Donations for the month of April


We have received a total of $100 in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Search

Member Spotlight
Anthony C.
Anthony C.
NJ/PA
Posts: 218
Joined: May 2016
Show All Member Profiles 
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics6,620
Posts51,090
Members925
Most Online373
Mar 5th, 2017
Top Posters(All Time)
Pilgrim 13,411
Tom 3,426
chestnutmare 2,910
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,754
RJ_ 1,582
MarieP 1,578
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Pilgrim 18
Tom 10
cathmg 5
Tina 3
John_C 3
Kaylin 1
Recent Posts
What exactly is a confessional church
by Pilgrim. Fri Apr 20, 2018 6:33 AM
Dispensationalism
by Tom. Thu Apr 19, 2018 9:55 PM
James White Article
by Pilgrim. Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:10 PM
Importance of dating the destruction of the Temple
by Pilgrim. Thu Apr 12, 2018 8:13 PM
A study of the Heidelberg Catechism
by cathmg. Wed Apr 11, 2018 8:58 PM
"The Reformed View of Sanctification" - Sinclair Ferguson
by Pilgrim. Sun Apr 01, 2018 7:04 AM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 1 of 2 1 2
New thread on head coverings #8284
Tue Dec 02, 2003 5:08 PM
Tue Dec 02, 2003 5:08 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,578
Kentucky
MarieP Offline OP
Permanent Resident
MarieP  Offline OP
Permanent Resident
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,578
Kentucky
Pilgrim and others,

I have been thinking about this issue lately. Here are some questions I have:

1. What sort of head covering are we takling about? A scarf? A hat with a veil?

2. If several Christians get together and decide to worship God together, should the women then go get their head coverings?

3. If women worshipping without a head covering is a sin, and if the Holy Spirit produces in us the abhorrence of sin, then what does this tell us? THe only denominations I can think of that require head coverings are Greek Orthodox and Apostolic churches, both less than orthodox and apostolic.

4. How did the wives of the Reformers understand this issue of head coverings? Did they wear head coverings? Did their husbands teach that they should wear them?


