Re: goldenoldie]  
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,800
chestnutmare Offline
Annie Oakley
chestnutmare  Offline
Annie Oakley

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,800
NH


Originally Posted by goldenoldie
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
The ordination of women as either elders or deacons is the tip of the iceberg. Before a church or individual gets to that point, much more has happened, particularly at its root is the denial, either doctrinally or practically in regard to the divine inspiration and authority of the Bible. once that occurs, hermeneutical deviations come quickly afterward, which opens the door to virtually anything.


The Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America allows woman deacons based on textual grounds. When I attended one long ago, a godly sister was nominated for deaconess. She declined.

Sexual degeneration in the church is accelerating... and it begins with women worshiping in pubic without a head covering. Reformed people, in their general distaste (rightly so) for icons, pictures of Jesus, crucifixes, vestments and other trappings, miss the significance of scripturally prescribed symbols such as women's head coverings and actual wine in the Lord's Supper.



I want to thank you for making this post. I agree wholeheartedly and find that few people in this time would even recognize this. The church has neglected to teach head covering and modesty and so with the influence of feminism, few women cover and embrace the role of women in the church and society. I recently had some rather heated discussions with some women on facebook. They refused to look to Scripture and made their argument from experience as Roman Catholics, and the oppression of women in islam. I borrowed several citations from David Silversides in his article Is Headcovering Biblical?

Quote
John Calvin (1509-1564).

“So if women are thus permitted to have their heads uncovered and to show their hair, they will eventually be allowed to expose their entire breasts, and they will come to make their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show; they will become so brazen that modesty and shame will be no more; in short they will forget the duty of nature...Further, we know that the world takes everything to its own advantage. So, if one has liberty in lesser things, why not do the same with this the same way as with that? And in making such comparisons they will make such a mess that there will be utter chaos. So, when it is permissible for the women to uncover their heads, one will say, ‘Well, what harm in uncovering the stomach also?’ And then after that one will plead [for] something else; ‘Now if the women go bareheaded, why not also [bare] this and [bare] that?’ Then the men, for their part, will break loose too. In short, there will be no decency left, unless people contain themselves and respect what is proper and fitting, so as not to go headlong overboard” (Sermon on 1 Cor 11:2-3 in Men, Women and Order in the Church, trans Seth Skolnitsky, Presbyterian Heritage Publications, pp. 12-13).

“St Paul now continues with the subject which he had begun: namely, that women must have the decency not to come to the public assembly with their heads uncovered; and that men must also be decently attired so that there be no beastly confusion. To confirm it, however, he adds a further reason. ‘Does not nature itself teach that if a woman have no head-covering, it is a shame to her?’ he says. One would surely say that a woman was mad, if she came without hair. When he says ‘her hair is for a covering,’ he does not mean that as long as a woman has hair, that should be enough for her. He rather teaches that our Lord is giving a directive that he desires to have observed and maintained. If a woman has long hair, this is equivalent to saying to her, ‘Use your head-covering, use your hat, use your hood; do not expose yourself in that way! Why? Even if you have no head-covering, nor hood, yet you also have something to conceal yourself. You see that it would not be fitting to go bare-headed; that is something against nature.’ This is how this passage of St. Paul’s must be understood” (Sermon on 1 Cor 11:11-16, op. cit. pp. 52-53).

“4....Prophesying I take here to mean — declaring the mysteries of God for the edification of the hearers, (as afterwards in 1 Corinthians 14,) as praying means preparing a form of prayer, and taking the lead, as it were, of all the people — which is the part of the public teacher, for Paul is not arguing here as to every kind of prayer, but as to solemn prayer in public... 5. Every woman praying or prophesying... Here we have the second proposition — that women ought to have their heads covered when they pray or prophesy; otherwise they dishonour their head. For as the man honours his head by showing his liberty, so the woman, by showing her subjection. Hence, on the other hand, if the woman uncovers her head, she shakes off subjection — involving contempt of her husband. It may seem, however, to be superfluous for Paul to forbid the woman to prophesy with her head uncovered, while elsewhere he wholly prohibits women from speaking in the Church. (1 Timothy 2:12.). It would not, therefore, be allowable for them to prophecy even with a covering upon her head, and hence it follows that it is to no purpose that he here argues as to a covering. It may be replied, that the Apostle, by condemning the one, does not commend the other. For when he reproves them for prophesying with their head uncovered, he at the same time does not give them permission to prophesy in some other way, but rather delays his condemnation of that vice to another passage, namely in chapter xiv.” (Calvin, Commentary on 1 Cor. 11:4-5).


