TheLegalist, in my opinion nobody is trying to justify changing the principles of modesty in culture. If you have read any of my posts, you know that I do NOT claim to be a scholar and do not want to get into a debate. I have just recently started studying all this myself. That said, my response is below.
If you read all the "stuff" in other threads and go to some of the links you will see that many believe that Paul was respecting the culture in the Corinthian churches and such. For instance, he spoke against those expecting gentiles to be circumcised and then required Luke, I think it was, to be circumcised because of the "culture" of the area they were going to visit.
So, for some it stands to reason that we need to respect the culture at large that we are visiting and living in. Not to say that we become like the worst of society! I guarantee that my unsaved, smoking and drinking friends know what is modest and what is not modest. (Not according to UPC, but according to the majority of US society.)
They would say that low cut blouses, tight clothing and such are a stumbling block for both men and women. Men know what "turns them on" and so do women. Both know how to dress if they want to get the attention of the opposite sex. ;-)
Now in response to the question for this thread...
Everything goes back to opinion, of course, but I agree that the scriptures they refer to are suggesting that women should not adorn themselves for attention and that trying to change the way God made us to look and the natural aging process that God also caused (due to sin in the beginning in my opinion) is not pleasing to God.
That said, I DO NOT think that we should make heaven or hell issues out of things that God did not make as heaven or hell issues. We each need to pray and be open to God speaking to us personally about what we should wear, where we should go etc.
I am not sure where to mention this in my post, but it still strikes me funny when we discuss the hair issue and don't recognize what Paul is saying about the veils. Just as these articles are saying, a veil is a covering, a complete covering. So if we are going to get into legalism, we need to forget the hair stuff because it would not be seen. LOL
Also, if Paul were saying that women should always wear a veil, then why mention not braiding the hair and putting ornaments in it since nobody would be able to see their hair? Oops, I guess that would be a question for another thread.
Some good common sense thoughts in here.
One point, I don't think most make this a soteriological issue (matter of salvation), but reason it as an ecclesiasiological (concerning the theology of the church).
It helps, it's not the end-all. It's one of many: historical context at the time, general history, what did it mean then, what does it mean now, etc...
RCC has been helpful with some historical verification. We use it often as a help for many of our commentaries. Not all are formally RCC, though maybe claimed as such. For example, Eusebius was a historian.
Yes but they do have the longest history. In fact RCCs appeal to history all the time as do all Trinitarians I have encountered
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
Who said the veil covered all of the hair? Also who said wearing veils all the time was necessary? The text says praying and prophecying? Otherwise in Spiritual order to God. Thus I think your points lack textual support.
Concerning your other points... They don't deal with text itself. Paul does not give that form or type of reasoning at all. I have read and reasearched the arguments from both sides and been through formal debate after formal debate. To each his own but in the end it is God who we must seek 1st and his will. I cannot justify the reasoning of others that make the text not for today. It doesn't say that nor even hint to such.
NewsFlash: The Jewish Faith is not looming over our backs, and we are far-removed from the time when Jews, who made up a large portion of the early church, were moving into Christianity. Paul made many accomodations for them, being sensitive to how new most of it was. Of course he rebuked the Judaizers too.
Have you researched the type of veils worn? What did you come up with? From what I've read, they were long and flowing veils that went to the ground almost.
if long uncut hair was to be her veil then a LOT of Pentecostal ladies are violating this scripture by not letting their hair down but piling it up on top of her head
__________________ Let it be understood that Apostolic Friends Forum is an Apostolic Forum.
Apostolic is defined on AFF as:
There is One God. This one God reveals Himself distinctly as Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
The Son is God himself in a human form or "God manifested in the flesh" (1Tim 3:16)
Every sinner must repent of their sins.
That Jesus name baptism is the only biblical mode of water baptism.
That the Holy Ghost is for today and is received by faith with the initial evidence of speaking in tongues.
The saint will go on to strive to live a holy life, pleasing to God.
If we used the historical/biblical method, should we all be Roman Catholics?
No, we should all be Day of Pentecostics. The ultimate trump on history is the New Testament. The others serve as guides for interpretation. Historical/Biblical method uses both church and secular history to help understand the original Text, not opine into editorials about new text.
No, we should all be Day of Pentecostics. The ultimate trump on history is the New Testament. The others serve as guides for interpretation. Historical/Biblical method uses both church and secular history to help understand the original Text, not opine into editorials about new text.
Good point. So, get together and use human languages you haven't learned, bring tongues as of flame down, listen to the wind....
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Good point. So, get together and use human languages you haven't learned, bring tongues as of flame down, listen to the wind....
Is that the entire context of the New Testament? Go steal one of those Gideons out of the hotel room!
Martin Luther called out the RCC because of its straying away from NT Christianity. He noticed it on their soteriology. This progressed, blah blah blah... if you are a Restoriationist, you see us still returning back to the D.O.P., the birthday of the Church.
What I'm saying is we use historical writings as evidence, not as our truth claims.
Is that the entire context of the New Testament? Go steal one of those Gideons out of the hotel room!
Martin Luther called out the RCC because of its straying away from NT Christianity. He noticed it on their soteriology. This progressed, blah blah blah... if you are a Restoriationist, you see us still returning back to the D.O.P., the birthday of the Church.
What I'm saying is we use historical writings as evidence, not as our truth claims.
It was just the most "Day of Pentecostic" thing I could think of.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
We each need to pray and be open to God speaking to us personally about what we should wear, where we should go etc.
Linear Mode
