Thoughts on Head-Coverings?

Travis Fentiman said:
2. I believe we actually agree on about 98% of this, in that you, apparently, are seeking to justify head-coverings from culture (of a particular church).

One of the main points of my book is to bring head-coverings from the realm of a positive religious, perpetual rite (WCF 21) to being a circumstance of culture that might be justified in the worship of God (WCF 1.6). You apparently are founding your arguments for head-coverings on culture and WCF 1.6​
​
I only argue against head-coverings in the book when they are not justified from the light of nature or Scripture. But if they are justified by culture and hence the light of nature on your view, then my book speaks nothing against that.​
​
It is not in the scope of my book (see the Intro) to set up criteria for when head-coverings are or are not warranted by culture (even a church's culture).​
​
I believe you said that church's culture is to be based on the light of nature, Christian prudence and the general rules of the Word (WCF 1.6). If that is the case, then you are saying that the head-coverings you are advocating for a church's culture is based on the light of nature. My book does not speak against head-coverings when they are warranted by nature's light.​
​
The purpose of my book was not to argue against head-coverings simply, but as a religious positive, perpetual rite.​
Click to expand...
I appreciate this response - you are correct that we largely agree and it is helpful that you clarified the intent of your work (2. above). I will admit that as I have started working through it this was not clear to me. It will take me some time to build a review. Having glossed your work, I have gone back and taken a few deep dives. My academic interest has always been Reformation-era Geneva because of its international composition and subsequent influence. The several references to the 1560 Geneva Bible in the notes (pp. 40, 65 so far) caught my eye. It is interesting that the notes by 1599 had evolved (vv. 4 and 15, for example): see https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 Corinthians 11&version=GNV

I have always found the above notes helpful as in my mind they do a commendable job in delineating both the "ordinance" and the "circumstance" aspects of what Paul is communicating while also recognizing a distinction between "nature" and society (the broader meaning of "political" in note e. at the time). But this brief commentary has to be read as a whole - otherwise anyone on this forum can/will cherry-pick something to support their view (e. and f. versus k. and l., for example). The note I appreciate most is "m"!

I will probably not contribute more to this thread - I am as confused as others as to whether this thread was intended to be strictly a book review or a discussion of the topic. I assumed the latter since it was posted under "Worship." Unless someone beats me to it, I will post any review of the book that I can produce in the "Book Review" forum.
 
Thank you Travis for your response. The thrust of your points seems to be that because you think there is no necessary reason to conclude head coverings are perpetual, then they must not be.

I can’t respond fully at the moment, but it occurred to me, given that the context is where Paul is saying that he received of the Lord Jesus Christ what he delivered to the church as to ordinances, and he insists on head coverings so strongly in this context, appealing to many things, including to the practice of the churches outwith Corinth, it would seem there is nothing in the text that necessarily leads us to conclude it was merely cultural.

Would it not then close us in to the conclusion, that since we can’t necessarily conclude they were cultural from the text, we must then hold they were necessarily of divine appointment? There being no necessary Scriptural reason to think otherwise, nor any grounds to undermine the thrust and context of the passage?
 
alexmacarie said:
Would it not then close us in to the conclusion, that since we can’t necessarily conclude they were cultural from the text, we must then hold they were necessarily of divine appointment? There being no necessary Scriptural reason to think otherwise, nor any grounds to undermine the thrust and context of the passage?
Click to expand...

Alex, Travis develops his case from the context of the rest of Scripture as to why we can conclude it was cultural. There is scriptural reason to think otherwise. Paul is writing in a broader context as well as a narrow one.

One point I would like to emphasize is that those of the "cultural" view do not undermine the text. They do not pick and choose what to ignore. They treat the text as something to be obeyed, but obeyed in a variety of ways in a variety of contexts, not in just one way for all contexts (which clearly wasn't the case in the OT anyway).

