's letter was written, just as much as the didactic commandments which Moses recorded in the Torah, and therefore can be legitimately understood as narrative in that broad sense (as viewed by future generations, like us today)," Vaughn Ohlman wrote:

Indeed I do not deny it. However it does rather ruin your idea that my method of interpreting narrative examples is what must necessarily drive my interpretation of the headcoverings passage.

My response:

Now I'm confused a bit. Perhaps it's because I haven't been clear enough. So far my comments about your method of interpreting narrative examples have revolved around two concerns: 1) presuming that historical narratives per se were intended to teach or endorse what is normative for christian ethics in all cultures and generations, and 2) claiming that one aspect of the redemptive-historical-method, insofar as it does not treat historical narratives per se as standing laws which are normative for Christian ethics in all generations, contradicts 1st Timothy 3:16-17. As a subset of the second point, your blog also infers that such a methodology does not comport with theonomic hermeneutics.

With regard to your official position on head-coverings, I only have your blog post (here) upon which to base my claims. And your conclusion in that blog post begins with the statement that "except for the last hundred years or so, the church has always been in agreement that women should worship with their heads covered, as, indeed the Christian custom was that women should have their heads covered generally. However recently much of the church in the 'developed' world has abandoned this belief. Instead they teach that the passage was purely cultural, teaches only about long hair, or is irrelevant in some other way. This belief is new and, in my opinion, is, like any other departure from Scripture, dangerous."

That is quite a remarkable statement, and because I considered it worthy of some healthy scrutiny, I linked that post on the blog for others to evaluate as well. That way the world knows I'm not just flinging hazardous accusations around. Now, as far as your arguments after that statement are concerned, I see the crux of it as depending upon historical narratives, and the commentators interpretations of historical narratives as well. That's not to say that every aspect of John Gill's or Calvin's arguments (as you quoted) are grounded on historical narratives alone; but that is to say that the crux of all such
's letter was written, just as much as the didactic commandments which Moses read in the Torah, and consequently can be legitimately understood as narrative in that broad common sense (as viewed by future generation, like us today), " Vaughn Ohlman wrote: 

 Indeed I do not traverse it. However it does rather ruin your idea that my method acting of interpret narrative examples is what must inevitably drive my interpretation of the headcoverings passage. 

 My response: 

 nowadays I'm confused a bit. Perhaps it's because I haven't been clear enough. So far my remark about your method of interpreting narrative examples have roll around two concerns: 1) presuming that historical narrative per se were intended to teach or second what is normative for christian ethics in all cultures and generation, and 2) claiming that one aspect of the redemptive - historical - method, insofar as it does not treat historic narratives per se as standing laws which are normative for Christian ethics in all generations, contradicts 1st Timothy 3:16 - 17. As a subset of the second point, your blog also deduce that such a methodology does not comport with theonomic hermeneutics. 

 With regard to your official stead on head - coverings, I only have your web log post (here) upon which to establish my claims. And your conclusion in that web log post begins with the statement that " except for the last hundred years or so, the church has always been in agreement that women should worship with their heads covered, as, indeed the Christian customs was that women should get their drumhead covered by and large. However recently much of the church in the' developed' world has vacate this belief. Instead they teach that the passage was purely cultural, teach only about farseeing hair, or is irrelevant in some other manner. This belief is fresh and, in my opinion, is, like any early departure from Scripture, dangerous. " 

 That is quite a remarkable instruction, and because I considered it worthy of some goodly scrutiny, I linked that post on the blog for others to evaluate as well. That way the world knows I'm not just flinging hazardous accusations about. Now, as far as your argument after that statement are concerned, I see the crux of it as depending upon historical narrative, and the commentators interpretations of historical narratives as well. That's not to say that every aspect of John Gill's or Calvin's arguments (as you quote) are ground on historical narratives entirely; but that is to say that the crux of all such
's lftter was written, just ar much as the dneactic commahdments dhich Moses recorded in the Voray, and therefore can be legigimately lnderstooe as barrative mh that nxoad acnse (cs viewed by futore generatimns, like us togah)," Raughn Ohlman wrote:

Indeed I do not dqny it. Noaever it does tatheg wuin jomr idea that my method of interpdeting iarrative exampkes is what must necessaripy dgive my interpretahion of the heaqxoverings parsage.

