View Full Version : Women and the Hair thing. what an OLD timer thought
John Calvin (1509-1564)
"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 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."
"Hence we infer that the woman has her hair given her for a covering. Should any one now object, that her hair is enough, as being a natural covering, Paul says that it is not, for it is such a covering as requires another thing to be made use of for covering it. And hence a conjecture is drawn, with some appearance of probability — that women who had beautiful hair were accustomed to uncover their heads for the purpose of showing off their beauty. It is not…" (John Calvin's Commentary on Head Coverings)
[B]
Boy this sure made me giggle.
Elizabeth
05-07-2007, 02:17 PM
Here I thought we owed our moral depravity to Hollywood and rap music. I didn't realize it was because woman decided to show off their hair!
I imagine in John Calvin was alive today he would think he was right!
John Calvin (1509-1564)
"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 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."
"Hence we infer that the woman has her hair given her for a covering. Should any one now object, that her hair is enough, as being a natural covering, Paul says that it is not, for it is such a covering as requires another thing to be made use of for covering it. And hence a conjecture is drawn, with some appearance of probability — that women who had beautiful hair were accustomed to uncover their heads for the purpose of showing off their beauty. It is not…" (John Calvin's Commentary on Head Coverings)
[B]Boy this sure made me giggle.Sounds like he was making the veil argument as opposed to the "the hair is the covering" argument.
Sounds like he was making the veil argument as opposed to the "the hair is the covering" argument.
I think you are right. but it dont matter what the argument was, It gave me a good laugh!
nathan_slatter
05-07-2007, 02:25 PM
I think you are right. but it dont matter what the argument was, It gave me a good laugh!
FERD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FERD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
what? I couldnt help it!
nathan_slatter
05-07-2007, 02:27 PM
what? I couldnt help it!
Oh -- that's how I say hello sometimes. :D
Oh -- that's how I say hello sometimes. :D
oh! Hey dude, wuz up?
Elizabeth
05-07-2007, 02:29 PM
I think you are right. but it don't matter what the argument was, It gave me a good laugh!
Perhaps he was prophesying and thought the head covering was to blame...j/k But the argument does stand to reason that is the point he was trying to make.
J. Calvin would laugh at what some churches use as veils today.
Or get realy ticked :D
nathan_slatter
05-07-2007, 02:30 PM
Perhaps he was prophesying and thought the head covering was to blame...j/k But the argument does stand to reason that is the point he was trying to make.
J. Calvin would laugh at what some churches use as veils today.
Or get realy ticked :D
*grin* I'm sure it would be the latter... :D
Michlow
05-07-2007, 02:31 PM
FERD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You forgot where you were :laffatu
nathan_slatter
05-07-2007, 02:32 PM
You forgot where you were :laffatu
SHUT UP!!! QUIT PICKING ON ME!!! *runs from the room crying*
*grin* I'm sure it would be the latter... :D
even the ultra cons are con enough for old John.
Michlow
05-07-2007, 02:39 PM
SHUT UP!!! QUIT PICKING ON ME!!! *runs from the room crying*
Gonna tell "Mama" on me??? :tease
nathan_slatter
05-07-2007, 02:41 PM
Gonna tell "Mama" on me??? :tease
YES! :sad
Digging4Truth
05-07-2007, 03:09 PM
Well he was certainly correct about the end result was he not?
Steve Epley
05-07-2007, 03:14 PM
John Calvin (1509-1564)
"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 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."
"Hence we infer that the woman has her hair given her for a covering. Should any one now object, that her hair is enough, as being a natural covering, Paul says that it is not, for it is such a covering as requires another thing to be made use of for covering it. And hence a conjecture is drawn, with some appearance of probability — that women who had beautiful hair were accustomed to uncover their heads for the purpose of showing off their beauty. It is not…" (John Calvin's Commentary on Head Coverings)
[B]
Boy this sure made me giggle.
He was predestined to be wrong on this subject he is morally depraved and his atonement(covering) is limited. But Calvin again was wrong on another subject.:thumbsup
Scott Hutchinson
05-07-2007, 04:34 PM
If Calvin was here he'd bbq all of us OPs.
He'd eat fried Oneness on the stake.
vBulletin® v3.8.5, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.