Nor is this is liberal view or one which rose with feminism and the sooner we can get over that false assumption the better. This is not new:

Matthew Poole, well-known Reformed commentator from the 1600s:
"Interpreters rightly agree, that this and the following verses are to be interpreted from the customs of countries; and all that can be concluded from this verse is, that it is the duty of men employed in Divine ministrations, to look to behave themselves as those who are to represent the Lord Jesus Christ...which decent gravity is to be judged from the common opinion and account of the country wherein they live...because in Corinth the uncovered head was a sign of authority. At this day the Mahometans (or Turks) speak to their superiors covered, and so are covered also in their religious performances. The custom with us in these western parts is quite otherwise; the uncovering of the head is a sign or token of subjection: hence ministers pray and preach with their heads uncovered, to denote their subjection to God and Christ: but yet this custom is not uniform, for in France the Reformed ministers preach with their heads covered; as they pray uncovered, to express their reverence and subjection to God, so they preach covered as representing Christ...Nothing in this is a further rule to Christians, than that it is the duty of ministers, in praying and preaching, to use postures and habits that are not naturally, nor according to the custom of the place where they live, uncomely and irreverent, and so looked upon. It is only the general observation of decency..."

Or Matthew Henry:
"The thing he reprehends is the woman's praying or prophesying uncovered, or the man's doing either covered. To understand this, it must be observed that it was a signification either of shame or subjection for persons to be veiled, or covered, in the eastern countries, contrary to the custom of ours, where the being bare-headed betokens subjection, and being covered superiority and dominion. And this will help us the better to understand...He sums up all by referring those who were contentious to the usages and customs of the churches. Custom is in a great measure the rule of decency. And the common practice of the churches is what he would have them govern themselves by. He does not silence the contentious by mere authority, but lets them know that they would appear to the world as very odd and singular in their humor if they would quarrel for a custom to which all the churches of Christ were at that time utter strangers, or against a custom in which they all concurred, and that upon the ground of natural decency. It was the common usage of the churches for women to appear in public assemblies, and join in public worship, veiled; and it was manifestly decent that they should do so."

Or John Trapp, another respected Reformed commentator from the 1600s:
He begins with saying that this ordinance is not dogmatical, or perpetual, but of the temporary and pertaining to the observing of external order and decency in Church assemblies and notes:
"As they accounted it then and there. In other places it is otherwise. The French preach covered. The Turks neither kneel nor uncover the head at public prayer, as holding these postures unmanly. Several countries have their several customs."

Calvin sums up his view this way:
"Let us, however, bear in mind, that in this matter the error is merely in so far as decorum is violated, and the distinction of rank which God has established, is broken in upon. For we must not be so scrupulous as to look upon it as a criminal thing for a teacher to have a cap on his head, when addressing the people from the pulpit. Paul means nothing more than this---that it should appear that the man has authority, and that the woman is under subjection...in fine, the one rule to be observed here is decorum. If that is secured, Paul requires nothing farther."

These four are not obscure references. Not only is the "cultural" view a Reformed view, it may very well be the historically majority Reformed view.
 
Travis Fentiman said:
Alexander,

You have made some very specific arguments and interpretations above, which is helpful to advancing the discussion, though I am very much not persuaded of them.


"It is the command of God through the Apostle which is the basis for the practice."

Please prove this. And see pp. 38-45 and 51-64.​
Click to expand...

Other than quoting Paul commanding it in 1 Corinthians 11 I don't know how else I can show this. It's a straightforward command with no qualification. As I mentioned earlier, it is not included amongst those things which Paul expressly terms matters of conscience, but is placed alongside the proper administration of the Lord's Supper as practices which have been passed onto the churches from the Apostles and are to be observed by the church universally.

Travis Fentiman said:
​
"the examples that Travis cites from the OT of men covering their heads during worship, that I've seen, are from Temple worship which has been done away with so they aren't necessarily relevant to this discussion."

Numerous of the examples I cite are before the time of the Temple, occur outside of the Temple in otherwise ordinary life, and have no ceremonial aspects to them. Therefore your interpretation is untenable, unless you would like to prove it.​
Click to expand...

What I meant was the only relevant OT cases would be men wearing a head covering in public worship. Perhaps you give such examples (I would be grateful if you could just list them here or refer me to the pages where you cite them) but any example of men wearing a head covering in a non-worship scenario, or an occasion which has elements of worship present but are not the ordinary means of grace, aren't relevant to the discussion. And Alex has already made the point that even if men covered their heads in ordinary public worship in the OT doesn't prevent an absolute prohibition being given in the NT. Men also wore ceremonial raiment in the OT worship which they no longer wear in the NT.