Quote
Henry Alford (1810-1871)

“1 Corinthians 11:2-16 - The law of subjection of the woman to the man (vv. 2-12), and the natural decency itself (vv. 13-16), teach that women should be veiled in public religious assemblies.

The women overstepped the bounds of their sex, in coming forward to pray and to prophesy in the assembled church with uncovered heads. Both of these the Apostle disapproved, as well as their coming forward to pray and prophesy, as their removing the veil. Here, however, he blames the latter practice only, and reserves the former till chapter 14:34.” (Alford’s Greek New Testament, Grand Rapids,MI: Guardian Press, 1976, pp. 562f.)


Quote
John Angel James (1785-1859)

“If the veil were thrown aside, they might as well cut off their flowing hair, one of the woman’s distinctions from the man, the ornament, as well as the peculiarity of the sex. Constantly and completely Christianity is the parent of order, and the enemy of indecorum of every kind.

Why were not the women to lay aside their veils? Because it would be forgetting their subordination and dependence, and assuming an equal rank with man. This is the gist of the apostle’s reason. It was not merely indecorous, and contrary to modesty, but it was ambitious, and violating the order of heaven.” (Female Piety, Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 1994, pp. 67-69)


Quote
C. H. Spurgeon (1834-1892)

“Do you think you and I have sufficiently considered that we are always looked upon by angels, and that they desire to learn by us the wisdom of God? The reason why our sisters appear in the House of God with their heads covered is ‘because of the angels’. The apostle says that a woman is to have a covering upon her head, because of the angels, since the angels are present in the assembly and they mark every act of indecorum, and therefore everything is to be conducted with decency and order in the presence of the angelic spirits” (Sermon on Eph. 3:10, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol. 8, p. 263)


Quote
James Durham (1622-1658)
“It (the veil) hath a threefold use, 1. For decoration, as in Isaiah 3:23. 2. For a sign of modesty, pleaded for by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11:6. 3. And mainly a sign of women’s subjection to their own husbands...” (Commentary on Song of Solomon, Banner of Truth, p. 280).


Quote
John Murray (1898-1975)

“Your main question turns, of course, on the interpretation of I Corinthians 11:2-16. Permit me to offer some of my reflections in order.

1. Since Paul appeals to the order of creation (vss. 3b, vss. 7ff.), it is totally indefensible to suppose that what is in view and enjoined had only local or temporary relevance. The ordinance of creation is universally and perpetually applicable, as also are the implications for conduct arising there from.

2. I am convinced that a head covering is definitely in view forbidden for the man (vss. 4, & 7) and enjoined for the woman (vss. 5, 6, 15). In the case of the woman the covering is not simply her long hair. This supposition would make nonsense of verse 6. For the thought there is, that if she does not have a covering she might as well be shorn or shaven, a supposition without any force whatever if the hair covering is deemed sufficient. In this connection it is not proper to interpret verse 15b as meaning that the hair was given the woman to take the place of the head covering in view of verses 5, 6. The Greek of verse 15 is surely the Greek of equivalence as used quite often in the New Testament, and so the Greek can be rendered: “the hair is given to her for a covering.” This is within the scope of the particular argument of verses 14, 15 and does not interfere with the demand for the additional covering contemplated in verses 5, 6, 13. Verses 14 and 15 adduce a consideration from the order of nature in support of that which is enjoined earlier in the passage but is not itself tantamount to it. In other words, the long hair is an indication from “nature” of the differentiation between men and women, and so the head covering required (vss. 5, 6, 13) is in line with what “nature” teaches.

3. There is good reason for believing that the apostle is thinking of conduct in the public assemblies of the Church of God and of worship exercises therein in verse 17, this is clearly the case, and verse 18 is confirmatory. But there is a distinct similarity between the terms of verse 17 and of verse 2. Verse 2 begins, “Now I praise you” and verse 17, “Now in this . . . I praise you not”. The virtually identical expressions, the one positive and the other negative, would suggest, if not require, that both have in view the behaviour of the saints in their assemblies, that is, that in respect of denotation the same people are in view in the same identity as worshippers. If a radical difference, that between private and public, were contemplated, it would be difficult to maintain the appropriateness of the contrast between “I praise you” and “I praise you not”.

