Head Coverings

[OPC'n]

In my version it would be on page 122. Better to search for: 2. Adam's Sin, or Question 15 (Question 15: What was the sin whereby our first parents fell from the estate wherein they were created?) in the version of your book, or see:

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/watson/divinity.vii.ii.html

That's very interesting I've never heard of anyone with that doctrine. This book is my mom's which I obviously have never read. I have to say I whole heartily disagree with him. Here's why:

"And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day."

"And on the seventh day God finished his work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all his work that he had done. 3 So God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it God rested from all his work that he had done in creation."

1. Like the other five days, God declares everything he had made on the sixth day was very good.
2. Like the other five days he encapsulates the whole day as being very good by stating its beginning time and its end time.

There is nothing in this text to allude to the fall before God finished the creational week. Then you have the seventh day. What is the seventh day? What did it mean for the Jews and for us? It is the Sabbath Command. The Sabbath day is, of course, a creational ordinance. Creational ordinances are pre-fall not post-fall.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Thanks for looking over the materials and commenting, Sarah.

The point I was making that emphatic statements, e.g., "That's not possible at all.", should rarely be made unless one is genuinely cognizant of what others that have come before us have to say on a particular matter of that which we hold dear, especially when they have some very sound arguments contrary to what is claimed to be impossible. Hence, a wee bit of trepidation is in order on many things that come up in discussions...as in this very thread. Which is why plenty of materials have been provided (by me and many others on both sides of the discussion) for careful review, study, and prayer.

Before I derail the thread further, you might also consider Gill's Body of Practical Divinity and his treatment of the issues of the Sabbath as understood in Adam's case. He basically argues that the first Sabbath day rest was for God, not Adam in a pre-fall state, who did not groan from labors, as we all do in our fallen states. Again, just another pointer to materials worth reviewing that consider your position yet answer it differently.

And in case you or anyone else is wondering, I think Witsius, in his EOTC, nicely defeats the arguments in favor of Adam sinning on his very first day of creation. The most I can dare say is that Adam fell very soon after he was created.

 

[OPC'n]

And in case you or anyone else is wondering, I think Witsius, in his EOTC, nicely defeats the arguments in favor of Adam sinning on his very first day of creation. The most I can dare say is that Adam fell very soon after he was created.

I'm very glad you added this last part. I was beginning to wonder about you. I nearly called the heretic help line for you.

 

[Grant]

The below link gives arguments that the cultural sign of a physical material head coverings stoped in the conrithian society. The source is Albert Mohler and 4 of his radio series.

https://albertmohler.com/tag/head-covering/

Specifically Check our the 3rd Video Feb. 2006 at about 12:00 minutes in. But all of the 4 podcast demonstrate his cultural argument.

4th Podcast down in the link the dicussion is held at the 25:00 mark.

Albert Mohler believes we do not need the physical cover any more (though he does acknowledge women wore physical material coverings in Corinth). He argues because in our society headship can be shown for example, by a Wife taking her husbands last name and by Men taking physical leadership roles in Church. I disagree of course With Mohler, as currently I believe women should still cover, But I at least wanted Albert Mohlers view to be heard rightly and accurately since he is a prominent/respected man in the evangelical world. Hopefully some may find it interesting in the least.

 

[Dachaser]

The below link gives arguments that the cultural sign of a physical material head coverings stoped in the conrithian society. The source is Albert Mohler and 4 of his radio series.

https://albertmohler.com/tag/head-covering/

Specifically Check our the 3rd Video Feb. 2006 at about 12:00 minutes in. But all of the 4 podcast demonstrate his cultural argument.

4th Podcast down in the link the dicussion is held at the 25:00 mark.

Albert Mohler believes we do not need the physical cover any more (though he does acknowledge women wore physical material coverings in Corinth). He argues because in our society headship can be shown for example, by a Wife taking her husbands last name and Men takin physical leadership roles in Church. I disagree of course Mohler as currently I believe women should still cover, But I at least wanted Albert Mohlers view to be heard rightly since he is a prominent/respected man in the evangelical world. Hopefully some may find it interesting in the least.

Dr Mohler is one of the Calvinistic Baptists trying to bring the Baptists back to our particular Baptist roots, and His views in regards to this issue would be pretty much how I and may other Calvinistic/Reformed Baptists would see this as being now.

 

[De Jager]

How can one honestly argue for a male-only church council yet be against head coverings for women? The style of argument that Paul uses against both practices is nearly identical - he ties it to the creation order.

 

[Grant]

Dr Mohler is one of the Calvinistic Baptists trying to bring the Baptists back to our particular Baptist roots, and His views in regards to this issue would be pretty much how I and may other Calvinistic/Reformed Baptists would see this as being now.

I agree that Mohler is doing a lot of good for the the Baptist. As a former baptist myself, I have a lot of respect for what he is doing.

 

[OPC'n]

The below link gives arguments that the cultural sign of a physical material head coverings stoped in the conrithian society. The source is Albert Mohler and 4 of his radio series.

https://albertmohler.com/tag/head-covering/

Specifically Check our the 3rd Video Feb. 2006 at about 12:00 minutes in. But all of the 4 podcast demonstrate his cultural argument.

4th Podcast down in the link the dicussion is held at the 25:00 mark.

Albert Mohler believes we do not need the physical cover any more (though he does acknowledge women wore physical material coverings in Corinth). He argues because in our society headship can be shown for example, by a Wife taking her husbands last name and Men takin physical leadership roles in Church. I disagree of course Mohler as currently I believe women should still cover, But I at least wanted Albert Mohlers view to be heard rightly since he is a prominent/respected man in the evangelical world. Hopefully some may find it interesting in the least.

