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

Re: Not as clear as is thought - corrected

Expand Messages
  • raging_calvinist
    What specifically in this post is being corrected? It s too long a post to set it side by side with the previous edition to compare and contrast. gmw. ...
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 13, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      What specifically in this post is being corrected? It's too long a
      post to set it side by side with the previous edition to compare and
      contrast.

      gmw.

      --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., Tim Cunningham
      <timmopussycat@y...> wrote:
      > --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., "raging_calvinist"
      > <ragingcalvinist@c...> wrote:
      > > > 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)
      > >
      >
      > Tp-As I noted already a divine rebuke of something already
      specifically
      > forbidden cannot be used as an example of forbidding something not
      > specifically forbidden. This is true whatever one's understanding
      of the
      > Deuteronomy passages is. Only if it can be shown that the Jews
      understood
      > the
      > Deuteronomy passages as you do will Calvin's exegesis of it hold.
      >
      > The meaning of the Deut passages are not as clear as they appear at
      first
      > glance. The Deut 4:2 passages specifically refers to "...the laws I
      am
      > about to teach you" which are the lead up to the 10 commandments of
      > chapter 5. 5:32 ends that section. 12:32 has its immediate
      references to
      > either offerings,
      > idolatry or both. The question is whether these prohibitions were
      meant by
      > God to refer specifically to the narrower contexts in which they
      were
      > given rather than to the covenant teaching as a whole. That is a
      real
      > question, for there is solid evidence
      > that the Jews interpreted these warnings within the narrower
      context
      > rather than the
      > broad one.
      >
      > For instance they thought they were being faithful in setting up
      the
      > synagogue, reading from the prophets
      > as wel as the Pentateuch in assemblies, ordaining festivals
      (Chanukah) and
      > adding the
      > 4 ritual cups of wine to the Passover. They did not see these
      additions as
      > adding "... unto the word [Moses] commanded..." them. Jesus, by
      taking
      > each of these up, and in so doing
      > honouring them, confirmed that indeed God did not regard these
      additions as
      > sinful. But if
      > "YE SHALL NOT ADD UNTO the word which I command you, neither shall
      > ye diminish ought from it,..."What thing soever I
      > command you, observe to do it: THOU SHALT NOT ADD THERETO,
      > (Deut. 4:2; 5:32; 12:32) is true of all the covenant teaching
      rather given
      > with specific reference to the passages in which it occurs, the
      Jews by
      > adding these practices, were breaking covenant and Jesus, by
      participating,
      > was an accessory after the fact.
      >
      > Here is Schliessel on the Passover
      > http://www.messiahnyc.org/article.php?sid=2&mode=threaded&order=0
      >
      > One more example of benign tradition can be found in
      what is
      > really a network, an entire fabric, of human traditions: the
      Passover
      > observance in which our Lord freely participated.
      > Jewish and Christian scholars alike recognize that
      The Bible
      > includes extensive discussions of Passover and the Festival of
      Unleavened
      > Bread; however, these descriptions do not correspond with later
      > observances of the holiday. That the Seder evolved quite apart from
      > express divine warrant is an inescapable conclusion, unless one is
      > prepared to adopt a Jewish/Romish view which would posit an
      independent,
      > secondary source of equal authority with the Word of God contained
      in
      > Scripture.
      > If the Regulative Principle of Worship is true, and
      if the
      > Passover is an institution of divine authority, given by God to His
      people
      > as a means by which He was to be remembered, honored, praised and
      thanked
      > (in other words, worshipped), then nothing could have been lawfully
      added
      > to it by man.
      > Yet that is exactly, and indisputably, what happened.
      > Therefore, either the holiday was not of divine origin (but it
      was), or it
      > was not a means of worship (but it was), or the RPW is false (it
      is). For
      > when we come to the inspired New Testament Scriptures, we find our
      Lord
      > and Savior celebrating the Last Seder with, among other things,
      wine.
      > I will ask that we be concerned here with none of the
      other
      > elements save the wine. Where is the command of God to use wine in
      the
      > Passover service? It is not there. Commanded were the pesach, the
      matzoh
      > and the m'rowr, i.e., the Passover lamb, the unleavened bread and
      the
      > bitter herbs.
      > Yet by the time of our Lord we find not only the
      > introduction of wine into the Passover service, but the
      organization of
      > the entire Seder around four discreet cups of wine, every one of
      human
      > origin.
      > If Jesus our Messiah was a regulativist, I tell you,
      He
      > would have turned over that Seder table that night! Instead, He
      took the
      > cup of wine called Thanksgiving and said, This cup is the New
      Covenant in
      > my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.
      > The RPW- if it is not commanded, it's forbidden- is
      not
      > Biblical. If it were, we wouldn't't have our Savior approving of the
      > predicate of what He made into the Lord's Supper, the very emblem of
      > Christian worship.
      >
      > end quote
      > -------
      >
      > The usual answer EP's give to this is that somehow the Jews must
      have
      > had God's explicit blessing before making these additions. But if a
      prophet
      > arose and proclaimed them, how would the people know that the
      prophet was
      > sent form God? He would have had to do miracles to show that God
      was with
      > him. The proclamation of Chanukahis particularly significant in