Travis Fentiman said:
"He also cites Zechariah 3 which is a symbolic vision about justification and should not be used as determinative for ordinary public worship."

A coherent position must be able to explain exceptions. How is it (on your view) that an exemplary vision uses a dishonorable practice to convey something honorable and good? Zechariah was a moral agent in that vision; how come he did not object that what he was required to do was sinful? If it wasn't sinful, perhaps head-coverings are not by Creation​
​
It may be understood that the vision of Zech. 3 is used precisely because it corresponded with ordinary public worship in the OT, with men wearing turbans, etc. per their custom, in the Temple. And this interpretation cannot be ruled out, which you must do to show that your interpretation is necessary.​


I don't mean to be too direct and impolite, but for a position to hold, it must hold. Thank you for further considering these points. I hope we can all learn from these things.
Click to expand...

The vision in Zechariah 3 isn't even of an act of worship. It is the law court not the sanctuary in which the action takes place. Joshua is described as the high priest and so he is wearing his priestly garments. Sin is a transgression of the law and the law can be both negative or positive. What we are discussing here, for the sake of argument, is a positive law: a law which could not be discovered were it not for direct revelation from God (such as the keeping of a whole day, and which day, as the Sabbath; the not-eating of the Tree of Knowledge). If one grants that it was previously honourable for a man to cover his head in worship but now it is dishonourable then we should try to understand why that change has taken place. By your own argument that change has taken place (even if only for culturally-dependent reasons and for a limited time) as before men did cover their heads and now Paul is saying explicitly it is wrong.

So why could that change have come about? For the change to be purely cultural would at least require a significant change in the surrounding culture. Has such a transformative change occurred? To be sure there has been an influx of foreigners into Judea but would that be reason enough for such a prohibition? If it was then one would assume head covering would have been prohibited during the captivity in Babylon (a far greater change in the cultural context of Israel than we see at the time of Christ). Was it? It seems far more likely the change has come about as a result of the change in worship from a carnal, outward, typological form of worship to a spiritual, inward form which allows far greater access to God. Because of this simpler, more spiritual, more direct access to God, and because of the angels, it was necessary that women cover their heads (for the reasons Alex mentioned and because with all the outward ceremonies stripped away the worshipper is coming before God with nothing but faith, or a lack thereof). That is me thinking out loud but I think that if we are granting that a change has occurred- that previously it was honourable for men to cover their heads in worship (or a matter indifferent other than with the Levites) to saying it is dishonourable in all circumstances- then it is far more likely due to the significant change in worship rather than for purely cultural reasons. In which case the requirement would be binding for as long as NT worship is binding.

And we must remember that Paul is not enjoining this practice exclusively to the Corinthians but is addressing it in this letter because the Corinthians have not been complying with what Paul says is a universal doctrine. So we cannot claim there is anything particular about Corinth which required this practice.
 
Logan said:
Alex, Travis develops his case from the context of the rest of Scripture as to why we can conclude it was cultural. There is scriptural reason to think otherwise. Paul is writing in a broader context as well as a narrow one.

One point I would like to emphasize is that those of the "cultural" view do not undermine the text. They do not pick and choose what to ignore. They treat the text as something to be obeyed, but obeyed in a variety of ways in a variety of contexts, not in just one way for all contexts (which clearly wasn't the case in the OT anyway).

Nor is this is liberal view or one which rose with feminism and the sooner we can get over that false assumption the better. This is not new:

These four are not obscure references. Not only is the "cultural" view a Reformed view, it may very well be the historically majority Reformed view.
Click to expand...

Hi Logan,

He does indeed argue that one may possibly interpret them to be just cultural, but my point was that there's nothing necessarily pointing us to that conclusion, as he admits himself. However, he says nothing necessarily leads to them being perpetual either, and so my last reply was in response to that particular point.

I believe the cultural view does undermine the thrust of the passage, namely, that female head covering in public worship is an apostolic appointed received from Christ, and practiced in the churches outwith Corinth, of both Jewish and Gentile origin.

I never mentioned anything about liberals or feminism.. but I do think that there was diversity of opinion about this among reformers and puritans, and many thought that it was unbecoming in the light of nature for married women to go out in public uncovered at all, so that had a bearing on their views too, which must be taken into account.

