Jus Divinum: The discussion

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by JohnV
I'm not saying that the FH is the same as FV. It isn't. I am saying it is in the same category of being added, without sufficient Scriptural warrant, to the teachings coming from the pulpit and defended by the offices. They are not, ideally, related; they just have this commonality. And this is the thing that is too easily overlooked.

But one issue with this statement. Those who "add" things believe that they do have sufficient scriptural warrant. They dont teach something just because they think its cool. I am not saying that they are not wrong, just that I think you are making the situation a bit overly simple.

All FH people that I have read, will fight you on scriptural grounds. I disagree with them, but that does not mean that they dont care what scripture says.

CT

 

[fredtgreco]

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by JohnV
I'm not saying that the FH is the same as FV. It isn't. I am saying it is in the same category of being added, without sufficient Scriptural warrant, to the teachings coming from the pulpit and defended by the offices. They are not, ideally, related; they just have this commonality. And this is the thing that is too easily overlooked.

But one issue with this statement. Those who "add" things believe that they do have sufficient scriptural warrant. They dont teach something just because they think its cool. I am not saying that they are not wrong, just that I think you are making the situation a bit overly simple.

All FH people that I have read, will fight you on scriptural grounds. I disagree with them, but that does not mean that they dont care what scripture says.

CT

I agree with CT. My assessment is that the FH is not warranted by the Biblical text, but that it is a reasonable and defendable position from the Biblical text.

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by JohnV
I'm not saying that the FH is the same as FV. It isn't. I am saying it is in the same category of being added, without sufficient Scriptural warrant, to the teachings coming from the pulpit and defended by the offices. They are not, ideally, related; they just have this commonality. And this is the thing that is too easily overlooked.

But one issue with this statement. Those who "add" things believe that they do have sufficient scriptural warrant. They dont teach something just because they think its cool. I am not saying that they are not wrong, just that I think you are making the situation a bit overly simple.

All FH people that I have read, will fight you on scriptural grounds. I disagree with them, but that does not mean that they dont care what scripture says.

CT

I agree with CT. My assessment is that the FH is not warranted by the Biblical text, but that it is a reasonable and defendable position from the Biblical text.

I think you are missing my point. I'm sure they will defend their position from the Biblical text. But the point is the question: "Where now is the RPW?" Where is the forbidding of what God has not commanded? We may disagree as to what the text does mean, but just because a man is ordained, that does not mean that his opinion is the same as God's positive commandment, or that the RPW doesn't apply to him.

 

[JohnV]

The second and very important part to this is that 1 John 4 tells the Christian, office-bearer and non-office-bearer alike, to test the prophets to see whether they are of God. It is no good just to test the false ones, for they have already been judged as false. We, as Christians, have an office and a standard from which to we may hold the prophets accountable. So it is not possible that the RPW does not apply to those who are convinced of certain notions, but have no sufficient warrant to prove that they are commissioned to preach those notions, even though they are quite capable to prove that their notions line up with Scripture. They have to prove that it is God's command, or they are forbidden to preach on it.

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by JohnV
The second and very important part to this is that 1 John 4 tells the Christian, office-bearer and non-office-bearer alike, to test the prophets to see whether they are of God. It is no good just to test the false ones, for they have already been judged as false. We, as Christians, have an office and a standard from which to we may hold the prophets accountable. So it is not possible that the RPW does not apply to those who are convinced of certain notions, but have no sufficient warrant to prove that they are commissioned to preach those notions, even though they are quite capable to prove that their notions line up with Scripture. They have to prove that it is God's command, or they are forbidden to preach on it.

Not to be simplistic, but aren't they called on to preach the whole counsel of God? And the crew in the pew have to search the Scriptures and compare them to make sure that they are being fed truth? Are you saying that unless a doctrine is explicitly laid out in the Standards then a pastor can't preach it? Or are you saying that a pastor can't teach contrary to the Standards? I would affirm the latter and argue against the former.

