Perhaps it is expedient to bring out a clarification of terms.
Many so called 'reformed' today are not necessarily historically reformed, but neo-calvinists. These exalt the Puritans, who, if alive today, they would never seek association with them, because to the puritan the Word shaped, not only their theology, but their practice. They solidly anchored on creed rather than on personal opinion.
Copyist errors have been easily recognised and differentiated throughout history from obvious twisted perversions .
Amishchristian wrote: ... the world and now the church too has established a false standard of beauty ...
Well, as it happens, this is precisely what the article says the researches have found that, " .. women are putting on makeup for a perceived standard of beauty that may not actually exist. â€śTaken together, these results suggest that women are likely wearing cosmetics to appeal to the mistaken preferences of others."
Which in biblical lingo, all this translates as conforming to the world.
"She makes herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple."
Quality is the taste of the godly, which is a verifiable parameter for beauty, and never a cheap succedaneous for it.
Thanks Interesting how Mr Miller anticipates in his sermon women's defensiveness about the matter.
TMC You multiply words to defend a position with human arguments, but not with Scripture. Yes, semanticaly, cosmetic and makeup have become synonyms now, but not by strict definition And yes, the Bible tells women to adorn themselves, nothing wrong here, but it is the how.
".. adorning ... not .. outward ... But ... the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, .. *the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit*, which is in the sight of God of great price. For *after this manner in the old time the holy women also*, who trusted in God, adorned themselves" 1 P.3
".. adorn themselves .. with shamefacedness and sobriety" (With shamefacedness means with low key due to owe or reverence linked to their identity. Makeup often endears the pushing of one self instead forgetting such)
Makeup breaks many godly principles, but if you wish to justify it, you'll not be alone in that camp ...
Let's not forget that holiness has an intrinsic beauty by it self that is genuine, (not fake) and pure.
".. the LORD takes pleasure in his people: he will beautify the meek with salvation"
Commendable attempt about this present trend Presently, godliness has shrunk to the minimum ground of common salvation (the gospel) as a platform to sloppy fellowship, but at the expense of sincretistic Christian health and living. Valuable quotation at the end by Peter Masters about the paradoxical predicament of present neo-calvinism and those endorsing such trend.
TMC Thanks for your clarification, however the book and your comments seem out to justify makeup, rather than to admit it for what it is.
Originally, cosmetics are products used to beautify the skin or hair by preservation, and nourishment. Quite differently, the word 'makeup' says it all. The term speaks about impersonation; making up something to attract to self, this including subtle hues you mention, being aware that subtlety is a trait linked to the serpent: "the serpent was more *subtil* than any beast of the field" Gn 3:1
Godliness does not need any level of impersonation.
Makeup pertains to the seduction of harlots in God's figurative rebuke of his people:
"Why trimmest (enhance) thou thy way to seek love?" Jr. 2:33
".. my people is foolish .. Though thou clothest thyself with crimson, though thou deckest thee with ornaments of gold, though thou *rentest thy face with painting*, in vain shalt thou make thyself fair; thy lovers will despise thee, they will seek thy life." Jr.4
The face (countenance) in Scripture is spoken as the light of the soul, and should not be twicked by artificial means to make a fake appereance to secure self-acceptance; but as a means of transparency, genuineness, purity and truth.
BWS wrote: Jezebel painted herself. Interestingly that is not mentioned of any other woman in the Bible. She was a master manipulator. It did not work with Jehu
TMC You seem to confuse in your comment cosmetics with makeup, artificial enhancement with rightful ornamentation, and taste with self promotion, or glory in the flesh, which is at the core of the modern cult of body worship, and fake 'self-made image' shaped according to the ingoing world of fashion and female personal assertiveness. All contrary to the ornament of the heart which is of great price in the eyes of God.
The dismantling of the American Protestant soul This is an informative presentation of vital interest brought out by a contemporary fellow college student of Mr Graham. Often large strategies can not be seen when standing behind a particular tree, say a particular sermon, tendency or event, but when weighing the massive evidence as a whole. The conditions the BG organisation demanded before agreeing to have a 'crusade' in a particular place indicates it all. Thank you.
John UK wrote: 1... new monikers... I could name several monikers here on this thread, and say that I would personally find it difficult to work with you in Christian ministry, not because of differences in theology, but something far simpler than that, your character traits
2. Watcher wrote .. a decision was taken, by a Roman Catholic newspaper magnate, to â€śpuff Grahamâ€ť: to push him into the worldâ€™s limelight. This was done; and within a few short years Graham began to radically alter his message. Step by step it became ecumenical, compromised, and in more than one way, blatantly heretical. He began to deliberately have Roman Catholic priests sitting up on the platform with him, and he would send those who â€ścame forwardâ€ť at his crusades back to the Roman Catholic â€śChurchâ€ť if they had been Roman Catholics before they responded to his â€śaltar callâ€ť. He promoted the false â€śgospelâ€ť of Roman Catholicism to the world, and spoke of the Roman pope, John Paul II, as â€śthe worldâ€™s greatest evangelistâ€ť. This same pope embraced Graham and called him â€śbrotherâ€ť.