David Silversides quotes a few Puritans and Scottish writers who hold the perpetual view, and makes an interesting point,

"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).

If there were any divergence in 17th century Scottish practice, this would be similar to the question of exclusive psalmody. There was difference of opinion in Scotland over the addition of the Trinitarian doxology to the psalms when sung and the Scottish Commissioners to the Westminster Assembly, prior to that Assembly meeting, were not opposed to its use as some Scottish ministers were. As a result of the Assembly, however, they were happy to see it dropped and a strict exclusive psalmody adopted in the Directory for Public worship and expressed in the 1650 Psalter (of which the Assembly produced the initial draft before the Scottish church did the final revision) containing only the 150 Biblical psalms in metre. Thereafter, exclusive psalmody was the norm and strongly defended by such Covenanters as McWard and Brown of Wamphray. (For a discussion of this, see Hold Fast Your Confession, the chapter by Hector Cameron on Purity of Worship, pp.102ff. and also Hay Flemming on The Psalmody of the Scottish Church). Though the Scottish Commissioners were of immense help to the Assembly in many things, the English Puritans did influence the Scottish Church on some matters in worship.

It may have taken longer to attain uniformity in Scotland on head-covering than it did on psalmody. Nevertheless, H.M.R. Reid in The Cameronian Apostle (An account of John MacMillan of Balmaghie, 1669-1753) indicates that the women wore white linen coverings at church and the men removed their blue bonnets when public prayer began (pp. 52-54). He also refers to a minister called Nathaniel M’Kie of Crossmichael giving a rather homely rebuke to a man for having his hat on as the Scriptures were being read in church (p. 91). By the time J.A. Wylie’s History of Protestantism was published in 1899, in the engraving of ‘Covenanters Worshipping by the Banks of the Whittader’ (vol. 3 p. 595), they are pictured with the men having clearly removed their hats (holding them in their hand or placed on the ground) while the women have their heads covered (see also The Swearing of the Covenant ibid. p. 547). This, at least, indicates that the practice was so well established by Wylie’s time, that it was assumed also to have been the practice of the later 17th century Covenanters."


-Source: https://www.the-highway.com/headcovering_Silversides.html​
 
TylerRay said:
Hey, Travis. I'm curious--do you think veils have any significance in our culture today? If someone walked into a church where all the women were veiled for the first time, how do you think he would interpret it?
Click to expand...

Travis Fentiman said:
Tyler,

Thank you for your interaction.

I do think if veils have significance in a society, that they may rightly be ordered by nature's light, Christian prudence and the Word's general rules (WCF 1.6) for worship.

It is not in my prerogative to definitively answer whether veils have a necessary degree of relevance in our culture to be pertinent in Christian worship.
Click to expand...
By referring to veils rather than hats or head-scarves in this exchange, were you gentlemen referring to Muslim practice or does veil=any head covering?
 
I’ve enjoyed revisiting this issue and was reminded of some threads where Rev. Winzer (MW) expressed, I think? the same take as Travis on the cultural aspect of the 1 Corinthians passage. He argued for the wearing of headcoverings as the still relevant token of decorum and order in English-speaking society. After all it has never disappeared from the English-speaking churches and as Tyler noted, anyone walking into a church service where women are covered would instantly understand submission to something is being exhibited.
 
Last edited:
alexmacarie said:
David Silversides quotes a few Puritans and Scottish writers who hold the perpetual view, and makes an interesting point,
Click to expand...

I've read Silversides' article multiple times in the past and I just can't get over the fact that he cherry-picked his sources so bad as to ignore the clearest and most prominent and respected theologians while focusing on some of the most obscure and less clear citations. I looked at many of the sources he cited and was very disappointed in his treatment of them. This, I admit, makes it hard for me to take anything in his article with anything but skepticism.

alexmacarie said:
and many thought that it was unbecoming in the light of nature for married women to go out in public uncovered at all, so that had a bearing on their views too, which must be taken into account.
Click to expand...