4. Beyond question it is in reference to praying and prophesying that the injunctions pertain, the absence of head covering for men and the presence for women. It might seem, therefore, that the passage has nothing to do with a head covering for women in the assemblies of the Church if they are not engaged in praying or prophesying, that is, in leading in prayer or exercising the gift of prophesying. And the implication would be that only when they performed these functions were they required to use head covering. The further implication would be that they would be at liberty to perform these functions provided they wore head gear. This view could easily be adopted if it were not so that Paul forbids such exercises on the part of women and does so in the same epistle, (I Cor. 14:33b-36): “As in all the Churches, for it is not permitted to them to speak” (vss. 33b-34a). It is impossible to think that Paul would, by implication, lend approval in chapter 11, to what he so expressly prohibits in chapter 14. Hence we shall have to conclude that he does not contemplate praying or prophesying on the part of women in the Church in chapter 11. The question arises: how can this be, and how can we interpret 11:5, 6, 13? It is possible to interpret the verses in chapter 11 in a way that is compatible with chapter 14:33b-36. It is as follows: —

a. In chapter 11 the decorum prescribed in 14:33b-36 is distinctly in view and Paul is showing its propriety. Praying and prophesying are functions that imply authority, the authority that belongs to the man as distinguished from the woman according to the ordinance of creation. The man in exercising this authority in praying and prophesying must not wear a head covering. Why not? The head covering is the sign of subjection, the opposite of the authority that belongs to him, exemplified in praying and prophesying, hence 11:4, 7. In a word, head covering in praying and prophesying would be a contradiction.

b. But precisely here enters the relevance of verses 5, 6, 13 as they pertain to women. If women are to pray and prophesy in the assemblies, they perform functions that imply authority and would require therefore, to remove the head covering. To do so with the head covering would involve the contradiction referred to already. But it is the impropriety of removing the head covering that is enforced in 11:5, 6 & 13. In other words, the apostle is pressing home the impropriety of the exercise of these functions — praying and prophesying — on the part of women by showing the impropriety of what it would involve, namely, the removal of the head covering. And so the rhetorical question of verse 13: “Is it proper for a woman to pray to God unveiled?”

c. This interpretation removes all discrepancy between 11:5, 6, 13 and 14:33b-36 and it seems to me feasible, and consonant with the whole drift of 11:2-16.

5. The foregoing implies that the head covering for women was understood to belong to the decorum of public worship.

6. The above line of thought would derive confirmation from I Cor. 11:10. Admittedly the reference to the angels is not immediately perspicuous. But a reasonable interpretation is that the presence of the angels with the people of God and therefore their presence in the congregations of the saints. What is being pleaded is the offence given to the holy angels when the impropriety concerned mars the sanctity of God’s worship. But, in any case, the obligation asserted is apparent. It is that the woman ought to have upon her head the sign of the authority to which she is subject, in other words, the sign of her subjection. But this subjection pertains throughout and not simply when in the exercise of praying and prophesying according to the supposition that such is permitted. I submit, therefore, that the verse concerned (vs. 10) enunciates a requirement that is general within the scope of the subject with which Paul is dealing, namely, the decorum of worship in the assembly of the saints.

On these grounds my judgment is that presupposed in the Apostle’s words is the accepted practice of head covering for women in the assemblies of the Church, that apparently this part of decorum was recognised, and that the main point of verses 5, 6, 10, 13 was the impropriety of any interruption of the practice if women were to pray or prophesy, for, in that event, it would be necessary to remove the covering in order to signify the authority that praying and prophesying entailed, an authority not possessed by women, a non-possession signified, in turn, by the use of the covering.” (Extract from a letter of Professor Murray’s of 1973 and published in the Presbyterian Reformed Magazine, Winter 1992).


The Chestnut Mare
All that is gold does not glitter,
Not all those who wander are lost
The old that is strong does not wither,
Deep roots are not reached by frost.
- - - -JRR Tolkien "Lord of the Rings"
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4

Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 14 guests, and 81 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
earl40, larsonka, HighwayDriver, mbm29414, Mateusyono
908 Registered Users
Shout Box
April
S M T W T F S
1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Popular Topics(Views)
529,840 Gospel truth
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.053s Queries: 16 (0.002s) Memory: 2.7286 MB (Peak: 3.0466 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2017-04-27 01:20:25 UTC