[Edited on 10-21-2005 by crhoades]

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by JohnV

Originally posted by fredtgreco

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by JohnV
I'm not saying that the FH is the same as FV. It isn't. I am saying it is in the same category of being added, without sufficient Scriptural warrant, to the teachings coming from the pulpit and defended by the offices. They are not, ideally, related; they just have this commonality. And this is the thing that is too easily overlooked.

But one issue with this statement. Those who "add" things believe that they do have sufficient scriptural warrant. They dont teach something just because they think its cool. I am not saying that they are not wrong, just that I think you are making the situation a bit overly simple.

All FH people that I have read, will fight you on scriptural grounds. I disagree with them, but that does not mean that they dont care what scripture says.

CT

I agree with CT. My assessment is that the FH is not warranted by the Biblical text, but that it is a reasonable and defendable position from the Biblical text.

I think you are missing my point. I'm sure they will defend their position from the Biblical text. But the point is the question: "Where now is the RPW?" Where is the forbidding of what God has not commanded? We may disagree as to what the text does mean, but just because a man is ordained, that does not mean that his opinion is the same as God's positive commandment, or that the RPW doesn't apply to him.

And they would say normal six day creation is not taught in scripture, so what does calling on the RPW get oneself in this situation?

 

[JohnV]

I am asking where the standard is that says that what God has not commanded is forbidden. If, say, the FH is included in the whole counsel of God, then well and good. But is it?

I could return the question, Chris. Is the standard for preaching the whole counsel of God this: "Whatever the WCF does not forbid is equal to Scripture"?

So you're sitting in the pew and the minister is claiming from the place of Christ that the FH is to be believed. And you look up the Scriptures, and sure enough, everything he says cannot be overturned by Scripture. Still, he has no warrant upon which to assert it as THE meaning of God's Word, but only a possible meaning. He has not established necessity. So does he have a right to say this is of God when if fact it is of his own best opinion instead?

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

And they would say normal six day creation is not taught in scripture, so what does calling on the RPW get oneself in this situation?

In this way: the six day creation is the plain meaning of the text, the first rule of interpretation, and it is God Himself that makes the connection of the six-day creation to the six-day work week. That is warrant to preach it. The FH doesn't have that warrant. So without warrant, where then is the rule that what God has not commanded in worship is forbidden?

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by JohnV
I could return the question, Chris. Is the standard for preaching the whole counsel of God this: "Whatever the WCF does not forbid is equal to Scripture"?

The act of preaching, unless a minister is doing nothing but quoting Scripture, is by definition having a sinful man interpreting the Bible and pulling things together. That is why few should go for it. They have to rightly divide it.

So you're sitting in the pew and the minister is claiming from the place of Christ that the FH is to be believed. And you look up the Scriptures, and sure enough, everything he says cannot be overturned by Scripture. Still, he has no warrant upon which to assert it as THE meaning of God's Word, but only a possible meaning. He has not established necessity. So does he have a right to say this is of God when if fact it is of his own best opinion instead?

What would you define as the requirement of establishing necessity? Where do you allow for a minister to move beyond their opinion and into "Thus saith the Lord."? If you say whatever is contained in the Standards then you have limited all preaching to only the contents of the Standards and if pushed the wording therein.



[Edited on 10-21-2005 by crhoades]

 

[JohnV]

I'm using the FH as an example because it is so clear. The six-day view does not come out of the imagination of man; it is suggested in Scripture itself. It cannot be wrong to suggest what God suggests. We've never held anyone to it as a point of orthodoxy until all these other views came along, trying to explain the texts in light of recent theories of origins. Now its a point of orthodoxy for some.

I'm not here trying to argue against the FH. That's the point. We've been expending a lot of effort doing so until now, but the more important thing of the offices representing Christ are starting to represent the officers instead.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by JohnV
I am asking where the standard is that says that what God has not commanded is forbidden. If, say, the FH is included in the whole counsel of God, then well and good. But is it?

I could return the question, Chris. Is the standard for preaching the whole counsel of God this: "Whatever the WCF does not forbid is equal to Scripture"?