      this regard
      > because we know that Chanukah began in the
      > time between Malachi to John the Baptist when no true prophet arose
      in
      > Israel. This means that a prophet had arisen through whom God did
      ordain
      > these changes, it would have been a
      > very very big deal.
      > The least we would expect is a record of how and why
      > the changes were made. We have nothing and appeals to "unwritten
      > traditions" on this point are as invalid (in the logical sense of
      that
      > word) as the Catholic appeals to "unwritten traditions" to support
      the
      > Papacy.
      > >
      > > --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., "raging_calvinist"
      > > <ragingcalvinist@c...> wrote:
      > > > > 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)
      > > >
      > >
      > Tp-As I noted already a divine rebuke of something already
      specifically
      > forbidden cannot be used as an example of forbidding something not
      > specifically forbidden. This is true whatever one's understanding
      of the
      > Deut passages is.
      >
      > The meaning of the Deut passages are not as clear as they appear at
      first
      > glance. The Deut 4:2 passages specifically refers to "...the laws I
      am
      > about to teach you" which are the lead up to the 10 commandments of
      > chapter 5. 12:32 has its immediate references to either offerings,
      > idolatry or both. The question is whether these prohibitions were
      meant by
      > God to refer specifically to the narrower contexts in which they
      were
      > given or to the covenant teaching as a whole. The Jews seemed to
      have
      > interpreted these warnings within the narrower context rather than
      the
      > broad one: they thought they could add the synagogue, reading
      prophets
      > rather than the law in assemblies, ordaining festivals (Chanukah)
      and the
      > 4 ritual cups of wine to the Passover, without creating problems
      between
      > them and God, and Jesus, by taking each of these up, and in so doing
      > honouring them, confirmed that indeed no problems were created. But
      if
      > "whatever is not permitted is forbidden" is true of all the
      covenant, the,
      > Jews by instituting each of these innovations, were covenant
      breakers and
      > Jesus was an accessory after the fact.
      >
      > Here is Schliessel on the Passover
      > http://www.messiahnyc.org/article.php?sid=2&mode=threaded&order=0
      >
      > One more example of benign tradition can be found in
      what is
      > really a network, an entire fabric, of human traditions: the
      Passover
      > observance in which our Lord freely participated.
      > Jewish and Christian scholars alike recognize that
      The Bible
      > includes extensive discussions of Passover and the Festival of
      Unleavened
      > Bread; however, these descriptions do not correspond with later
      > observances of the holiday. That the Seder evolved quite apart from
      > express divine warrant is an inescapable conclusion, unless one is
      > prepared to adopt a Jewish/Romish view which would posit an
      independent,
      > secondary source of equal authority with the Word of God contained
      in
      > Scripture.
      > If the Regulative Principle of Worship is true, and
      if the
      > Passover is an institution of divine authority, given by God to His
      people
      > as a means by which He was to be remembered, honored, praised and
      thanked
      > (in other words, worshipped), then nothing could have been lawfully
      added
      > to it by man.
      > Yet that is exactly, and indisputably, what happened.
      > Therefore, either the holiday was not of divine origin (but it
      was), or it
      > was not a means of worship (but it was), or the RPW is false (it
      is). For
      > when we come to the inspired New Testament Scriptures, we find our
      Lord
      > and Savior celebrating the Last Seder with, among other things,
      wine.
      > I will ask that we be concerned here with none of the
      other
      > elements save the wine. Where is the command of God to use wine in
      the
      > Passover service? It is not there. Commanded were the pesach, the
      matzoh
      > and the m'rowr, i.e., the Passover lamb, the unleavened bread and
      the
      > bitter herbs.
      > Yet by the time of our Lord we find not only the
      > introduction of wine into the Passover service, but the
      organization of
      > the entire Seder around four discreet cups of wine, every one of
      human
      > origin.
      > If Jesus our Messiah was a regulativist, I tell you,
      He
      > would have turned over that Seder table that night! Instead, He
      took the
      > cup of wine called Thanksgiving and said, This cup is the New
      Covenant in
      > my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.
      > The RPW- if it is not commanded, it's forbidden- is
      not
      > Biblical. If it were, we wouldn't't have our Savior approving of the
      > predicate of what He made into the Lord's Supper, the very emblem of
      > Christian worship.
      >
      > end quote from Schliessel
      > -------
      >
      > The usual answer EP's give to this is that somehow the Jews must
      have
      > heard from God that these changes were OK. But it does not seem
      that they
      > had prophetic approval to make these changes. The proclamation of
      Chanukah
      > is particularly significant because we know that Chanukah began in
      the
      > time between Malachi to John the Baptist when no true prophet arose
      in
      > Israel. Remember, if God did ordain these changes, it would have
      been a
      > very very big deal. A prophet would have arisen and would have had
      to do
      > something
      > miraculous so that Israel would have known him for a true prophet.
      > The least we would expect is a record of how and why
      > the changes were made. We have nothing and appeals to "unwritten
      > traditions" on this point are as invalid (in the logical sense of
      that
      > word) as the Catholic appeals to "unwritten traditions" to support
      the
      > Papacy.
      >
      > meow
      >
      > Tp
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.