Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

4149Re: To help in understanding

Expand Messages
  • jrschuiling
    Apr 8, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      > 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,
    • Show all 8 messages in this topic