TheSword

Yeah, I agree with all that. I do typically add eschatology-related stuff because it's a position taken by the church. To me, something is fundamental when it has potential to affect someone's ability come to know Christ (i.e. salvation). Every major doctrine points back to that to some degree, for if we don't have a proper understanding of God or sin or man or the Bible or Christ etc, then we'll never come to a true understanding of our need for him, and that makes it a fundamental issue. A fundamental is something that cannot be compromised without undermining the Gospel. Whether or not one should drink alcohol, gamble, wear pants, hold their hands up during worship, go to movies, or whatever are not critical to the core of Gospel message, but creation, the Fall, the virgin birth, divinity of Christ, etc. are.

When I teach the fundamentals, I always hit the following topics:
Bible (inspiration, inerrancy, preservation, and "literal" interpretation), God (person, nature, trinity), Christ (divinity, humanity, virgin birth, resurrection), Sin, and faith-based Salvation
 
Speaking about the movement of Fundamentalism in general, the following have been considered "fundamentals of the faith":
- The inerrancy of the Bible
- The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles and the Creation account in Genesis
- The Virgin Birth of Christ
- The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
- The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross
 

One thing you have to consider in this is what your marriage/non-marriage says to unbelieving world and young people who can be influenced by your situation. Truly, it's not about a piece of paper, tax benefits, a ring, or even a ceremony. Rather, it is about making a public commitment to one another and entering into a lifelong covenant not just with each other, but with God. Marriage is not about how you live, it is about commitment and it's a reflection of God's character.

When I teach the fundamentals, I always hit the following topics:
Bible (inspiration, inerrancy, preservation, and "literal" interpretation), God (person, nature, trinity), Christ (divinity, humanity, virgin birth, resurrection), Sin, and faith-based Salvation
 
Speaking about the movement of Fundamentalism in general, the following have been considered "fundamentals of the faith":
- The inerrancy of the Bible
- The literal nature of the Biblical accounts, especially regarding Christ's miracles and the Creation account in Genesis
- The Virgin Birth of Christ
- The bodily resurrection and physical return of Christ
- The substitutionary atonement of Christ on the cross
 

I like what you said about the way the Spirit makes you feel about one direction or another. That's kind of how I choose summer ministries now. I've found that, when thinking about what to do with my off time in the summer, there will be one ministry that I will get a real desire to help with. I've come to believe that, when choosing between two 'good' things like that, God just gives us the desire of what we want to do. We don't need to hem or haw over whether or not we should. I do think that special outreaches by my local church deserve my help and attendance first, but once that is done, I'll just choose by what God has given me an interest in or burden for. It might be a particular ministry year after year (like our church's youth camp), or change every year (there are 3 kids camps and a couple of revival meeting circuits I'll switch between attending). There might even be a sub-benefit of a place or person I want to visit (last year I helped at a couple camps up north - with the side benefit of finally being able to visit Yellowknife!). This year I've been saving time to help with a new church plant I'm terribly interested in - I don't know if they need help, and they haven't finalized a schedule yet, but I want to be there! 
I think that seeing God work things out - making the travel arrangements work, or providing needed funds - are also good confirmations that you're heading in the right direction. 

Well, based on only the information given in the question, I'd probably choose the first option. If I have to choose between doing two things, one which I know I can do and one which I am not certain I have the skills to do, I'd go for the one I could do. Mostly cause I wouldn't want to mess things up. That is what I would choose in secular areas (such as my job), and I have a tendency to view ministries as more jobs to get done (which is not quite right, I know). Course, it might depend what the ministries are, too.

 

As a woman, of course, I would need to get input from my hubby on any decision of a ministry participation. But I know he would also take my thoughts into account. I have always been the type of person that likes to learn things. Were I to face a choice of 2 ministries, one of which I felt confident about and one not so much, I think I might lean toward the one that would make me wonder if I'm up to the task. I would be fearful somewhat, for sure. But at the same time, as I said, I would look forward to learning new things about serving the Lord.