True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
Re: New thread on head coverings [Re: MarieP] #8285
Tue Dec 02, 2003 6:05 PM
Tue Dec 02, 2003 6:05 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
The Biblical word katakalupto means "to cover completely" or "to conceal." A scarf or a "prayer hat" does not conceal the head. It does not even conceal the hair. If you can still see a woman's hair when she is wearing her "covering", then she is not covered in the way Paul describes in 1 Corinthians 11. <br><br>[color:blue]The Catacombs (100-300 a.d.)</font color=blue> (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church & Tom Shank, ed. Let Her Be Veiled)<br><br><ul>Most of the catacombs were constructed during the first three centuries, a few may be traced almost to the apostolic age. …The name of the catacombs is of uncertain origin, but is equivalent to subterranean cemeteries or resting-places for the dead. First used of the Christian cemeteries in the neighborhood of Rome, it was afterwards applied to those of Naples, Malta, Sicily, Alexandra, Paris, and other cities. …In their catacombs the Christians could assemble for worship and take refuge in times of persecution. Very rarely they were pursued in these silent retreats. …The catacombs carved in the substrata rock beneath the city of Rome extend to an almost unbelievable 550 miles, are often six levels deep, and contain the room for the interment of over six million bodies. . . . Herein is the first Christian art.…The many paintings on the walls of the catacombs reveal that the uniform dress of women in worship was to cover the head and hair (not the face) with some type of cloth.[/LIST] [color:blue]Irenaeus (120-202 a.d)</font color=blue> (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 1, 8:2, cited in The Ante-Nicene Fathers)<br><br><ul>Irenaeus translates 1 Corinthians 11:10 as follows: "A woman ought to have a veil (kalumma) upon her head, because of the angels." This is significant in that Irenaeus apparently understood the "power" on a woman's head in 1 Corinthians 11:10 to be a veil of some kind and not a woman's hair. [/LIST] [color:blue]Clement of Alexandria (153-217 a.d.)</font color=blue> (Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, cited in The Ante-Nicene Fathers)<br><br>Clement also understands the words in 1 Corinthians 11:5 to refer to a veil of fabric and not to a woman's hair. <br><br><ul>And she will never fall, who puts before her eyes modesty, and her shawl; nor will she invite another to fall into sin by uncovering her face. For this is the wish of the Word, since it is becoming for her to pray veiled" [1 Corinthians 11:5 GLP].[/LIST] [color:blue]Augustine (354-430 a.d.)</font color=blue> (Augustine, Of the Work of Monks, cited in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers)<br><br><ul>We ought not therefore so to understand that made in the image of the Supreme Trinity, that is, in the image of God, as that same image should be understood to be in three human beings; especially when the apostle says that the man is the image of God, and on that account removes the covering from his head, which he warns the woman to use, speaking thus: 'For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man.'[/LIST][color:blue]John Knox (1505-1572)</font color=blue> (John Knox, "The First Blast Of The Trumpet Against The Monstrous Regiment Of Women," Works of John Knox, David Laing, ed.)<br><br><ul>First, I say, the woman in her greatest perfection was made to serve and obey man, not to rule and command him. As saint Paule doth reason in these wordes: 'Man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. And man was created for the cause of the woman, but the woman for the cause of man; and therfore oght the woman to have a power upon her head,' (that is, a coverture in signe of subjection). <br><br>Knox quotes Chrysostom with wholehearted approval: "'Even so, (saith he) oght man and woman to appeare before God, bearing the ensignes of the condition whiche they have received of him. Man hath received a certain glorie and dignitie above the woman; and therfore oght he to appeare before his high Majestie bearing the signe of his honour, havinge no coverture upon his heade, to witnesse that in earth man hath no head.' Beware Chrysostome what thou saist! thou shalt be reputed a traytor if Englishe men heare thee, for they must have my Sovereine Lady and Maistresse [Queen Elizabeth--GLP]; and Scotland hath dronken also the enchantment and venom of Circes [the enchantress represented by Homer as turning the companions of Odysseus into swine by means of a magic drink--GLP], let it be so to their owne shame and confusion. He procedeth in these wordes, 'But woman oght to be covered, to witnesse that in earth she had a head, that is man.' Trewe it is, Chrysostome, woman is covered in both realmes, but it is not with the signe of subjection, but it is with the signe of superioritie, to witte, with the royal crowne."