So what is a fundamentalist?

on hair length and makeup, you've offered opinion in interpreting the passages. Nothing more.

Regarding makeup and jewelry, you're missing the point of the passage, IMO. It's saying that the woman's beauty should come from her Christlike spirit...not simply from being "made up."

But not wearing makeup isn't the point. And there's no prohibition.

You're making the same interpretive error as those who say, "Money is the root of all evil." That's not what Scripture says...it says, "The LOVE of money..." Priorities is where it's going there.

Be careful that it's God's rules laid out, and not your interpretations stacked upon what He has said.

 

How long is long? Nature itself teaches us where to draw the line and it is the natural hairline at the nape of the neck.

My hair is longer than that, so I'm OK.

People interpret scriptures different ways. That's why there are so many arguments.

Please tell me if the natural hairline is NOT what God was referring to in that verse....what WAS He referring to in nature?

BTW, my husband is my covering. I don't need a veil. To cover the head when in church is RCC doctrine.

 

The headcovering was a symbol that the woman was under subjection to her husband in that culture...

In our culture, it is the wedding ring.

Same meaning, different symbol

The key to understanding scripture, is to find the meaning to the original readers, and then apply that meaning to our culture.

 

While Catholics may do this, it is hardly "RCC doctrine" any more than the virgin birth is. I don't accept the need for a head covering, but there are many good, solid, Bible preaching churches on this island who do accept it. They are anything but Catholic in their doctrine and they position is based on their view of scripture.

This is not a "false teaching." What ever happened to individual soul liberty?

 

It seems that we are in agreement, on this point at least. For if you reread my posts, you will see that this is what I have been saying all along...:saint:

That kind of takes care of I Cor:11 also.

 

Who said you were wrong in your opinion? Your problem is you elevate your opinion of a Scripture to Scripture. I freely admit that my opinion is mine. But I'm not elevating it to Scripture.

It's amazing how you can just look at someone and know everything about them, including their motivations, and the condition of their heart. Must be tough being that talented.

Why are you worrying about other people's conscience? Don't have enough to do?

And I think it sad that your "fundamentals of the faith" include a "hair and makeup" category.

 

//2. the deity of Christ (including His virgin birth)//

This line Thursday, 06 Dec 2007
in Google to show up
at 9 locations on the internet (2 at baptistboard.com:
9/19/05 by Ed, 12/04/07 by Ed).
[ if one takes the '2' off, there are 145 hits ]
/one by mioque, the Rector from Netherlands --
what ever

One of them capatilizes 'virgin birth' ( books.google.com )
Only Three of them capatalize 'His' refering
to Christ and/or the Diety.

I checked 5 of the 9 and none of them cited
a checkable 1 to 5 source, but all had the
same 1 to 5. So it started somewhere.
The Catholic source even said 'virgin birth'
from the unknown source, but when they
discussed the subject it was stated 'Virgin Birth'.

Here is a statement of faith of
a Bethel Baptist Church:

http://genesis353.org/About.asp

here are two interesting parts of the SOF:

As can be seen, the KJVO stance is IN ADDITION
to the typical Independent Baptist (and other brands of
Baptist) FUNDAMENTAL:
//the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture//

That is all I'm saying, those who have 'gone round
the bend' are those who have accepted all six
of my 'neo-fundamentals' (replacement fundamentals),
'hyper-fundamentals' (things BEYOND the fundamentals).

--------------------------------------------------------
Last revised 05(Feb)08

(I describe a shoe. If the shoe fits, feel
free to wear it. If you see ugly in this
mirror - recall the saying : beauty is in the eye of
the beholder!)

The fundamentals of traditional fundamentalism
(this are the ones I believe):

1. the inspiration and infallibility of scripture
2. the deity of Christ (including His virgin birth)
3. the substitutionary atonement of Christ's death
4. the literal resurrection of Christ from the dead
5. the literal return of Christ in the Second Advent

The ultra-fundamentals (Beyond simple Fundamentals)
[often called Neo-Fundamentals]
( several of these would have to be present
for adequate 'tagging'):

1. Anti-Bible (KJBO = King James Bible Only)
2. Pro-ignorance
3. Anti-success
4. pro-hyper-seperation
5. Anti-alien (Hate of gays & women, racism, etc.)