I would add something, as well.
  Concerning the hair, it is 'broided', a slight difference from 'braided.'  Broided does, indeed, mean braided, but it is a more extensive, fancy way of doing it.   Think:

The word does refer to a basket weave, as well as a braid. Excessiveness. Having done a study on the issue of hair, when I was researching a thesis on the headcovering, I found that, areound the time Paul dealt with hair and covering in 1Cor 11, women in the Roman and Greek cultures were leaving behind covering their heads, and thus, found they wanted to do something with their hair. So some of the wealthier women began to have contests to see who could have the most ornate, excessive hairstyles. This is where the broiding and plaiting warnings come from. Sometimes they would take 8-10 hours working on their hair, and would not wash it for months, to preserve it, even making special neck holders for when they slept, so their hair would not touch the bed. It was excessive and attention-drawing, and this was what Paul was trying to warn about. A woman can have an attractive hairstyle, and can wear jewelry and even a little make-up just fine, but it is excessiveness that Paul sought to teach against, because that is an aspect of modesty.
As for marriage, I agree with Covenanter. However, do you know that, if you have a Bible with a record of marriage in the front, you can use that in place of a license. Have the pastor/officiant, bride, groom and witnesses sign it, take it to the courthouse and have them copy it and record it, and it is a legal, binding document.

The previous responses sum it up pretty well. If there are two options set before you look to determine which one, i some way, is the best. Sometimes there are two directions we can go. Typically, one is good but the other is best. Which leads us back to where you began: how to determine which is which.
I've been there before and I still can't prescribe a sure formula or even fully recall or grasp the process that finally resulted in an answer. The things mentioned above, much prayer (possibly also with fasting), seeking godly counsel, listening for the leading of the Lord whether through that "still small voice", that sense of peace for one option more than the other.
The Lord does speak to us, we can't just dismiss listening for His response, otherwise why bother praying. Sometimes His answer may come in an "inner voice", sense of overwhelming peace, the clear counsel of a godly man, a sudden realization that one option stands out as the one now, etc.
Most often, and this is just from observation, reading and personal experience, it seems the Lord leads us into something which we can't do in our own strength. That way, when we accomplish what He's called us to we know it was through Him and not of ourselves the task was accomplished.
It seems it's usually more dangerous to enter something thinking, "I go this", than it is to enter something that we wonder how we can manage to "get this". Again, just observational, not something set in stone as it were.

Yes. More specifically, they were the bride's wedding party that attended to her needs before and during the wedding. They would be akin to the bridesmaids we know of today. In those days, the bridegroom would come to retrieve his bride. While he approached the bridesmaids would meet him afar off and escort him to the gate of the home and escort the bride to her groom. Though I disagree with Covenanter's presumption of the 70 AD destruction, this passage is indeed meant caution of Jesus imminent return and the need to be watchful and ever ready.

Yes. More specifically, they were the bride's wedding party that attended to her needs before and during the wedding. They would be akin to the bridesmaids we know of today. In those days, the bridegroom would come to retrieve his bride. While he approached the bridesmaids would meet him afar off and escort him to the gate of the home and escort the bride to her groom. Though I disagree with Covenanter's presumption of the 70 AD destruction, this passage is indeed meant caution of Jesus imminent return and the need to be watchful and ever ready.

Yes. More specifically, they were the bride's wedding party that attended to her needs before and during the wedding. They would be akin to the bridesmaids we know of today. In those days, the bridegroom would come to retrieve his bride. While he approached the bridesmaids would meet him afar off and escort him to the gate of the home and escort the bride to her groom. Though I disagree with Covenanter's presumption of the 70 AD destruction, this passage is indeed meant caution of Jesus imminent return and the need to be watchful and ever ready.

Yes. More specifically, they were the bride's wedding party that attended to her needs before and during the wedding. They would be akin to the bridesmaids we know of today. In those days, the bridegroom would come to retrieve his bride. While he approached the bridesmaids would meet him afar off and escort him to the gate of the home and escort the bride to her groom. Though I disagree with Covenanter's presumption of the 70 AD destruction, this passage is indeed meant caution of Jesus imminent return and the need to be watchful and ever ready.

Yes. More specifically, they were the bride's wedding party that attended to her needs before and during the wedding. They would be akin to the bridesmaids we know of today. In those days, the bridegroom would come to retrieve his bride. While he approached the bridesmaids would meet him afar off and escort him to the gate of the home and escort the bride to her groom. Though I disagree with Covenanter's presumption of the 70 AD destruction, this passage is indeed meant caution of Jesus imminent return and the need to be watchful and ever ready.

Matthew 13:52 Then said he unto them, “Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.”
Wouldn't a scribe write books?
 