[/LIST] [color:blue]John Calvin (1509-1564)</font color=blue> (Seth Skolnitsky, trans., Men, Women and Order in the Church: Three Sermons by John Calvin)<br><br><ul> So if women are thus permitted to have their heads uncovered and to show their hair, they will eventually be allowed to expose their entire breasts, and they will come to make their exhibitions as if it were a tavern show; they will become so brazen that modesty and shame will be no more; in short they will forget the duty of nature. . . . So, when it is permissible for the women to uncover their heads, one will say, 'Well, what harm in uncovering the stomach also?' And then after that one will plead [for] something else: 'Now if the women go bareheaded, why not also [bare] this and [bare] that?' Then the men, for their part, will break loose too. In short, there will be no decency left, unless people contain themselves and respect what is proper and fitting, so as not to go headlong overboard. <br><br>When he says 'her hair is for a covering [1 Corinthians 11:15 GLP],' he does not mean that as long as a woman has hair, that should be enough for her. He rather teaches that our Lord is giving a directive that He desires to have observed and maintained. If a woman has long hair, this is equivalent to saying to her, 'Use your head covering, use your hat, use your hood; do not expose yourself in that way!"<br><br>As Calvin said, The woman is the glory of the man. There is no doubt that the woman is a distinguished ornament of the man; for it is a great honor that God has appointed her to the man as the partner of his life, and a helper to him, and has made her subject to him as the body is to the head. For what Solomon affirms as to a careful wife — that she is a crown to her husband, (Proverbs 12:4,) is true of the whole sex, if we look to the appointment of God, which Paul here commends, showing that the woman was created for this purpose — that she might be a distinguished ornament of the man.[/LIST][color:blue]George Gillespie (1613-1648)</font color=blue> (George Gillespie, "A Treatise of Miscellany Questions," The Works of George Gillespie)<br><br>Gillespie, a Westminster Divine, addresses the issue of women speaking as a voice of one in the public worship services of the church when he says, <br><br><ul>But where find we that women who were prophetesses, and immediately inspired, were allowed to deliver their prophecy in the church? I suppose he had a respect to 1 Cor. xi:5, 'But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered, dishonoreth her head,' which is meant of the public assembly, for the Apostle is speaking of covering or uncovering the head in the church. . . . So that the Geneva annotation upon ver. 5, gives a good sense of that text, 'That women which show themselves in public and ecclesiastical assemblies, without the sign and token of their subjection, that is to say, uncovered, shame themselves. <br><br>As for the veils wherewith the Apostle would have women covered whilst they were praying (that is, in their hearts following the public and common prayer), or prophesying (that is, singing, 1Sa 10:10; 1 Chronicles 25:1), they are worthy to be covered with shame as with a garment who allege this example for sacred significant ceremonies of human institution. This covering was a moral sign for that comely and orderly distinction of men and women which civil decency required in all their meetings. . . .[/LIST] [color:blue]A Group of Presbyterian Ministers from London during the time of the Westminster Assembly (1646)</font color=blue> (David W. Hall, ed., The Divine Right of Church Government)<br><br><ul>The wife must have power (exousia) on her head, i.e., a veil is token of her husband's power over her (1Co 11:10) . . . .[/LIST] [color:blue]William Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich</font color=blue> (A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature)<br><br><ul> Under the Greek verb, katakalupto, the following translation is given for 1 Corinthians 11:6 a: "cover oneself [with GLP] a veil.[/LIST][color:blue]Albrect Oepke</font color=blue> (A contributor to the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, ed)<br><br><ul>The veiling of women is a custom in Israel. A disgraced woman comes veiled to judgment (katakekalummene, Sus.32). Yet one may suspect that a woman muffled up (katekalupsato to prosopon) and lurking by the wayside is a harlot (Gen 38:15). This opens the way for an understanding of the relevant NT passage. The veiling of women in the NT and the contemporary world. In the NT katakaluptein occurs only in 1 C. 11:6f in the middle voice. In support of his requirement that women should not pray or prophesy with uncovered heads, Paul appeals to the following considerations of natural law: [Oepke then quotes 1 Corinthians 11:6-7 in Greek].[/LIST]


