4149Re: To help in understanding
- Apr 8, 2002
> Tp - Jason appeared to be arguing that God, in the Jeremiah 7 vs.was adding a regulation to the covenant.
I was not intending this, I believe the Regulative Principle was
established at the first, not that it is added in Jer.7.
What I meant by what I stated was that, when a regulation is broken,
the LORD has the covenantal perogative to declare the tresspass as
one against the Principle to which the particular regulation was
The Regulative Principle is not so much a 'law' as it is the
presuposition on which the laws of worship are founded, which also
(the presupposition, i.e. the RPW) the LORD declares in His Word
since we be such dunces as to escape it.
Thus when the LORD says, "And they have built the high places...which
I did not command, nor did it come into My heart",though the people
sinned in manners which the LORD had clearly forbidden, He cites the
Principle which was the foundation for the regulations so as to
declare a new His divine right to forbid all that but which He
To dismiss the Principle which was from the first because there was
another specific command against the worship perversion at hand,
would be akin unto voiding the first command because when the LORD
charges us with serving other gods, we were serving Baal, which He
had also forbidden.
So my point was that a specific violation does not void the general
charge, such as some suppose.
In case this still is not clear as to what I intend let me supply an
Suppose you were remodeling your kitchen and you asked me as a
carpenter to build your cabinets and counter. You tell me you want
the counter to be 70 inches, you want the cabinet under it to have 2
doors and 5 drawers. Now suppose I dit this all perfectly according
to your specifications, but I also decided to put six shelves and an
extra cupboard overhead and add another space for a sink in the
countertop? You had not forbidden me to do so, nor had given any
specific command that would cause me to hesitate to do such, yet I
had clearly violated your inherent right as the homeowner to recieve
only that for which you had asked. Suppose the case were different
where I had made the counter 40 inches instead of the 70 you had
asked for, you could rightfully say to me "That is not what I asked
for!" without my being able to charge this as a "new" command, and
why? Because our contract presupposes that you as the Chief
inherently forbid all that but which you command.
So the same is true when we enter the "house of God," He has
prescribed the worship that He desires and we not to add or subtract
thereunto, such would be a breech of the Covenant.
Let me also add here that without recognizing the inherency of the
Regulative Principle to the very nature of God and the Covenant, one
must declare the same charge against God as which you supposed me to
be making in the Jeremiah passage. In this I mean that if you deny
the Regulative Principle you must also assert that the LORD broke
Covenant when, as new and contemporary errors and abominations arose
in the Old testament Church, He charged Israel with wickedness that
was not specifically forbidden at the first. Whereas with the RPW
these errors were already clearly forbidden, and thus could be
specifically admonished, yet without acknowledging such on must say
that the LORD was adding 'law upon law, precept upon precept' to the
Covenant, but of course such was not the case.
For your inspection,
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>