A couple of clarifications
- GMW -This is a major reason why we are standing on opposite sides of this
issue. While I require biblical warrant to include something in
worship, Tim requires biblical warrant to exclude something from
worship (forgive me, Tim, if I am stating this wrong... I am not
intending a straw man here... but you did refer to Schliessel).
Tp- I would phrase it like this
I believe that I have Scriptural warrant from John 4:24 for taking as the
criteria for NT worship the criteria of Sprit and Truth, for reasons Jerry
finds unconvincing. The only reason I referred to Schliessel is that in his
papers on the RPW he does soundly demonstrate that the Scriptures usually
used to support the "if it's not permitted it's forbidden" thesis are in
each case demonstrations of "if its forbidden it is forbidden" thesis and
cannot be used to demonstrate anything more.
Neither Schliessel nor I offer as our principle the line "If not forbidden
it is permitted." Rather both of us can sum up our principle as "If not
forbidden it may be permitted". I will leave it to readers to discern how
Schliessel qualifies that principle; having read Schliessel I don't think
it fair to set him up as an advocate of anything goes versus EP. For myself
the more exact statement is " Since biblical truth is one of the criteria
for judging worship, using it in worship is not forbidden". I therefore
think it a straw man to label either of us with the "traditions of men"
To which KK argues
For instance: The second commandment forbids the making of any
images of God. But that was OT. IT is not specifically forbidden us
to draw pictures of Jesus in the NT. Therefore, we should go ahead
and draw and paint pictures or make sculptures of Jesus, and prop
them up behind the Lord's Table as an aide to worship when we partake
Tp replies -That is a misrepresentation of Schliessel. He is NOT saying
that what is SPECIFICALLY FORBIDDEN in the old is not forbidden either in
the old or in the new; he is saying what is NOT SPECIFICALLY forbidden MAY
under given circumstances be permitted in the New. Your misunderstanding of
Schliessel's principle suggests that you have not yet fully understood it.
To Biblically refute Schliessel's principle what is needed is an example of
something under the Mosaic covenant or later which had not already been
forbidden either specifically or as part of a class, which, upon being
offered in worship is condemned by God.
GMW Jeremiah 7:31: "And they have built the high places of Tophet, which
is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their
daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it
into my heart."
"...God here cuts off from men every occasion for making evasions,
since he condemns by this one phrase, 'I have not commanded them,'
whatever the Jews devised.
Tp-I know that you have read the first commandment which prohibits the
worship of any other God but Jealous Why then did you not see that what
they did here was, by that commandment, ALREADY FORBIDDEN? How did you
also come to overlook the prohibitions in the Pentateuch concerning the
following of the abominable worship practices of the nations God would be
driving out before Israel which include human sacrifice (Lev. 18.21, Deut.
12:31)? You may want to ask yourself how you came to omit testing your
counter example against Schliessel's principle to make sure that it was
not already forbidden. Since what the Jews in Jeremiah's day were doing was
already forbidden, when God says "which I did not command" it is not the
inauguration of a new and heretofore unexpressed principle in the law that
He is enunciating, He is using litotes - the form of understatement "...in
which an affirmation (biblical sacrificial order) is expressed by the
negation of its contrary" (already forbidden human sacrifice) to emphasize
afresh the point that child sacrifice was something which was not His will.
Yours in Christ's love and service
Since I do not normally send attachments via E-mail, do not open any
attachments in this message
- --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., jrschuiling <no_reply@y...>
> 3 quick comments:"But in my humble estimation Schliessel's
worst problem is not hermenutics but rather
a spirit of rebellion, the same that hinders
all of our relations to God."
There is nothing "humble" about your
accusations. You have absolutely no
basis for the charges that you are
making unless you will "humbly" claim
that you know Schlissel's heart and
motives. Or you will now "humbly"
inform us that you too possess the
attributes of God in being able to do
- Sorry Matt I'll stop feigning humility, or would I be feigning an
apology? Forgive me padre, I am certain I have not the gift of
ascertaining the heart as thou.
--Dumm Kopf Y'shen