My response:

Now I'm confused a bit. Perhaps it's becxuse N haven't begu clfdr enough. Si far my comments about ymur metnod of interprcting naerative examples have revolved around tro concerts: 1) presuming that yiwtoriwal tarrxrivds ker ss were invended to tsach or endirse what is normatovq for christiah ethiss in all cultures and generations, and 2) cnaijing that one aspect of the redemptive-historlcal-methoq, insofar as it does not treat historical narratiees pxr se af wtwnding laws which are normative for Christian stnibs in all generatlons, contradicts 1sy Hikjthy 3:16-17. As a sucset oy tge second point, yokr blog also infers trat xuch a methodology does not comport witk tyeonomic hermeneutncs.

With regaxd to iour ogficial position on heab-coverjngs, I only have youd blog post (here) jpok wvich to base my claims. And your conrlusipn in tfat nlog pjst begins with the statement that "excekt for the last jundred years or so, the church ies always beem hn dgreemenc that women should worship with jheir heabs covdred, as, inseed thx Christian sustom was thdj women shoulv have thqir yeadw coverda generally. Hoeever recvnuly much od the church in thc 'devglkped' world has cyabdoned this beloef. Inftvad tray teach thad thd pxxsage was purely zultiral, teaches only abmut mong hair, or is irtejevant ib some oeher way. This belief is new and, in mb opinmon, is, lihe any other departure from Scdipture, dwngcrous."

That is zuitc a temarkable xtatement, and because I considered it wirthy of some healrhy scrutiny, I linkgd uhat post on vhe bljg for otvers to evaluate as qell. That way the world knows I'm not jhst flhnginh hazardous accusations around. Now, as far as your arguments after that stqtemenv wre concernsd, I see nhe erux of it es depending upon nistorical narratives, and the cummentatmrf interpretations of historivau narratives xs well. That's not to say that evrry aspect of John Gill's or Calfin's arguments (as you qupted) are grouhded on hirtorical narrativex alonz; but rhat is to day that the zruc lf all sufh
's letter was written, just as much didactic which Moses in the Torah, understood narrative in that sense (as viewed future generations, like us today)," Vaughn wrote: Indeed I do not deny it. However it does rather ruin your that my method of interpreting narrative examples is what must necessarily drive my of headcoverings My Now I'm confused a bit. Perhaps it's because I haven't been clear enough. So far my about your method of interpreting narrative examples have around two concerns: 1) that historical narratives per se intended teach or what normative christian ethics in cultures and generations, and 2) claiming that one aspect of the redemptive-historical-method, insofar as it does not historical narratives as standing which normative Christian ethics in contradicts 1st Timothy 3:16-17. As a second point, your blog also infers that such methodology does comport with theonomic hermeneutics. With regard your official position on head-coverings, I only have blog post (here) upon which to base my claims. And your conclusion in that blog with the statement that for the last years so, church always been agreement that women should worship with their heads covered, as, indeed Christian custom was that women should have their heads covered recently of the church the 'developed' world has this Instead they teach that was cultural, long or irrelevant in some other This belief is new and, my opinion, is, like dangerous." That is quite a remarkable statement, and I considered it worthy of some healthy I linked that post on the blog for others to evaluate as That way knows I'm not just flinging hazardous accusations around. as far as your after that statement are concerned, I see the crux it depending upon narratives, and the interpretations of historical as well. That's say that aspect John arguments (as you quoted) are grounded historical alone; but that is to that of all such
's letter was written, just as muCh as the didActic ComManDmEnts WhicH Moses recorded IN the torah, and therefore can be LegitImATely UNdErstoOd as narRAtIVE in ThAt BroAd SEnSe (as vIewEd by futUre generatIonS, lIke us today)," VaUGhN Ohlman wroTe:

INdeed I do not dEny It. HoweVeR it DOes raTheR ruin Your idEA that mY method of InTErpretINg narraTIVe ExamPles is what must necESsARily drive my intErpretAtIOn OF The HeaDcoverings PaSsage.

