Re: Correcting more errors
- 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.
- "...I am young, and ye are very old; wherefore I [am] afraid, and
durst not shew you mine opinion."
--- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., "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.
- --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., "raging_calvinist"
> Tim, could you please explain what you meant by this?Tp - Jason appeared to be arguing that God, in the Jeremiah 7 vs. was
> "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?
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.
> 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,
> Interpreting the phrase "which I commanded not, neither came itThank you for the explanation, Tim. However, Jeremiah 7 is not
> 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
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
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.