This 2006 sermon definitely defines his position as being cultural. Him and his wife must have changed their views since that time. I guess people can do that over a period of 11 years. Still, neither of their views can I agree with even though the 2017 video of his wife speaking comes closer to a better understanding than this 2006 sermon

 

[Grant]

This 2006 sermon definitely defines his position as being cultural. Him and his wife must have changed their views since that time. I guess people can do that over a period of 11 years. Still, neither of their views can I agree with even though the 2017 video of his wife speaking comes closer to a better understanding than this 2006 sermon

Okay. I do not believe Al Mohler himself holds your view. Al Mohler himself holds to the cultural view.

 

[Dachaser]

I agree that Mohler is doing a lot of good for the the Baptist. As a former baptist myself, I have a lot of respect for what he is doing.

He is fighting the fight to have Baptists return to our Calvinistic roots.

 

[De Jager]

Honestly, I feel like the "we don't need head coverings" argument has the same roots as the "it is ok for us to have women in office" argument.

1) There is a negative reaction against what is plainly stated in the text

2) The individuals who have the negative reaction consciously or unconsciously decide that they do not want to submit to this regulation.

3) With that decision in hand, they then apply hermeneutical gymnastics in order to achieve the desired outcome.


Look up some pictures of churches from the early part of the 20th century on google images. The women wore head coverings. It is pretty clear that the reaction against this is due to the culture's push for egalitarianism, not because we suddenly "discovered" the proper meaning of the text.

 

[De Jager]

Our basic attitude as Christians when it comes to issues like this should be to err on the side of conservatism. The plain understanding of the text is that women should wear head coverings in public worship; thus, this should be our practice until we are very confident that it does not mean this.

In the North American churches we have taken the opposite approach. Since we do not like the idea of men and women being different, and find head coverings either unfashionable, negative, or stifling, we assume the position that they are not necessary, and will continue this liberal policy until someone proves otherwise. I do not believe this is correct.

 

[OPC'n]

Okay. I do not believe Al Mohler himself holds your view. Al Mohler himself holds to the cultural view.

I guess I would prefer to say that his wife is submissive to his teachings however many time he may change them. 2006 and 2009 he held to the culture view. 2017 his wife discards the culture view as being egalitarian and holds to the belief that her husband’s name is the symbol of submission in worship.

 

[Dachaser]

Our basic attitude as Christians when it comes to issues like this should be to err on the side of conservatism. The plain understanding of the text is that women should wear head coverings in public worship; thus, this should be our practice until we are very confident that it does not mean this.

In the North American churches we have taken the opposite approach. Since we do not like the idea of men and women being different, and find head coverings either unfashionable, negative, or stifling, we assume the position that they are not necessary, and will continue this liberal policy until someone proves otherwise. I do not believe this is correct.

I would see this as being a secondary issue among Christians, so would listen to others viewpoints, and then agree to disagree in a charitable fashion, showing the love of Christ.

 

[Grant]

I guess I would prefer to say that his wife is submissive to his teachings however many time he may change them. 2006 and 2009 he held to the culture view. 2017 his wife discards the culture view as being egalitarian and holds to the belief that her husband’s name is the symbol of submission in worship.

Neither of Which is your view correct as I understand it. Therefore I still do not know a reformer who holds your specific view on the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11.

This thread is dealing with head coverings with the assumption that 1 Corinthians 11 is dealing with a physical material covering. A new thread may be better for an exploration into your view.

 

[OPC'n]

Neither of Which is your view correct as I understand it. Therefore I still do not know a reformer who holds your specific view on the interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11.

This thread is dealing with head coverings with the assumption that 1 Corinthians 11 is dealing with a physical material covering. A new thread may be better for an exploration into your

Her view: not culture and cannot be discarded
My view: not culture and cannot be discarded
Her view: not a hat or hair
My view: not a hat or hair
Her view: her husband's name (non-physical object)
My view: husband's authority over his wife/pastor's authority over single/widow women. (non-physical object)

Twice I have agreed to lay aside our discussion. Twice you have brought it up once by replying to a post I wrote for a different member and once when you placed a link to Al's Q&A link. Although you didn't name me in this last post with his link, it was clearly for my education since no one else has brought up Al's views. I will for a third time agree to lay aside our discussion, but you also have to follow your own desire to lay it aside and not post things to me for my education and expect me not to respond.

 

[Grant]

Her view: not culture and cannot be discarded
My view: not culture and cannot be discarded
Her view: not a hat or hair
My view: not a hat or hair
Her view: her husband's name (non-physical object)
My view: husband's authority over his wife/pastor's authority over single/widow women. (non-physical object)

Twice I have agreed to lay aside our discussion. Twice you have brought it up once by replying to a post I wrote for a different member and once when you placed a link to Al's Q&A link. Although you didn't name me in this last post with his link, it was clearly for my education since no one else has brought up Al's views. I will for a third time agree to lay aside our discussion, but you also have to follow your own desire to lay it aside and not post things to me for my education and expect me not to respond.

That sounds great. I just wanted to make sure that Albert Mohler’s position was represented accurately. Which is all I have done.

 

[Cedarbay]

I've been settled on this issue for years, yet this discussion did cause further reflection of Scripture, reading some of the links presented here and re-reading from past and present Reformers.

Since the current church we are visiting nor my husband require head covering, I do not wear one and I am not convicted to do so, however, as Jeri suggested, I would wear one if visiting a church that did require it.

 

[De Jager]

I would see this as being a secondary issue among Christians, so would listen to others viewpoints, and then agree to disagree in a charitable fashion, showing the love of Christ.

Of course it is a secondary issue, however it is the issue at hand. If you've already decided to "agree to disagree", then there is no point even discussing it. What do you 'disagree' on in my posts?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Time for closing this folks.