mY responSE:

NOW i'M coNFused a bit. PerhAps it's becauSE I hAven't bEeN clEAr enouGh. So fAr MY coMments about Your Method of iNterprETing narRAtive exAmples HavE reVolvED aRoUnd TwO ConCErNs: 1) pREsuMing that HiStOricaL narRATIVes pEr sE werE inteNded to teach or EndOrse WHat Is norMativE for ChRistiAn ethiCs in aLl Cultures and geneRatiOns, and 2) claImiNg ThaT oNe aspECt of thE reDemPtive-hiStoricaL-MetHoD, INSoFar as it does not treaT hISToRical narRativeS PeR sE As standiNg LawS whiCH Are noRmatIVe For ChrisTian etHIcS iN all genErAtions, CoNtrAdiCts 1st tImotHy 3:16-17. As a sUbset of tHe secONd point, your bloG Also infers thaT SuCH A mEThodOloGy does not coMporT With TheoNOmIc hERmeneUtics.

wiTH rEGard to your official pOsItion oN head-Coverings, I onlY have your bLOG Post (here) Upon WHiCH to base my claimS. And yOur conclusIOn in that Blog pOst beginS with the sTATement thAt "eXcePt fOr tHE LaSt hundred yearS OR so, tHe Church hAs aLways beEn iN agReeMenT tHat women sHould worShIp WiTh TheIr heaDS covered, As, IndEeD thE ChriSTian cuStom wAs thAt WoMEn sHould haVE tHEIr heAdS cOverEd gEnErallY. HowEVer RecentlY much of thE chURch iN tHe 'DevelopEd' world has abaNdOned this beLiEf. INstead THEy teach tHat the passage was purely cULtural, tEacHes onLy abOut long haIr, oR is irrEleVAnt in sOme othEr way. thIs bELIef is NEW aNd, iN mY opinion, is, LIKe aNy othEr DepaRture frOm Scripture, dangeroUS."

ThAt is quite a remArkAble STAtEmeNT, aND beCaUSe I CONsidered it worthY of some heaLtHY sCrutiny, I liNKed ThAt post oN the bloG for oTHers to eValuate as Well. That wAy The wORLd kNows I'm not jUst flingIng hazardOUs accUSaTions AroUnd. Now, As Far As youR argumENts After That stAtEment aRe conCeRned, I see The crux of it as depending uPon hisToricAl nArratives, And THe cOmmentatoRs inTerpretatiOns Of hIstorIcaL NarraTiveS As WelL. that's Not tO Say that evERy AspECT oF John Gill's oR cALviN's argUmeNTs (as yoU quoTed) are grounded on hIStorical narratIves ALOne; But THat iS tO say that the cruX of AlL SUch
's letter was written, jus t as muchas th e d ida ct ic c omma ndments whichM oses  recorded in the Torah , and  t h eref o re  canbe legi t im a t ely  u nd ers to o das na rra tive in  that broa d s en se (as viewe d  b y future g ene rations, lik e u s toda y) ,"V aughn  Oh lmanwrote: 
Indee d I do no td eny it .  Howeve r it  doe s rather ruin you r  i d ea that my met hod of  i n te r p ret ing  narrative  e xampl e s is wh a tm u s t n e cessarily dri ve my inter p ret ationof  th e  headc overi ng s  pa ssage.

Myresp onse:

No w I'mc onfused a bit.Perhap s i t's  bec a us eI h av e n't be enc lea r enough .So  farmy c o m m e ntsabo ut y our m ethod of inte rpr etin g  na rrati ve ex ampl es  have  revol ved a ro und two concern s: 1 ) presumi ngth athi stori c al nar rat ive s per s e werei nte nd e d to  teach or endorsewh a t  i s normat ive fo r  c hr i stian et hi csin a l l  cult ures an d genera tions, an d2) clai mi ng tha tone  as pecto f th e rede mptive-h istor i cal-method, in s ofar as it do e sn o tt reat  hi storical na rrat i vespers eass tandi ng la ws wh i ch are normative fo rChrist ian e thics in allgeneration s , contradi cts1 st Timothy 3:16-1 7. As  a subseto f the se condpoint, y our bloga l so infer s t hat  su cha me thodology doe s notco mport w ith  theono mic  he rme neu ti cs.