 

So here's a question to throw a wrinkle in the analysis. What was the reason for the wife's divorce from the previous marriage? If it was due to the previous husband's infidelity, the marriage covenant has been voided and she is free from him if she so chooses. Similarly, if the previous husband was an unbeliever and faith was a part of why he divorced her, she is free to remarry (1 Cor 7:14-15). I would assert that in either of these cases the new husband remains blameless and qualified. However, if they simply divorced due to "irreconcilable differences" (I hate that term...), then I agree with the above reasoning.

I think another thought to bring to bear is the extent of "blameless", which properly means "not open to censure" or "irreproachable." Is that blameless/irreproachable before God or before man? If before God, then no man is qualified to be a pastor or deacon. If before man, then I would think the summation principle of a good report (1 Tim 3:7) would highlight the man's current behavior and acceptance. Example: a man who was previously given to wine, but now practices abstinence would not be disqualified. In application to this specific question, does the man's current testimony make him beyond reproach? Or does people's knowledge of his wife's previous marriage taint his ability to be an example?

So here's a question to throw a wrinkle in the analysis. What was the reason for the wife's divorce from the previous marriage? If it was due to the previous husband's infidelity, the marriage covenant has been voided and she is free from him if she so chooses. Similarly, if the previous husband was an unbeliever and faith was a part of why he divorced her, she is free to remarry (1 Cor 7:14-15). I would assert that in either of these cases the new husband remains blameless and qualified. However, if they simply divorced due to "irreconcilable differences" (I hate that term...), then I agree with the above reasoning.

Regarding Ted Cruz:
Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who tipped off an avalanche of 2016 GOP presidential candidates when he declared his run in March, ties every move he makes, every breath he takes, to God.
It's been that way all his 44 years — from his childhood in evangelical private schools, up through his 2012 Senate race aimed squarely at social conservatives, up to his campaign kickoff at Jerry Falwell-founded Liberty University. Here are five faith facts about Cruz:
1. He's a lot like his dad.
Ted likes to quote Rafael Cruz on the campaign trail, urging people to vote by God's values — in Christian conservative form.
Rafael Cruz was a Catholic Cuban refugee working in the energy industry when Ted was born in 1970 but in 1975 became a born-again Christian. By the time Ted was a teen, Rafael was a traveling preacher. Now, Rafael pastors a church in Dallas and directs the Purifying Fire Ministries, ministering in the U.S., Mexico and Central America, and campaigns for Ted among pastors.
Ted's home church is Houston's First Baptist. He likes to tell folks, "I'm Cuban, Irish and Italian, and yet somehow I ended up Southern Baptist," according to The Dallas Morning News.
2. God has always been a theme in his political roles.
"Believing is not simply sitting aside and doing a polite little golf clap," Cruz told the congregation at his friend Robert Jeffress' congregation, First Baptist Dallas. "Believing is putting everything you have, your heart, soul, life, putting everything (into) standing for what's right."
His campaign website and his U.S. Senate biography tout among his accomplishments as solicitor general of Texas that he fought for the "constitutionality of the Ten Commandments monument at the Texas State Capitol and the words 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance."
Cruz has said he is judicious about mentioning religious views. In 2013, he told David Brody, a host at the Christian Broadcasting Network, that politicians have "a special obligation to avoid being a Pharisee, to avoid ostentatiously wrapping yourself in your faith. Because I think in politics, it's too easy for that to become a crutch, for that to be politically useful."
Even so, he was back this summer on Brody's show, where he calculated that if all evangelicals — including more than half who he says sat out the last election — "will simply show up and vote our values, we'll turn this country around. We can turn our country around, but only if the body of Christ rises up."
3. Forget "dog whistle" politics with coded messages to religious voters. Cruz has a trumpet.
Cruz doesn't tiptoe around God in his politics. That's clear from his speech to a cheering crowd at Liberty University (where students are fined if they don't show up for guest speakers, according to The Washington Post).
"From the dawn of this country, at every stage, America has enjoyed God's providential blessing. Over and over again, when we face impossible odds, the American people rose to the challenge," Cruz said.
He went on to the standard conservative checklist: repealing Obamacare and Common Core, abolishing the IRS, securing the border, protecting privacy and gun rights, honoring the Constitution and more. But he warned that this all stands on realizing "that our rights don't come from man. They come from God Almighty."
Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, who witnessed the speech, said, "Senator Cruz seems to understand that the next generation of believers is looking for conviction — not a milquetoast version of the Gospel that requires nothing."
In 2013 and 2014, Cruz has won the group's annual Values Voter Summit presidential straw pollamong 2,000 social conservatives.  Perkins says Cruz wins because they "are looking for leaders who will take clear, unequivocal stands on the challenges facing our nation, not nuanced politically correct speeches."
4. Religious liberty is his basic stump speech theme.
"In the past month, we have seen religious liberty under assault at an unprecedented level," Cruz told the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition outside Des Moines in April.
Like many candidates, Cruz did a video for the Circle of Protection, a group of 100 Christian leaders working against global poverty. He leveraged a call to care into an attack on the federal policies he says interfere with individual and faith-based charities' religious liberties. Generous Americans — those who know their Psalm 72:13, who know "that the plight of the poor is close to the heart of God," he said — need liberty from taxes and regulations that interfere with their efforts.
5. Not everyone cheers.
Cruz is an ardent Zionist. But speaking to an Arab Christian audience in Washington last September, he ran straight into a wall of disapproval by people who think Israel has taken Palestinian lands illegally and driven out Christians as well as Muslims. Politico said Cruz wasbooed off the stage for calling for absolute support for Israel, accusing those who disagreed of being "consumed with hate" and concluding, "If you will not stand with Israel and the Jews, then I will not stand with you."
 
