Uri, this is great. Very relevant today but also an evergreen piece that every generation should apply. How would you differentiate this argument from the one you made in critiquing Gary Demar during the hyperpreterism controversy? A ditch on the other side of the road? https://app.theopolisinstitute.com/tabs/search/podcasts/6457/episodes/26
Thomas, my concern pertains to practices and secondary theological issues.
I made myself clear before on primary issues— to reject the Second Coming is to renounce I Corinthians 15 as a biblical witness.
Teachers are held to a higher standard. I believe if anyone willingly denies the Second Coming at the end of history, he’s denying the vindication and victory of Jesus, and therefore is condemned to eternal destruction in hell.
You were likely thinking about head coverings when assembling your thoughts for this piece, yes?
I do believe the historical argument for covering is secondary to the exegetical, but it is a case where historical practice is a 10,000’ tall juggernaut, and our hyper-modern variance a birthday clown with a squirty flower lapel.
Headcovering has probably changed more dramatically than most practices since virtually no practice today resembles the 16th century in frequency, timing, style, etc. Worship segregation was 10,000 times more unified in practice than headcovering.
John Calvin himself wore hats during sermons, as did many of the Revivalists and itinerant preachers in Whitfield's day. However, the frequency of usage among women is much rarer than in the 16th century, with its daily habits. Furthermore, the rationale for the use has dramatically altered, even among the Reformers. The Augsburg Confession makes it optional among women. So, I think the analogy is much more varied than the simplistic analysis.
Thank you for the share!
Uri, this is great. Very relevant today but also an evergreen piece that every generation should apply. How would you differentiate this argument from the one you made in critiquing Gary Demar during the hyperpreterism controversy? A ditch on the other side of the road? https://app.theopolisinstitute.com/tabs/search/podcasts/6457/episodes/26
Thomas, my concern pertains to practices and secondary theological issues.
I made myself clear before on primary issues— to reject the Second Coming is to renounce I Corinthians 15 as a biblical witness.
Teachers are held to a higher standard. I believe if anyone willingly denies the Second Coming at the end of history, he’s denying the vindication and victory of Jesus, and therefore is condemned to eternal destruction in hell.
You were likely thinking about head coverings when assembling your thoughts for this piece, yes?
I do believe the historical argument for covering is secondary to the exegetical, but it is a case where historical practice is a 10,000’ tall juggernaut, and our hyper-modern variance a birthday clown with a squirty flower lapel.
Headcovering has probably changed more dramatically than most practices since virtually no practice today resembles the 16th century in frequency, timing, style, etc. Worship segregation was 10,000 times more unified in practice than headcovering.
John Calvin himself wore hats during sermons, as did many of the Revivalists and itinerant preachers in Whitfield's day. However, the frequency of usage among women is much rarer than in the 16th century, with its daily habits. Furthermore, the rationale for the use has dramatically altered, even among the Reformers. The Augsburg Confession makes it optional among women. So, I think the analogy is much more varied than the simplistic analysis.
Nevertheless, this post was stirred by a recent quote from Bavinck on the necessity of Scripture to shape our natural theology, a claim that many CN's ethnocentrists use to justify morbid and dangerous race-theories and hatred of Jews. See this: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1683598083/ref=cm_sw_r_ffobk_cso_cp_apin_dp_H3WMRNZ9SX8CWZQNB3R2