Sure. Poole said this, for example:
"From this text a question hath been started, Whether Christian women may lawfully go without any other covering upon their heads than their hair? I must confess, I see not how such a question can have any bottom in this text, where the apostle is not speaking of women's ordinary habiting themselves, but only when they prayed and prophesied and (if I mistake not) when they ministered in prayer and prophecy (as was said before). We now have no such prophetesses; so as I think that question about the lawfulness of women's going without any other covering upon their heads than their hair, must be determined from other texts, not this, and is best determined from circumstances; for God having given to the woman her hair for a covering and an ornament, I cannot see how it should be simply unlawful."
 
Logan said:
I've read Silversides' article multiple times in the past and I just can't get over the fact that he cherry-picked his sources so bad as to ignore the clearest and most prominent and respected theologians while focusing on some of the most obscure and less clear citations. I looked at many of the sources he cited and was very disappointed in his treatment of them. This, I admit, makes it hard for me to take anything in his article with anything but skepticism.



Sure. Poole said this, for example:
"From this text a question hath been started, Whether Christian women may lawfully go without any other covering upon their heads than their hair? I must confess, I see not how such a question can have any bottom in this text, where the apostle is not speaking of women's ordinary habiting themselves, but only when they prayed and prophesied and (if I mistake not) when they ministered in prayer and prophecy (as was said before). We now have no such prophetesses; so as I think that question about the lawfulness of women's going without any other covering upon their heads than their hair, must be determined from other texts, not this, and is best determined from circumstances; for God having given to the woman her hair for a covering and an ornament, I cannot see how it should be simply unlawful."
Click to expand...

There are other puritans here https://www.covenanter.org/subjects-1/2015/6/29/headcoverings

But Silverside's point about the practice in the times of the covenanters showed that it became a prevailing view.

Seems like Poole is speaking about covering outside of public worship.

The point I was making is that there is nothing in the passage that points necessarily to it being cultural, and in light of the context, if we can't necessarily conclude it's cultural, I would say we should conclude its perpetual, as an apostolic appointment received from the Lord, which was the practice of all the other churches, of Jewish and Gentile extraction, and not just local to Corinthian culture.
 
Logan said:
I've read Silversides' article multiple times in the past and I just can't get over the fact that he cherry-picked his sources so bad as to ignore the clearest and most prominent and respected theologians while focusing on some of the most obscure and less clear citations.
Click to expand...
:scratch: He’s literally just quoted Durham in support, probably the foremost Scottish theologian of the 17th century.
 
Logan said:
Yes. I agreed with you, as indicated by the specific portion of your post I quoted, even though Poole took the contrary view.
Click to expand...
Sorry I must have misread. Poole seems not to have taken that view, but there were others who did, but I don't have the quotes to hand just now.
 
Scottish Presbyterian said:
:scratch: He’s literally just quoted Durham in support, probably the foremost Scottish theologian of the 17th century.
Click to expand...
And what do you propose can be concluded about Durham's view from the sentence quoted, one way or the other? Durham isn't arguing for or against it being perpetual, and his point is not in the context of corporate worship at all, but every day life. That's what I mean by Silversides' treatment of his sources.

Note he also uses the past tense "had" which makes it at least questionable whether he thought it was a perpetual sign for every day life, thus would need more clarification for a conclusion one way or another.

"4. The last step is, They took away my vail from me: The word that's rende∣red vail, comes from a root that signifieth to subdue, it's that fame word which we have, Psal. 144. 2. who subdues the people, &c. It had a threefold use, 1. For decorement, as Isa. 3. 23. 2. For a sign of modesty, pleaded for by the Apostle, 1 Cor. 11. 6. 3. And mainly, for a sign of womens subjection to their own husbands; for which cause Rebekah puts on her vail, when she meets Isaac, Gen. 24. 65. And therefore it's called power, as being the sign of the wifes being under the power of her husband, 1 Cor. 11. 10. Here, her vail is the tendernesse of her profession, whereby in a decent, modest and humble way, she profest her self to be a be∣liever, seeking after Christ Jesus, as one bearing the b•dge of sub∣jection to him as her husband. The taking away of the vail, is their wronging of that honest profession she had, and the giving of her out, not to be that which she profest her self to be, and so not worthy of a vail; but that her profession was hypocrisie, her painfulnesse and tendernesse, conceitinesse, even as Iudas, Joh. 12. 5. nicknames that good work wrought upon Christ by that honest woman, calling it wastry: And by these and such other means, often tender souls are affronted, and proposed as a reproach to the multitude; even as if a wife that is chast, were denuded of her vail, and reputed as an gadding harlot, while she is seeking her own husband: So when the Lord threatens his people, that their le•d∣nesse should be made to appear, he useth this expression, Ezek. 23. 26, 27. They shall stripe thee out of thy cloaths, &c. that being a manifest shame to a woman, that should be covered, 1 Cor. 11. 6. This is added, to shew that they pretend they have reason for their smiting: They disgrace her, and take away her vail, that they may not be thought to smite holinesse or tendernesse, but a hypocrite under such a vail, or a whore more decently adorned than became her to be.
 