So you're sitting in the pew and the minister is claiming from the place of Christ that the FH is to be believed. And you look up the Scriptures, and sure enough, everything he says cannot be overturned by Scripture. Still, he has no warrant upon which to assert it as THE meaning of God's Word, but only a possible meaning. He has not established necessity. So does he have a right to say this is of God when if fact it is of his own best opinion instead?

The FH supporters would say that it is at least as necessary as the regular six day view. So again, what has been gained by attempting to pull RPW into the issue.

[Edited on 10-21-2005 by ChristianTrader]

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by crhoades

Originally posted by JohnV
I could return the question, Chris. Is the standard for preaching the whole counsel of God this: "Whatever the WCF does not forbid is equal to Scripture"?

The act of preaching, unless a minister is doing nothing but quoting Scripture, is by definition having a sinful man interpreting the Bible and pulling things together. That is why few should go for it. They have to rightly divide it.

So you're sitting in the pew and the minister is claiming from the place of Christ that the FH is to be believed. And you look up the Scriptures, and sure enough, everything he says cannot be overturned by Scripture. Still, he has no warrant upon which to assert it as THE meaning of God's Word, but only a possible meaning. He has not established necessity. So does he have a right to say this is of God when if fact it is of his own best opinion instead?

What would you define as the requirement of establishing necessity? Where do you allow for a minister to move beyond their opinion and into "Thus saith the Lord."? If you say whatever is contained in the Standards then you have limited all preaching to only the contents of the Standards and if pushed the wording therein.



[Edited on 10-21-2005 by crhoades]

Yes, I am saying that that is what the standards are for. They do not replace the Word of God, but they set the limits of what may be preached as the Word of God.

I still need an answer to the question: why would I be prohibited from singing Amazing Grace, on grounds that what God has not commanded is forbidden, but the minister can preach the FH on the grounds that if it cannot be disproven from the WCF it is allowed?

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by JohnV
I am asking where the standard is that says that what God has not commanded is forbidden. If, say, the FH is included in the whole counsel of God, then well and good. But is it?

I could return the question, Chris. Is the standard for preaching the whole counsel of God this: "Whatever the WCF does not forbid is equal to Scripture"?

So you're sitting in the pew and the minister is claiming from the place of Christ that the FH is to be believed. And you look up the Scriptures, and sure enough, everything he says cannot be overturned by Scripture. Still, he has no warrant upon which to assert it as THE meaning of God's Word, but only a possible meaning. He has not established necessity. So does he have a right to say this is of God when if fact it is of his own best opinion instead?

The FH supporters would say that it is at least as necessary as the regular six day view. So again, what has been gained by attempting to pull RPW into the issue.

[Edited on 10-21-2005 by ChristianTrader]

Yes, they say so. But that is their judgment. It is not their place to determine that. That is for the church as a whole to determine. And all the denomination does is state that it is not forbidden by the WCF. There still is no warrant to say that this is the interpretation. If it is up to each minister to decide what will be doctrine in their church, then where is the Confessional covenant?

Think of it this way: One church preaches the six-day view, and a sister church next town over preaches the FH. Which one is speaking for the Holy Spirit? It can't be both.

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by JohnV
Yes, I am saying that that is what the standards are for. They do not replace the Word of God, but they set the limits of what may be preached as the Word of God.

I could see that there would be quite a few doctrines and teachings that would never be preached then. What you have done in holding that is effectively replaced the Bible with the Confession. If you can't preach anything that is not in the Confession then what you are saying is that you can only preach the Confession. I hope I'm reading you correctly. Am I?

I still need an answer to the question: why would I be prohibited from singing Amazing Grace, on grounds that what God has not commanded is forbidden, but the minister can preach the FH on the grounds that if it cannot be disproven from the WCF it is allowed?

I'm thinking on this one...my brain is working 1/10 speed right now.