1. Obvious, John No child of God should scope as a "deceitful worker"
2. The world loves his own "If ye were of the world, the world would love his own"
Dave There is nothing to repent off on my side; sorry if the truth irates you. Stating the obvious is NOT a SIN in need of repentance. If you want to stop my mouth, then this is another story. Your comments are reported as unacceptable
Titus 2:3 Another sanctimonious underhand personal attack, using a new moniker and and a bible verse for a pretext. Not an honourable practice again. Typical of those here more interested in carrying on their own agendas, than in being interested to uphold right from wrong, denoting malice more than righteousness ... No wonder this site goes from being a vicious battle ground, to men-pleasing shapeless stuff, tickling ears and eyes, but arriving nowhere near edification, rather serving as a pastime to idle people.
If one speaks direct truth, unpleasant to the ears of some, that individual will get a long tripe of abuse after invariably and will be accussed of *unfounded* or convenient made-up allegations. Nothing new under the sun. Some behave in circles. Repeated behaviour.
Christ had detractors when he spoke unpleasant things also, as when he said,
"This people draws nigh unto me with their mouth, and honours me with their lips; but their heart is far from me ... Then came his disciples, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying? But He said, Every plant, which my heavenly Father has not planted, shall be rooted up ... Let them alone ..."
"... they were offended in him ... and he did not many mighty works
Ignominious Emirakan wrote: ... the KJV. Our congregations should be instructed to prize the KJV, not only because of its reliability and other precious characteristics ... but also because it presents the authentic text of the New Testament. We ought to defend it, & repudiate the modern versions, on this ground, as well as others. We should continue to use it ... in our churches, homes, personal devotions, and schools, as our English Bible... The preachers should acquire a TR and the Byzantine, or Majority, or Traditional, Text. They should stop referring to B & Aleph as the best text Lurked wrote: ...a work of God which escapes the textual critics which is why I can't take them seriously
Precisely The AV is a version standing for honesty, which is a basic Christian virtue, besides standing for excellency due to the setting in which it was prepared which no other version can claim to, for a pile of dishonourable reasons in their making.
Dave We are consequent with the Word's teaching and meaning, applyed to our daily reality. If this is not what being a the disciple of Christ is, what it comes then is personal situational ethics, which is what many in this site are plagued with. There was no call for your insult, except if resisting truth
Kev wrote: Where you purposefully dishonest when you edited Lurkers comment to make it read that way BMC? Below. You purposefully had to erase content on both sides of my name to make it read like that.
Sorry, Kev, no, it was not intentional; it was overlooked, my apologies, my fault, though often the same tendencies have been conspicuous in both of you. Trust this apology suffices.
Lurker wrote: to Kev The reason I have little respect for you is because you wrongly assume things you have no knowledge of. If you were as smart as you think you are, you'd drop the whole thing.
The same about you, Connor.
Not interested in you rising, or fabricating imaginary, false accusations, by putting words were they are not, or by misconstructing them, or by finding hidden meaning, when pointing to the obvious.
Has one no wright to self-defence when mistreated? Or have we to wait for the mighty 'lord's' of this site to verify, or approve of our cause? By the way things are here, one could wait a long time before fair judgement is given, as the discerment and sense of righteousness displayed, as demonstrated in this case, are often flawed, especially as there is a constant tendency to find fault for the sake off, rather than to objectively uphold right from wrong.
You have attacked me before just for stating the obvious. (BTW you do not have the job of a moderator here.) However, one does not need to wait long in order to prove Proverbs 9:7-9 in this comment section.
"False witnesses did rise up; they laid to my charge things that I knew not."
Christopher000 wrote: .. dry humor ... he was only joking ..
Chris, if you are going to meddle in other people's personal dialogue, it would be advisable you used fair judgement instead of defending a buddy from his blunders.
We read that when we "Open (our) mouth," we should do it to "judge righteously"
As far as it has been observed in these sites for a long time, your judgement is always slanted towards the 'middle of the road', lacking scripture backing, so it comes as compromisingly faulty because it irons over Christian character.
See, people in these sites are mainly interested in being 'right', holding up their ego, in whatever point or argument, but not in being an esample of Christian character. This is why we see so much misbehaviour going on, and multitude of vain words.
As about using humour to conceal true intentions, this is never a decent practice, it belongs to the scorner and the proud who care little for holy living, but themselves.
Those interested in living aright, remember Christ's rule in their speech and dialogue:
"let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for *whatsoever is more than these comes of evil*." No underhand humour.
No intention to insult you, just telling you how things are seen.
Frank wrote: 1. I do not consider those who prefer the KJV to be weaker brethren. 2. know that I will not respond to you, so just read this comment and learn from it. 3. ... evangelical feminists ... humour
1. It was unmistakably inferred; so now you are contradicting yourself as you cannot take my comment.
2. High and mighty. The spirit dwelling in the believer is a spirit of meekness, say one that is easily entreated and condencends to things of lower state. It does not behave aloof. ".. be not wise in your own understanding"
3. Calling names. The 'untouchable's' typical response. However, the humour is God's in the end, when the secrets of the hearts of men will be revealed for what they are, not for what they appear to be, or they say to be. "The Lord will laugh and have them in derision "
4. May we be preserved from meddling with his words. "whoso *keeps his word*, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him."