Reformed and Always Reforming,
Re: New thread on head coverings [Re: MarieP] #8286
Tue Dec 02, 2003 6:29 PM
Tue Dec 02, 2003 6:29 PM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,411
NH, USA
Pilgrim Offline

Head Honcho
Pilgrim  Offline

Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 13,411
NH, USA
1. What sort of head covering are we talking about? A scarf? A hat with a veil?
Personally, I am not convinced that any specific head covering is mandated. The principle which the covering symbolizes is what I believe is important and is which Paul is teaching and would have us recognize and implement.

2. If several Christians get together and decide to worship God together, should the women then go get their head coverings?
The context of Paul's teaching is specific to Corporate Worship, i.e., where the assembly of the saints are gathered together with the Elders and Deacons, where the Word is preached, sacraments are administered and church discipline is exercised. The scenario you have posed wouldn't qualify.

3. If women worshipping without a head covering is a sin, and if the Holy Spirit produces in us the abhorrence of sin, then what does this tell us? The only denominations I can think of that require head coverings are Greek Orthodox and Apostolic churches, both less than orthodox and apostolic.
There are a number of Protestant churches that continue to practice this injunction. I know that some of the more conservative Dutch Reformed Churches do, e.g., Free Reformed and Netherlands Reformed. If my memory serves me right, which is becoming a rare occurrence, the RCPNA (Covenanters) denomination also uphold head coverings.

4. How did the wives of the Reformers understand this issue of head coverings? Did they wear head coverings? Did their husbands teach that they should wear them?
Sorry....! [Linked Image]

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Re: New thread on head coverings [Re: MarieP] #8287
Tue Dec 02, 2003 9:28 PM
Tue Dec 02, 2003 9:28 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A


Dear Marie:

In reply to:

"THe only denominations I can think of that require head coverings are Greek Orthodox and Apostolic churches, both less than orthodox and apostolic."

Unfortunately, the practice has sadly declined, but then so have many aspects of Biblical faith and practice.

Being over 50 I can remember as child attending a number of churches of different, denominations, eg; Methodist, Presbyterian, and Baptist, none of which were particulary serious about their faith by the way, but even so, nearly all the women wore hats in observance of this teaching by Paul. They may not all have understood the scriptural teaching with respect to submission and created order, but they at least followed the practice in outward actions.

Therefore, your comment is more of an observation of the decline in our societiy's respect of the Lord's commands than a reason not to obey. Paul's teaching is clear and his reasons for the teaching are equally clear, especially in the context of the whole analogy of the faith.

In Him,

Gerry

Re: New thread on head coverings [Re: Pilgrim] #8288
Tue Dec 02, 2003 9:32 PM
Tue Dec 02, 2003 9:32 PM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 351
The Great White North, Eh!
Henry Offline
Enthusiast
Henry  Offline
Enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 351
The Great White North, Eh!
I go to an Open Brethren church. (Don't worry, it's quite evangelical- err, in a good way, that is!) Head coverings aren't "enforced," per se, but the reason for that is because the elders said that if they enforced it, it would take away from the whole reason: submission. Thus, they do expect women, who plan on praying or talking in the service, to cover their heads.


(Latin phrase goes here.)
Re: New thread on head coverings [Re: Henry] #8289
Tue Dec 02, 2003 10:02 PM
Tue Dec 02, 2003 10:02 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A


I attended a Plymouth Brethren church for about a year and we always wore head coverings. Then when I attended other churches, I sometimes would wear a hat, although usually no one else did. Some women would come up to me after church and say things like, "Oh, I wish I could wear hats like you do!" It seemed like what I was trying to do was being misinterpreted as me making a fashion statement. Perhaps someone could design a nice sensible modest hat that doesn't draw undue attention to the wearer. I don't like the doily idea either. It seems silly. My present pastor's position on headcoverings is that they are cultural.

Re: New thread on head coverings #8290
Tue Dec 02, 2003 10:09 PM
Tue Dec 02, 2003 10:09 PM
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,578
Kentucky
MarieP Offline OP
Permanent Resident
MarieP  Offline OP
Permanent Resident
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,578
Kentucky
One Sunday morning, when it was raining, I was wearing my blue-green rain-hood on the way in to church. I thought about leaving it on to see what people would say, but it clashed with my dress...


True godliness is a sincere feeling which loves God as Father as much as it fears and reverences Him as Lord, embraces His righteousness, and dreads offending Him worse than death~ Calvin
Re: New thread on head coverings [Re: MarieP] #8291
Tue Dec 02, 2003 10:21 PM
Tue Dec 02, 2003 10:21 PM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A


Marie,
One time we had a visitor at church who was shabbily dressed and wore a baseball hat all through the service. I kept thinking to myself, "Why don't you take off your hat, mister?" Afterwards I went over to greet this visitor and quickly found out that he was a she! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/blush.gif" alt="blush" title="blush[/img]
Susan

Re: New thread on head coverings [Re: Henry] #8292
Wed Dec 03, 2003 4:38 AM
Wed Dec 03, 2003 4:38 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A