Regarding Mike Huckabee:
Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee is no stranger to the pulpit—or politics. The former Fox News Channel host announced Tuesday his bid for the GOP nomination for the White House. Here are five facts about this Southern Baptist’s perspectives on faith.
1. Before he was a politician, he was a pastor.
Huckabee was a pastor who preached for 12 years in Arkansas pulpits before he became a governor and, later, a 2008 candidate for president. While he was governor (1996-2007), he maintained his pastoral instincts, sometimes contacting members of his Southern Baptist church when he learned of a death in their families.
“I think it’s the greatest preparation that a person can have for public service,” he told RNS in a 2007 interview. “Somebody says they want to talk about the issue of the elderly, I’ve dealt with those folks. I’ve dealt with a 14-year-old girl who’s pregnant and hasn’t told her parents yet. I’ve talked to the young couple who’s head over heels in debt. … I think it gives you a real perspective about people and what they’re going through that’s important.”
If elected, he would be the first minister elected to the Oval Office (although James Garfield was a lay minister in the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) and Jimmy Carter is a well-known Baptist Sunday school teacher).
2. He led Baptists statewide, not just in the pew.
While he was pastor of Beech Street First Baptist Church in Texarkana, Ark., from 1986 to 1992, Huckabee, now 59, was the youngest president of the Arkansas Baptist State Convention, a job that helped prompt him to think about switching from pastoring to politics. Pastor David Uth, the leader of First Baptist Church in Orlando, Fla., told RNS that in that post, Huckabee worked to calm differences between moderate and conservative Baptists in his home state.
3. He is a favorite of evangelicals and he claims them, too.
“There are a lot of people running for president,” he told the Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Values Voter Presidential Debate, whose 2007 participants gave him a 63 percent win in its straw poll. “Many of them will come to you. I come from you.” Christian publisher Steve Strang urged 1,000 readers of his magazines—Charisma and New Man—to give $1,000 each to Huckabee’s 2008 campaign. He won the 2008 Iowa caucuses—about 60 percent of Iowa GOP caucus-goers are evangelicals—but dropped out when he was overtaken by Sen. John McCain.
4. He is a fierce defender of traditional marriage — and Chick-fil-A.
When Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy sparked controversy in 2012 by saying he was “guilty as charged” for supporting traditional marriage, Huckabee spearheaded a “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day” for the restaurant known for its waffle fries and Christian roots. Earlier this year, Huckabee told CNN’s “State of the Union” that expectations that Christians would accept same-sex marriage are “like asking someone who’s Jewish to start serving bacon-wrapped shrimp in their deli.”
5. As a political leader, he says he respects people of all faiths and no faith.
“It was never my desire to use my position to push a particular religious doctrine through the official channels of government. Spiritual convictions should certainly be reflected in one’s worldview, approaches to problems, and perspective,” he wrote in his 2008 book, Do the Right Thing. “An atheist who believes that we are on our own and that our only true God is the natural world might be more protective of bugs, plants, and animals than one who believes that God created all these things for us to manage, care for, and even use in a responsible manner.”