 

[JohnV]

This is what I'm arguing:

Belgic Confession, art. VII
We believe that those Holy Scriptures fully contain the will of God, and that whatsoever man ought to believe unto salvation is sufficiently taught therein. For since the whole manner of worship which God requires of us is written in them at large, it is unlawful for any one, though an apostle, to teach otherwise than we are now taught in the Holy Scriptures: nay, though it were an angel from heaven, as the apostle Paul says. For since it is forbidden to add unto or take away anything from the Word of God, it does thereby evidently appear that the doctrine thereof is most perfect and complete in all respects.
Neither may we consider any writings of men, however holy these men may have been, of equal value with those divine Scriptures, nor ought we to consider custom, or the great multitude, or antiquity, or succession of times and persons, or councils, decrees or statutes, as of equal value with the truth of God, since the truth is above all; for all men are of themselves liars, and more vain than vanity itself. Therefore we reject with all our hearts whatsoever does not agree with this infallible rule, as the apostles have taught us, saying, Prove the spirits, whether they are of God. Likewise: If any one cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your house.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by JohnV

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by JohnV
I am asking where the standard is that says that what God has not commanded is forbidden. If, say, the FH is included in the whole counsel of God, then well and good. But is it?

I could return the question, Chris. Is the standard for preaching the whole counsel of God this: "Whatever the WCF does not forbid is equal to Scripture"?

So you're sitting in the pew and the minister is claiming from the place of Christ that the FH is to be believed. And you look up the Scriptures, and sure enough, everything he says cannot be overturned by Scripture. Still, he has no warrant upon which to assert it as THE meaning of God's Word, but only a possible meaning. He has not established necessity. So does he have a right to say this is of God when if fact it is of his own best opinion instead?

The FH supporters would say that it is at least as necessary as the regular six day view. So again, what has been gained by attempting to pull RPW into the issue.

[Edited on 10-21-2005 by ChristianTrader]

Yes, they say so. But that is their judgment. It is not their place to determine that. That is for the church as a whole to determine. And all the denomination does is state that it is not forbidden by the WCF. There still is no warrant to say that this is the interpretation. If it is up to each minister to decide what will be doctrine in their church, then where is the Confessional covenant?

Think of it this way: One church preaches the six-day view, and a sister church next town over preaches the FH. Which one is speaking for the Holy Spirit? It can't be both.

Oh for sure, one is wrong. And this is shown by doing the heavy lifting of exegesis and systematics showing how one view is in the cornfield.

Appealing to RPW doesnt get that done. That appeal only works for those who are in agreement that FH or six day view is against RPW, which is the issue at hand in such a discussion.

 

[Saiph]

I still need an answer to the question: why would I be prohibited from singing Amazing Grace, on grounds that what God has not commanded is forbidden, but the minister can preach the FH on the grounds that if it cannot be disproven from the WCF it is allowed?

JohnV, keep in mind, as I posted before, the idea "what God has not commanded is forbidden, is a complete misinterpretation of the RPW as defined by the WCF.

"The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man´s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed."

Westminster Confession (I:VI):

 

[JohnV]

I could see that there would be quite a few doctrines and teachings that would never be preached then. What you have done in holding that is effectively replaced the Bible with the Confession. If you can't preach anything that is not in the Confession then what you are saying is that you can only preach the Confession. I hope I'm reading you correctly. Am I?

No, that is not what I am doing. I have put the Confessions back in place, I believe, in that they represent the limit of what is to be preached. There is enough there to keep ministers busy throughout their ministry. What I am attempting is to close the door that allows human innovation added onto the preaching of the Word. If its not allowed to add human innovation in worship toward God, why is it allowed in representing God to man?

I am not arguing against the use of discretion and learning on behalf of the minister in preaching. He must be able to apply the Word to his congregation, to it needs. But the FH is only a recent teaching. It cannot possible trace itself back to the Apostles and to Christ. It is a taking of Christian liberty and applying it to the licence to preach the Word. And even if the FH is not altogether wrong, this practice is wrong. Even if the FH is wrong, this practice is worse.

 

[JohnV]

Hermonta:

I am not using the RPW to refute the FH. I am saying that the RPW applies to the use of opinion from the pulpit. If it is not commanded it is forbidden.


Mark:

I'll answer that tomorrow. I've got to go to work now, and this is going to take a bit to answer. OK with you?

 

[ChristianTrader]

Originally posted by JohnV
Hermonta:

I am not using the RPW to refute the FH. I am saying that the RPW applies to the use of opinion from the pulpit. If it is not commanded it is forbidden.