Henry, I would advise you to find a Calvinist place to attend as soon as possible.<br><br>howard

Re: New thread on head coverings [Re: MarieP] #8293
Wed Dec 03, 2003 4:43 AM
Wed Dec 03, 2003 4:43 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A


Should Christian men wear their hair short when women cover their heads ?<br><br>If this is the case , then why did the Puritans have hair as long as women ?<br><br>howard

Re: New thread on head coverings #8294
Wed Dec 03, 2003 11:20 AM
Wed Dec 03, 2003 11:20 AM
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 199
Go Purdue! So guess at it alre...
E_F_Grant Offline
Addict
E_F_Grant  Offline
Addict
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 199
Go Purdue! So guess at it alre...
Did they? Or were those wigs? (I know some were not) Or were womens' locks simply customarily longer than men's? Interesting you should quote Cromwell...he was a "roundhead" because he did not have the customary long locks of the era.


Stand Fast, Craigellachie!
Re: New thread on head coverings #8295
Wed Dec 03, 2003 12:18 PM
Wed Dec 03, 2003 12:18 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
In reply to:
[color:"blue"]why did the Puritans have hair as long as women ?

IMHO it depends on what YOU interpret as long hair and what a Puritan would interpreted as long hair? Also, where would the long hair be--Puritan's may say hair over the "face" is what is in question and not how long it is at the shoulders. Then of course we have the wig issue, but it still in essence would violate what most here would say is long hair. When my 3 hairs get to long I always have them cut [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile[/img]

I am not sure how credible or accurate this link is, but it does assist in gaining some understanding of the issue.



Reformed and Always Reforming,
Re: New thread on head coverings [Re: E_F_Grant] #8296
Thu Dec 04, 2003 5:27 AM
Thu Dec 04, 2003 5:27 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A


They were wigs but then they dress as women which is also forbidden . <br><br>howard

Re: New thread on head coverings #8297
Thu Dec 04, 2003 6:34 AM
Thu Dec 04, 2003 6:34 AM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
J_Edwards Offline
Needs to get a Life
J_Edwards  Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
USA
In reply to:
[color:"blue"]They were wigs but then they dress as women which is also forbidden.

Is this really what you see when you look at their pictures? Woman and men dressed very differently then (I can not say so much for today, men with earring's, et. al.). Here we need to look at the culture and discern their differences of which there are many. In today's culture when you look at their clothing you may think that the men dressed as woman, but what was common place then in their time? Taking your interpretation of comparing yesterday's clothing with today's standards, Jesus himself would be wearing woman's clothing?

Here is a link to: Puritan Clothing.

IMHO a woman may wear a head covering that would be considered modest, but stylish by today's standards. Actually, to wear something that is not stylish may actually detract from the ministry of the Word and sacraments in worship as everyone would be looking at your 3 foot whatever covering.


Attached Files-Click on Image to view full size.
1-30006-seuss.jpg (101 downloads)

Reformed and Always Reforming,
Re: New thread on head coverings [Re: J_Edwards] #8298
Thu Dec 04, 2003 7:42 AM
Thu Dec 04, 2003 7:42 AM

A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A


You are quite right Joe , I was just messing really.

When I became a biker back in 1977 , I turned up at my folks with a pierced ear . My dad thought I'd become a poof ! (sodomite). I had to tell him that poofs wore ear-rings in their right ear , mine was in the left. He still took some convincing though !

howard

Page 1 of 2 1 2

Who's Online Now
1 registered members (chestnutmare), 17 guests, and 108 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Dutch Michael, Ray, robertolang, SmallFry, drewk
925 Registered Users
Shout Box
April
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Popular Topics(Views)
736,079 Gospel truth
Page Time: 0.055s Queries: 17 (0.004s) Memory: 2.9757 MB (Peak: 3.2834 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2018-04-21 13:37:12 UTC