Church Fathers Opinion of Hair

TheLegalist · #1 07-02-2009, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam

That was then, this is now.

In our culture (United States) a woman is not considered immoral if her hair and/or face is visible.

So this reasoning for contempt of scripture is based on what? Paul does not give such reasoning and his foundation is not based on culture in the text but Spiritual prinicples of God witnessed and verified by the Apostle himself. Whether you agree it's hair or veiling or both... Little reasoning can be given to it doesn't apply today from the text. That would be reasoning external to the text itself.

Also who justified changing such principles of modesty in culture was right? If we want to get into warranted reasons for excluding we can also give for modesty and love for inclusion more which are principle based. Even more so in this perverted lustful generation.

Praxeas · #2 07-02-2009, 02:10 PM

If Hermeneutics tells us history helps in interpreting scripture....why don't the protestants all go back to the RCC who have more history than they do?

GrowingPains · #3 07-02-2009, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

If Hermeneutics tells us history helps in interpreting scripture....why don't the protestants all go back to the RCC who have more history than they do?

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.

Praxeas · #4 07-02-2009, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

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

GrowingPains · #5 07-02-2009, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Yes but they do have the longest history. In fact RCCs appeal to history all the time as do all Trinitarians I have encountered

Oh yes, they even trump history over the written word due to ex cathedra. Their popes still speak scripture. Imagine that.

Praxeas · #6 07-02-2009, 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GrowingPains

Oh yes, they even trump history over the written word due to ex cathedra. Their popes still speak scripture. Imagine that.

If we used the historical/biblical method, should we all be Roman Catholics?

GrowingPains · #7 07-02-2009, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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.

GrowingPains · #8 07-02-2009, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

So this reasoning for contempt of scripture is based on what? Paul does not give such reasoning and his foundation is not based on culture in the text but Spiritual prinicples of God witnessed and verified by the Apostle himself. Whether you agree it's hair or veiling or both... Little reasoning can be given to it doesn't apply today from the text. That would be reasoning external to the text itself.

Also who justified changing such principles of modesty in culture was right? If we want to get into warranted reasons for excluding we can also give for modesty and love for inclusion more which are principle based. Even more so in this perverted lustful generation.

Are you sure about that? What makes you certain that his appeal transcended culture?

It most certainly applies today, the question is how. To understand that, one needs to understand what it mean then first and foremost. As I understand it, the principle is that while we are a sub-culture, we ought not be counter-cultural. Additionally, the church should not be associated with things today that general society abhors. The church should co-exist and be a positive in society, not a rival to it. In the world, just not of it (in terms of core values, ideas, beliefs, etc...) We win the world by making disciples.

Praxeas · #9 07-02-2009, 03:26 PM

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

Sam · #10 07-02-2009, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheLegalist

So this reasoning for contempt of scripture is based on what? Paul does not give such reasoning and his foundation is not based on culture in the text but Spiritual prinicples of God witnessed and verified by the Apostle himself. Whether you agree it's hair or veiling or both... Little reasoning can be given to it doesn't apply today from the text. That would be reasoning external to the text itself.

Also who justified changing such principles of modesty in culture was right? If we want to get into warranted reasons for excluding we can also give for modesty and love for inclusion more which are principle based. Even more so in this perverted lustful generation.

I don't think my post reflected any "contempt of scripture."

Paul addressed a situation in a given time and in a given place. At that time and in that place women were considered immoral if they appeared in public without a veil. Paul was teaching them not to indulge in activity (going without a veil) that would seem immoral and scandalous to those around them.

What is the application? Avoid behavior that goes against contemporary morality.