Okay, then we can just as easily just say, "Teach what the Bible teaches, no more or no less." No one willfully gives their opinion from the pulpit. They give what they believe to be correct.

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by ChristianTrader

Originally posted by JohnV
Hermonta:

I am not using the RPW to refute the FH. I am saying that the RPW applies to the use of opinion from the pulpit. If it is not commanded it is forbidden.

Okay, then we can just as easily just say, "Teach what the Bible teaches, no more or no less." No one willfully gives their opinion from the pulpit. They give what they believe to be correct.

I'm hoping you see the problem with that. The fact that each believer is commanded to test the spirits, ("for many false prophets have gone out into the world"), so the test for true doctrine is not the personal opinions of the prophets, but the standard of the Word. Personal conviction is not the test for orthodoxy.

Let's say that JohnV believes in the FH, and is not afraid to use the pulpit and his office to forward his conviction. Lets also say that you are his Session, his Presbytery, or his GA. What do you ask concerning my preaching? The question to ask is, "Is JohnV's preaching of God or of man?" If the answer is either, "Of man" or "We do not know", then it is not warranted to preach. Only if it is of God is it warranted to preach.


Please remember that I am not trying to refute the FH. Nor am I dismantling the RPW. Nor am I trying to undermine the freedom of the discretionary liberties of all Christians as to secondary issues from the Word. In fact, I am trying to build up the RPW and liberty of conscience. If the RPW applies at all, it most certainly must apply to doctrine, that which is taught and preached, defended and encouraged. If anything must be acceptable before God it must of first order be that which the Holy Spirit sanctions for the foundation of faith in both the new believer and the mature believer.

If one is at liberty to believe either the FH or the Six-day, because it is not certain which is true, then it is a violation of that liberty for a minister to assume that he, without the benefit of the rule of the entire church, but he alone from his office, has the answer for everybody, and they are to follow his convictions. He is contradicting the church which says that it is everyone's liberty to believe one or the other, when he is saying that it is his opinion that is to be believed. If he is a FH man, then what are the Six-Day people in his congregation going to do when he preaches or teaches the FH? Are they exempt from those meetings? Is their liberty removed? Does he have a right or even a commission, a command from God, to do that?

It seems ridiculous to me to hold that the RPW denies the ordinary member the right to sing a doctrinally correct song in worship, even though it is not exclusively a Psalm, but that there is no regulation forbidding a minister to preach what the churches have not even sanctioned as doctrine, but only as liberty of conscience. This is a double standard, it seems to me.

What I am getting at is that, if the rulership of the church belongs to the ruling elders juro divino, then if follows necessarily that their rule, even their discretionary rule on order in the church, must be guided by Scripture and the light of nature ( i.e., sound reason, that is, good and necessary consequence. ) I picked the FH because it is neither the result of good and necessary consequence, nor from Scripture; it is theoretical only.

Though teaching and ruling elders are also allowed the liberties of conscience that everyone else owns by right of Scripture, the offices' duties do not allow for the practice or inculcating of them. They may only do as their commission warrants them from Christ. This is much the same as a policeman not showing favouritism or prejudice in his enforcement of the law. He is not the interpreter of the law, nor the arbiter of the law, nor the advocate of defendents; he is the keeper of the law, no matter what his personal convictions may be. Or it is like an ambassador delivering a letter to a foreign leader, a letter carefully crafted by a king and his cabinet of minsters. If he puts it in his pocket and says, "Mr. President, I will tell you what they have in mind...," and gives his own interpretation, then the king will execute him for treason. No, he is commissioned to deliver the kings message. The place for personal convictions is not within the duties of the office, it is without, separated from it. That is the definition of the office, it seems to me, if it is juro divino.

That's how the Dutch Reformed used to have it. They didn't have a stated RPW because they had the second commandment as well as a defined limit to the duties of office.