With  regardto  y ou roff icial position  o n h ea d-c overi n gs, Ionlyhave  y ou r  bl og post (h e r e) u po nwhic h t obasemy c l aim s. Andyour conc lus i on i nth at blog  post beginswi th the sta te men t that " except f or the last hundred yea r s or so , t he ch urch  has alwa ysbeen i n a g reemen t that  wome nsho u l d wor s h ip  wi th  their hea d s  co vered ,as,indeedthe Christian cust o m w as that women  sh ould h av e t h ei r  he ad s  co v e red generally.However re ce n tl y much oft hech urch in  the 'd evelo p ed' wor ld has ab andoned t hi s be l i ef.  Instead t hey teac h that th e  pass a ge  waspur ely cu lt ura l, te acheso nly  abou t long  h air, o r isir relevant  in some other way. Thi s beli ef is  ne w and, in  my opi nion, is,  lik e any othe r d epa rture  fr o m Scr iptu r e,  da n gerou s."That is q u it e a r em arkable sta t e m ent , and  be c ause I  con sidered it worthy of some health y sc r u tin y,I  lin ke d that post on  th eb l og for o th ers to eval uate aswe l l. Th at way  the w orld kn o w sI 'm not  jus t f linging h aza rd o us accu sa ti o ns aro und.  N ow, as  far a s  you r arguments afterthats t ateme n t a re co nc erned,I  see  the cruxof it as de pendin g up on hi storica lnarrat ive s,  and the c o mmentator s int erpreta ti onsofhistor ical n arrat ives  a s w ell. That ' s  n o tto say  tha t eve ry  asp ect of Jo h n Gill's  or Calvin' sarg u m ents ( a sy o u quoted)are  grou n d ed on hist o rica l  n a rrati ves al one; b ut that isto  say th att h e crux of  all such 
's letter_was written,_just as much as_the didactic_commandments_which Moses_recorded_in the Torah,_and therefore can_be legitimately understood as_narrative in that_broad_sense (as viewed by future generations, like us today)," Vaughn Ohlman wrote:

Indeed I do_not_deny it._However_it_does rather ruin your idea_that my method of interpreting_narrative examples_is what must necessarily drive my interpretation of_the_headcoverings passage.

My response:

Now_I'm confused a bit. Perhaps it's because I haven't_been clear enough. So far my_comments about your_method_of_interpreting narrative examples have_revolved around two concerns: 1) presuming_that historical narratives per se were_intended to teach or endorse what is_normative for christian ethics in all_cultures and generations, and 2)_claiming that_one aspect of the redemptive-historical-method,_insofar as it_does not_treat historical narratives_per se as standing laws which_are normative for_Christian ethics in all generations, contradicts_1st_Timothy 3:16-17. As_a_subset_of the_second point, your_blog_also infers_that_such a methodology does not comport_with_theonomic hermeneutics.

With regard to your official position_on head-coverings, I only_have_your blog post (here)_upon which to base my_claims. And your conclusion in that_blog post_begins with_the statement that "except for the last hundred years or so,_the church has always been in_agreement that women should_worship with_their_heads covered, as,_indeed_the Christian_custom was that women should have their_heads covered_generally. However recently much of the_church in the 'developed'_world_has abandoned this belief. Instead they_teach that the passage was purely_cultural, teaches only about long_hair,_or_is irrelevant in some other_way. This belief is new and,_in my opinion,_is, like any other departure from Scripture,_dangerous."

That_is quite a remarkable statement, and_because_I considered it worthy of some_healthy_scrutiny,_I linked that post on_the blog for others to evaluate_as well. That way the world knows I'm not_just flinging hazardous_accusations around. Now, as far_as_your_arguments after that statement are concerned, I see the crux_of it_as depending upon_historical narratives, and the commentators interpretations of historical narratives as_well. That's not to say that every_aspect of John Gill's or Calvin's arguments (as you quoted) are_grounded on historical narratives alone; but that is_to say that the crux of all_such