In reply to:the fact that there are some other "Reformed theologians" as well as probably the majority of Churches today that would believe similar to Marcus, would seem to me to give his understanding some credence.
So, in other words, the standard for having a high view of scripture according to your logic is if "some other "Reformed Theologians" and the majority of Churches today agree with exhalting historical tradition over clear exegesis? And that further, when that clear exegesis is not an isolated statement of scripture, but rather is consistent with Paul's, indeed the entire Biblical's, teaching on the respective roles of men and women in the divine economy? I believe, Tom, that is called the "herd mentality".
In reply to:I don't believe that Matthew Henry or any of the other commentators that Marcus mentioned have a low view of God's Word, whether they are right about this matter or not.
As far as Mathew Henry is concerned, he is not my favorite Commentator, but I do respect him as a man with a high view of scripture. Just out of curiosity, I went and looked at his commentary on this passage and I find nothing that indicates that his view is in agreement with Marcus'. Thus, I must conclude that Marcus, anxious to see what he wanted to see in this commentary, just as he was anxious to see what he wanted to see in the verse, has misinterpreted Henry's words just as he did Hodge's.
In reply to:This debate kind of reminds me of the Paedo vs. Credo debate, while only one can be correct on the topic; the fact is there are many fine Christians on both sides of the issue.
I agree there are some similarities between this and the paedo/credo issue, but I would contend that they are minor similarities. First, I don't agree with the assertion that "only one can be correct on the topic", for as I have said before, I believe there is adequate support for both believers baptism and infant sprinkling as a sign of the covenant. The problem, to my view is when either side begins to add all sorts of inferances, such as presumptive regeneration, associated with either postion, and then begins to castigate "the other side" for not adopting their postion.
Secondly, the issue here, in head coverings, is very simply whether or not we will honor God's authority in establishing the order of relationships. In a society/culture that is actively rejecting that authority and exhaulting the woman over the man in every way imaginable, it seems important to me to take a stand against it, and that stand, in the context of the Church, as Paul states here is to be an outward sign of respect for that authority while worshiping and praying in the assembly. Were all those affected by this issue to "quit kicking against the goad", I believe they would be on the way to experiencing the peace that passes all understanding, instead of being in constant rebellion and turmoil against the created order.