Logan said:
Calvin sums up his view this way:
"Let us, however, bear in mind, that in this matter the error is merely in so far as decorum is violated, and the distinction of rank which God has established, is broken in upon. For we must not be so scrupulous as to look upon it as a criminal thing for a teacher to have a cap on his head, when addressing the people from the pulpit. Paul means nothing more than this---that it should appear that the man has authority, and that the woman is under subjection...in fine, the one rule to be observed here is decorum. If that is secured, Paul requires nothing farther."
Click to expand...
But of course that is not the complete quote, and Calvin has more to say on the matter not only in his commentary but in his sermons upon the text.
 
Two thoughts:

Men: tonsillectomy? OK Tonsure-ectomy? Don't go there.

Women: Let it grow, let it grow it, let it grow! (Hair, not beards.)

Other than that ...
 
Logan said:
Paul means nothing more than this---that it should appear that the man has authority, and that the woman is under subjection...in fine, the one rule to be observed here is decorum. If that is secured, Paul requires nothing farther."
Click to expand...
I think one issue is that this quote by Calvin (and the others) show that there has always been agreement that a sign is required. That it should be cultural is a valid point. But isn't a cloth head-covering of some sort the sign that has been used and viewed as acceptable in the modern/post-modern Western Christian culture? Travis argues that in 1st century Roman culture women wore braided buns, though in my first cursory reading of his book I failed to see how he demonstrates that this was a sign of authority in Roman culture. A woman with a braided bun of hair would not be viewed as a sign in our current culture. A cloth head-covering would be. In any event, I do not believe Travis has proven valid that a practice in the Church must conform to the culture outside it.

My understanding of I Cor. 11 has been that Paul is not talking about hair as a covering - he is discussing the need for a sign to distinguish between the sexes and their participation during public worship (vv.3-13 - this distinction is, of course, present in many of Paul's writings, like the end of I Cor.14), and when he introduces the natural distinction of hair (it has always been a fact, for example, that baldness primarily affects males) in vv.14-15, it is to illustrate that men and women are different, not to still discuss coverings. Yes, v.15 speaks of hair as a "covering," but this has been interpreted in the past (16th century Reformers) "To be a covering for her, and such a covering as should procure another." (Geneva Bible [1599] note on the verse).

I agree that the sign can change from culture to culture; I disagree that the Church must follow the fashions and trends of its host culture.
 
Eyedoc84 said:
But of course that is not the complete quote, and Calvin has more to say on the matter not only in his commentary but in his sermons upon the text.
Click to expand...

Yes, which I've read (I own Skolnitsky's translation) and found inconclusive because of course he's preaching his sermons to his congregation in a particular context. But he is pretty clear here when he says "if [decorum] is secured, Paul requires nothing farther" and "Paul means nothing more than this". Even if Calvin isn't clear, Poole and Henry are also quoted above, in case you missed it. And many others could also be added.

If you guys will concede that the cultural view (i.e., that what is required is decorum and submission as the principle behind however it is manifested) is a legitimately Reformed view held by many respected Reformed historically, then we will have made great progress here and I'll be satisfied.
 
Would you be comfortable to concede that a non exclusive psalmody position is legitimately Reformed? ..as Matthew Henry, et al, weren't for EP.
Logan said:
If you guys will concede that the cultural view (i.e., that what is required is decorum and submission as the principle behind however it is manifested) is a legitimately Reformed view held by many respected Reformed historically, then we will have made great progress here and I'll be satisfied.
Click to expand...
 
Jeri Tanner said:
By referring to veils rather than hats or head-scarves in this exchange, were you gentlemen referring to Muslim practice or does veil=any head covering?
Click to expand...
Hey, Jeri. The word translated head covering refers to a veil/head scarf/cloth covering. I'd use the terms interchangeably (though I'm certainly no expert on women's accessories!).
 