This morning I was watching Fox News when Mike Huckabee came on to discuss last night's debate and something caught my ear. In response to John Kasich's capitulation on gay marriage, Huckabee revealed himself as a Biblical Creationist by asserting a 6,000 year human history in support of traditional marriage. It was an incredibly short part of a larger answer but also incredibly telling. From that one little quote we know that he firmly believes the Bible and that he holds God's Word above man's word, even when it's likely to get him skewered in the public arena. I know he was a Baptist pastor for a while (of the SBC variety), but that's a stance even many of those won't say on TV. A politician who stands on the Bible regardless of the consequences? Whatever else he stand on politically, that is at least something I can get behind.

This morning I was watching Fox News when Mike Huckabee came on to discuss last night's debate and something caught my ear. In response to John Kasich's capitulation on gay marriage, Huckabee revealed himself as a Biblical Creationist by asserting a 6,000 year human history in support of traditional marriage. It was an incredibly short part of a larger answer but also incredibly telling. From that one little quote we know that he firmly believes the Bible and that he holds God's Word above man's word, even when it's likely to get him skewered in the public arena. I know he was a Baptist pastor for a while (of the SBC variety), but that's a stance even many of those won't say on TV. A politician who stands on the Bible regardless of the consequences? Whatever else he stand on politically, that is at least something I can get behind.

This morning I was watching Fox News when Mike Huckabee came on to discuss last night's debate and something caught my ear. In response to John Kasich's capitulation on gay marriage, Huckabee revealed himself as a Biblical Creationist by asserting a 6,000 year human history in support of traditional marriage. It was an incredibly short part of a larger answer but also incredibly telling. From that one little quote we know that he firmly believes the Bible and that he holds God's Word above man's word, even when it's likely to get him skewered in the public arena. I know he was a Baptist pastor for a while (of the SBC variety), but that's a stance even many of those won't say on TV. A politician who stands on the Bible regardless of the consequences? Whatever else he stand on politically, that is at least something I can get behind.

In seminary, I've had to read a lot of books by those I disagree with, most of the time for the express purpose of critiquing the book. I've actually found many of them helpful for the opposite purpose for which they are intended. At the academic level, the authors usually make quite good arguments with a lot of data, yet come to a conclusion that I disagree with. Rather than be persuaded to error, I find that it forces me to go back to the Bible and either confirm what I knew to be true or plug holes in defense of what I know/believe. On a very rare occasion I've had to adjust my stance on something. In the end, having a more well-rounded knowledge of an issue gives me a better understanding of the Scriptural truth as well as helps me in evangelism and apologetics with people of different faiths or denominations. A great example was a book on hermeneutics I had to read that was written by a Charismatic theologian. It gave me a much better understanding of how they arrive at their conclusions and I can demolish just about any argument they come up with.
To answer your question directly, read everything (regardless of the author) critically and check anything that does not sound immediately correct based on your current Bible knowledge. You'll learn a great deal by studying in response to a challenge to your view. If, for example, you're reading a Calvinist author and he quotes a verse in support double-predestination, go study that verse and see how it should be interpreted correctly, then make a note in the margin. I did this in one of my systematic theology textbooks and it was a great help in solidifying a lot of things for me.

Yes, that's true. However, had arches been an important structure for the temple, a massive filling and flattening effort would have been cause for uproar and revolt rather than praised for its engineering and ingenuity.

It should be for the same reason we listen to a preacher, the same reason the Ethiopian listened to Phillip, the same reason it's good to have someone to disciple new and less spiritually mature Christians.
That said, the Scripture has to be the foundation and the final authority. Scripture can't be set aside in order to concentrate upon the writings of men, no matter how good and sound they may be. Nothing can replace Scripture. Scripture is inspired, the writings of men are not.
One of the things I really liked and appreciated about the books by Pastor Markle are they are so saturated with Scripture. Also, the words Pastor Markle puts forth are primarily simply expounding upon the Word of God rather than offering opinions or theories.
Discernment is necessary and that requires time in the Word. Like the Bereans, whether we are listening to a preacher or reading a book, we need to check what's presented with the Word to see if they agree or not. If they are in agreement, great! If not, then the Word of God is correct and the preacher or author is in error, at least on that point.
Scripture first, Scripture always. Other reading should only serve as a supplement. Scripture is the full meal.