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

Re: Correcting more errors

Expand Messages
  • raging_calvinist
    so I ll shutup now. I have to impose an executive order at this point. Jason will not be allowed to shut up. gmw.
    Message 1 of 8 , Apr 7, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      "so I'll shutup now."

      I have to impose an executive order at this point.

      Jason will not be allowed to shut up.

      gmw.
    • raging_calvinist
      Tim, could you please explain what you meant by this? But since God did not reserve the right to freely make changes in the covenant at any time, if He had
      Message 2 of 8 , Apr 8, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Tim, could you please explain what you meant by this?

        "But since God did not reserve the right to freely make changes in
        the covenant at any time, if He had made a such a change in the
        covenant legislation by Jeremiah 7:31 as is argued, He would have
        broken covenant with Israel."

        Specifically, who is arguing that God changed anything in the
        Covenant? Are you saying that, according to the Reformed view, the
        phrase "which I commanded not, neither came it into my heart" would
        mark a change in the Covenant?

        Help me understand this.

        gmw.
      • jrschuiling
        ...I am young, and ye are very old; wherefore I [am] afraid, and durst not shew you mine opinion. Job 32:6
        Message 3 of 8 , Apr 8, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          "...I am young, and ye are very old; wherefore I [am] afraid, and
          durst not shew you mine opinion."


          Job 32:6

          --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., "raging_calvinist"
          <ragingcalvinist@c...> wrote:
          > "so I'll shutup now."
          >
          > I have to impose an executive order at this point.
          >
          > Jason will not be allowed to shut up.
          >
          > gmw.
        • timmopussycat
          ... Tp - Jason appeared to be arguing that God, in the Jeremiah 7 vs. was adding a regulation to the covenant. In reply, I pointed out that a characteristic of
          Message 4 of 8 , Apr 8, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., "raging_calvinist"
            <ragingcalvinist@c...> wrote:
            > Tim, could you please explain what you meant by this?
            >
            > "But since God did not reserve the right to freely make changes in
            > the covenant at any time, if He had made a such a change in the
            > covenant legislation by Jeremiah 7:31 as is argued, He would have
            > broken covenant with Israel."
            >
            > Specifically, who is arguing that God changed anything in the
            > Covenant? Are you saying that, according to the Reformed view, the
            > phrase "which I commanded not, neither came it into my heart" would
            > mark a change in the Covenant?

            Tp - Jason appeared to be arguing that God, in the Jeremiah 7 vs. was
            adding a regulation to the covenant. In reply, I pointed out that a
            characteristic of covenants (unless otherwise specified) pointed out
            by Paul in Gal 3:15 is that they were unchangeable. While God can do
            what He wants to do, if His underlying purpose is to maintain a
            righteous covenant relationship with His subjects in order to glorify
            His name and give them no grounds to mistrust Him, He may not change
            the terms of a previously instituted covenant unless the covenant
            specifically provides that He may do so, which it does not.


            Interpreting the phrase "which I commanded not, neither came it into
            my heart" to mean God is adding something to the covenant therefore,
            instead of using litotes to remind the Israelites that what the were
            doing was already forbidden, cannot be right, since under the
            conditions as stated, God would be breaking covenant with Israel
            >

            Hope this helps clear things up for you.

            Note to Jason - I too do not want you to shut up. What I should have
            said in my post is, that to paraphrase a remark from C. S. Lewis'
            essay "Bulverism" in "God in the Dock" that all of us and not just
            you in particular need to remember is that we must prove THAT someone
            is wrong before we speculate about WHY he is wrong.

            Meow

            Tp
          • jrschuiling
            ... 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
            Message 5 of 8 , 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
              subordinate.

              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
              commands.

              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
              example:

              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,
              --Jason
            • raging_calvinist
              ... Thank you for the explanation, Tim. However, Jeremiah 7 is not adding anything different, as God very clearly stated, YE SHALL NOT ADD UNTO the word
              Message 6 of 8 , Apr 8, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                > Interpreting the phrase "which I commanded not, neither came it
                > into my heart" to mean God is adding something to the covenant
                > therefore, instead of using litotes to remind the Israelites that
                > what the were doing was already forbidden, cannot be right, since
                > under the conditions as stated, God would be breaking covenant with
                > Israel

                Thank you for the explanation, Tim. However, Jeremiah 7 is not
                adding anything different, as God very clearly stated,

                "YE SHALL NOT ADD UNTO the word which I command you, neither shall
                ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of
                the LORD your God which I command you" and "Ye shall observe to do
                therefore as the LORD your God hath commanded you: YE SHALL NOT TURN
                ASIDE TO THE RIGHT HAND OR TO THE LEFT" and "What thing soever I
                command you, observe to do it: THOU SHALT NOT ADD THERETO, nor
                diminish from it." (Deut. 4:2; 5:32; 12:32)

                And so what Calvin says of Jeremiah 7:31 is true, "There is then no
                other argument needed to condemn superstitions, than that they are
                not commanded by God: for when men allow themselves to worship God
                according to their own fancies, and attend not to his commands, they
                pervert true religion....The Prophet's words then are very
                important,
                when he says, that God had commanded no such thing, and that it never
                came to his mind; as though he had said, that men assume too much
                wisdom, when they devise what he never required, nay, what he never
                knew." That the Lord did not command it is in and of itself enough
                to condemn innovative worship practice, that the act was specifically
                condemned is double condemnation.

                gmw.
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.