Logan said:
Yes, which I've read (I own Skolnitsky's translation) and found inconclusive because of course he's preaching his sermons to his congregation in a particular context. But he is pretty clear here when he says "if [decorum] is secured, Paul requires nothing farther" and "Paul means nothing more than this". Even if Calvin isn't clear, Poole and Henry are also quoted above, in case you missed it. And many others could also be added.

If you guys will concede that the cultural view (i.e., that what is required is decorum and submission as the principle behind however it is manifested) is a legitimately Reformed view held by many respected Reformed historically, then we will have made great progress here and I'll be satisfied.
Click to expand...
Of course I agree there are varieties of opinions among the "Reformed giants." But as regards Calvin, I think his view is certainly not "summed up" by the selected quote Travis uses, as even the ellipses contain important qualifying information for his point in that brief quote. Where you say he is clear, he is speaking specifically of verse 4 in the context of the preacher exercising his funtion in public worship. I disagree that it is a summary statement of the entire passage/topic at hand.
 
Logan said:
Absolutely. I'd be glad to acknowledge that. It's historically true.
Click to expand...
Perhaps its a matter of semantics then, as I would be inclined to think that Henry et al weren't as Reformed as they could have been, when it comes to things like EP (which I think is the legitimate, ie, biblical, Reformed position.. so non EP seems to me more illegitimate than legitimate ).
 
Eyedoc84 said:
Of course I agree there are varieties of opinions among the "Reformed giants." But as regards Calvin, I think his view is certainly not "summed up" by the selected quote Travis uses, as even the ellipses contain important qualifying information for his point in that brief quote. Where you say he is clear, he is speaking specifically of verse 4 in the context of the preacher exercising his funtion in public worship. I disagree that it is a summary statement of the entire passage/topic at hand.
Click to expand...

I didn't use Travis' quote, I'm going directly to Calvin. He opens the passage in v 2 saying "He passes on now to another subject-to instruct the Corinthians, what decorum ought to be observed in the sacred assemblies." It is not restricted to a preacher. You say the comment on v 4 is restricted to the preacher but that doesn't comport with the phrase "Paul means nothing more than this — that it should appear that the man has authority, and that the woman is under subjection." He's not limiting this to either a preacher or just men, but summing up the preceding discussion, or else why did he mention the woman? And what does the phrase "In fine, the one rule to be observed here is το πρέπον — decorum If that is secured, Paul requires nothing farther" if Calvin is truly intending to defend the perpetual view? Wouldn't he have said "In fine, the one rule to be observed is that the women wear coverings and men don't"?

Calvin also appears to be of the mind that women should wear some kind of covering all the time, which is difficult to detach from his view on coverings in worship. But we should be careful to not read our own views into Calvin, and rather try to understand what he is truly communicating. If I've failed at that, by all means point it out, but be careful to not to read your own views into it.

Can you at least say that the other two quotes are clear and that this is a historically reformed view?
 
Logan said:
Can you at least say that the other two quotes are clear and that this is a historically reformed view?
Click to expand...

As to the quotes, Calvin himself said that even the preacher, though he doesn't need to be uncovered the whole time, it is sufficient if he takes his hat off at the beginning of the sermon, as a gesture and sign, and then puts it back on for fear of catching cold. So he seems to think that some sort of sign is necessary.

As for the last bit, oh I just don't know, is Neonomianism a historically reformed view? Is eternal justification a historically reformed view? Is hypothetical universalism a historically reformed view? There's been plenty of big name Reformed theologians that held all these views historically.. this is beside the point of the OP though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
alexmacarie said:
As for the last bit, oh I just don't know, is Neonomianism a historically reformed view? Is eternal justification a historically reformed view? Is hypothetical universalism a historically reformed view? There's been plenty of big name Reformed theologians that held all these views historically.. this is beside the point of the OP though.
Click to expand...

Guess that answers that :um:
 
Logan said:
Guess that answers that :um:
Click to expand...

Personally I think they're deviations from proper Reformed doctrine, despite being held by theologians within the Reformed tradition. Neonomianism especially is essentially another gospel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top