Typical statements made by the ultra-fundamentalists:
(note that the world calls them "fundies"
and we real fundamentalists have to bear their
burden unjustly):

1. The KJB replaces the original language manuscripts
as being God's Word
2. "I’ll take ole uneducated farmer Jones who believes the book to be my children’s Sunday School teacher any day over an educated enlightened one with 2 degrees who doesn’t believe the book." - 05 Feb 08
3. Jerry Falwell sold out to the Devil
4. If one doesn't describe their fundamentalism
in the same exact words as another - then the other
must separate from the one.
5. Jews killed Christ; kill a gayboy for Jesus

----------------------------------------------------------------
I keep getting in trouble for posting these.
I was inspired by God to write the above post (between the lines: ------ )
If God inspires you to accept the ultra-fundamentalist, don't try to foist it off on Ed. Metaphor that says the same thing: I describe a shoe. If the shoe fits, the wear it.

 

Re "nature" and Paul: I seriously doubt the "natural hairline" is what he had in mind, given than it would be very difficult of women in one race to grow hair below that. IN HIS CULTURE it seemed natural for women to have long hair and men not to have. Nature itself would not have taught that to some groups around the world.

I agree that in today's culture, the wedding ring is the culturally accepted "natural" expression rather than covering the head.

We continue to strain out gnats and swallow camels.

 

Could you please tell me what YOU think Paul was referring to in 'nature' regarding hair length?

I've never known of any race, or any person, that could not let their hair grow...

 

I have a dear friend who is a missionary in Nigeria. Many black women (more so when unmixed in racial makeup) would have great difficulty growing their hair long, or even below the nape. Of course, so will women with hereditary baldness, some hormonal troubles, and on chemo.

I think Paul was referring to what was natural to him in his geographic location and culture, and in consideration of to whom he was writing.

His point, or principal, still binding upon us today I believe, was that women should do that which culturally honored their husband. Today in the west the wedding ring generally serves that purpose. For my Mennonite friends, the prayer cap/and or changing color of prayer cap serves that purpose.

He also speaks against braided hair, but I see many women who believe the scripture enjoins them not to cut their hair also braid it. We are warned against the "putting on of apparel" in another place but it certainly is not teaching us to be nudists!

 

Amen! :thumbs:

 

Bible please to back up your "fundamental presumption"

If you don't have scripture for a doctrine you believe, you have no right to call it a fundamental.. that belittles the real fundamentals of scripture.

 

Not a fundamental. Wasn't back when 'The Fundamentals' was written, and never will be except in the minds of those of the KJVO persuasion.

 

In simple terms a "fundamentalist" adhere's to the "essential standards" of Christian doctrine. As the Mosaic Law is based on the Ten Commandments, all New Testament Doctrine is based on the "Ten Essential Standards" (Fundamentals) IMHO they are.....

There are 5 essential Doctrines concerning Christ
1.) Deity and humanity of Jesus Christ – God incarnate – the God/Man hypostatic union.
2.) Virgin Birth and perfectly sinless life of Jesus
3.) Jesus' death, burial, literal resurrection and bodily ascension into heaven
4.) Atonement of sin - substitutionary death of Christ for the sin of His people
5.) The literal and physical Second Coming of Christ

Then there are 2 concerning man
6.) Salvation is by Grace through faith via the new birth (being born again). That new birth is evidenced by works (i.e repentance) All those not born again will spend an eternity in hell
7.) The depravity of man because of original sin in the Garden, man is "genetically predisposed to sin". We are sinners by nature.

Then there are 2 concerning God
8.) The Tinity - God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, three, yet One.
9.) The authenticity and fact of Biblical miracles

And the final one concerning the Bible
10.) The Bible, the Bible alone and in its entirety is the COMPLETE, INNERANT, INFALLIBLE and PLENARY INSPIRED Word of God and is the ONLY source of spiritual truth, faith and practice for His people.

 

This is a common mistake. If one were a fundamentalist simply because he adhered to the fundamentals, then evangelical leaders such as Billy Graham, Francis Schaeffer and Carl F. H. Henry would all be fundamentalists. But all three of these men have over and over rejected the term fundamentalist. No, a fundamentalist not only adheres to the fundamentals, but fights for them.

 

Like who? I'd be interested to know.

 

Just out of curiosity, why does "long hair" have to grow "below" anything?

Anyone ever see a photo of Whoopi Goldberg? "long hair" growing 'down".

Anyone ever see a photo of Miss Carol Gist, Miss USA 1990? "long hair" growing "UP".



Anyone ever see a photo of Miss Kenya Moore, Miss USA 1993? "long hair" growing "out"

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica][/FONT]


Anyone ever see a photo of some regional costumes and styles of Africa? "long hair" growing in various directions Here is one individual, note the hair "piled up"



Every one of the above has far longer hair than I've ever had, and I have nothing remotely close to a "Bur" haircut.

Uh' isn't "long hair" "long hair"? What does the direction have to do with it?

Ed