Tuesday, August 10, 2010

J-Cal on adornment

Calvin in da house….

It may be now asked, whether the Apostle wholly condemns the use of gold in adorning the body. Were any one to urge these words, it may be said, that he prohibits precious garments no less than gold; for he immediately adds, the putting on of apparel, or, of clothes. But it would be an immoderate strictness wholly to forbid neatness and elegance in clothing. If the material is said to be too sumptuous, the Lord has created it; and we know that skill in art has proceeded from him. Then Peter did not intend to condemn every sort of ornament, but the evil of vanity, to which women are subject. Two things are to be regarded in clothing, usefulness and decency; and what decency requires is moderation and modesty. Were, then, a woman to go forth with her hair wantonly curled and decked, and make an extravagant display, her vanity could not be excused. They who object and say, that to clothe one's-self in this or that manner is an indifferent thing, in which all are free to do as they please, may be easily confuted; for excessive elegance and superfluous display, in short, all excesses, arise from a corrupted mind. Besides, ambition, pride, affectation of display, and all things of this kind, are not indifferent things. Therefore they whose minds are purified from all vanity, will duly order all things, so as not to exceed moderation.

(Calvin’s Commentaries on 1 Peter 3: 3)

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Couple things:

1) J-Cal? In da house? Who are you? :P

2) I agree with Calvin here. But not because he's Calvin. He did kill people after all...

3) While this whole thing has gotten really heated, I think it's great that we're even asking these questions. There's always a risk of overthinking things and missing the forest for the trees, but the tendency in American Christianity is to underthink things and just go along with the status quo. So, while we don't want to lose Jesus in a sea of doctrine, it's encouraging to see people who take the "little" stuff seriously.

Arthur Sido said...

April,

I was trying to inject a little levity into a conversation that was, as you say, getting overheated. Plus I am way more hip than you might think. Word.

My goal as always is to stimulate conversation especially where we make assumptions. I clearly don't find the argument that Peter and Paul were calling for a blanket prohibition on gold to be accurate. I do appreciate people seeking to be more faithful.

Anonymous said...

I literally laughed out loud at "word."

Peace out, dawg.

Eric Holcombe said...

Arthur,

I want to encourage you to look at the 1 Peter 3 passage again, starting with verse 1. And, if you are not opposed, look at the KJV or Young's translations. This is speaking of women winning their husbands that do not obey the word by their "conversation" or actions/behavior (as opposed to spoken conversation which the KJV translates as communication). I believe the "whose adorning" phrase in v.3 is the adornment of their conversation or behavior, vs. physical appearance. Verse 4 calls for this concentration to instead be on the hidden man of the heart.

Physical beauty can capture a man, but it will not win him to God.