I recall a minister in my former church preaching a sermon which included a mention about the evils of truimphalism, which was then the name of militant postmillennialism. He preached this in a church that was safely amilliennial. But he got raked over the coals quite severely over that. I know, because I ran into him more than ten years later and it still bothered him. What he was getting at was that people were ascending the pulpit to preach a narrowed and unwarranted doctrine, attacking the liberties of others who held to another view. But that was the same thing the elders were claiming he was doing when he seemingly "closed the door" for those who held to postmillennialism, by his using the pulpit, as if from God, to condemn what God did not condemn. The point is that they had a closed view of office that did not permit comdemnation of what God did not condemn, and did not permit putting even Biblical concepts such as millennial views to be put alongside verified and mutually confessed gospel truths. If one millennial view could not be determined as the doctrinally correct one, the one that God intended, with certainty, then it was not permitted to be taught as if God sanctioned it. The office was not to be employed that way.

 

[JohnV]

Originally posted by Saiph

I still need an answer to the question: why would I be prohibited from singing Amazing Grace, on grounds that what God has not commanded is forbidden, but the minister can preach the FH on the grounds that if it cannot be disproven from the WCF it is allowed?

JohnV, keep in mind, as I posted before, the idea "what God has not commanded is forbidden, is a complete misinterpretation of the RPW as defined by the WCF.

"The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man´s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the word; and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the Church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed."

Westminster Confession (I:VI):

Mark:

I understand what you are saying. You do not see the prohibition of "what God has not commanded is forbidden". Perhaps you have not taken into account that this speaks of element, or institution, of worship, in contrast to circumstances and discretionary lattitudes within the Scriptural bounds. God did not command a golden calf, and He did not command people from other tribes to handle the Ark of the Covenant.

In terms of what the duties of the elders are, in teaching, preaching, and defending the true gospel, it simply cannot be any other way but that what God has not commanded is not commanded, and therefore cannot be commanded by men upon men. In other words, what God has not commanded is forbidden. This is not supposed to be a negation of the discretion that must be a part of the rulership of the church, because not all things can be stipulated for each church. A general rule applies, but there would be certain liberties within that rule that do not transgress the bounds. These are not forbidden on the grounds that God did not command them, for they are inclusive in the general command.

The point is this, whether you have a RPW which says that what God did not command is forbidden, whether yo do not have a RPW which says that what God did not command is forbidden, you must have a RPW which says that what God did not command is forbidden ( to abuse Aristotle once again; sorry guy. ) You can't get around it. Where you differ with it, in reality, is where you draw the line of commandment, not whether it is so.

Now, I've put some thought into this, and still I may be wrong. That's why I am putting this out here for everyone to give me a hard time with. That's what I'm looking for. I trust my brothers and sisters on this Board to give me a hard time for my good. I'm pretty entrenched in this position, and I need to know if I am on the right track.

 

[Saiph]

I understand what you are saying. You do not see the prohibition of "what God has not commanded is forbidden". Perhaps you have not taken into account that this speaks of element, or institution, of worship, in contrast to circumstances and discretionary lattitudes within the Scriptural bounds. God did not command a golden calf, and He did not command people from other tribes to handle the Ark of the Covenant.

JohnV,

1. I do not make a distinction between element and circumstance. No one on this board has shown me the biblical reason for doing that.

2. The golden calf was forbidden, thou shalt not make any graven image. . . . and the Ark ? The descendants of Kohath from the Tribe of Levi were given charge of the Ark (Num.3:31). But even they could not carry the Ark unless they were first cleansed by water purified with the Ashes of the Red Heifer. (Num. 8:6-7) The Levites were commanded to conceal the Ark under thick blankets of animal skins while it was transported through the wilderness. (Num. 4:5-6).

When Uzzah was struck dead after touching the Ark as it was being transported on a wagon (2 Sam.6:7). It could have happened for any number of reasons. The Ark, after being stolen by the Philistines, was probably uncovered. It is possible that Uzzah may not have gone through the purification process. But the main reason can be found in Numbers 7:9. The Ark was never to be carried, in any fashion, except on the shoulders of the descendants of Kohath.


So, your two examples do not work, I found positive commands, and good and necessary inference for both. I would challenge you, or anyone else here to show me something from scripture that was NOT comannded, and cannot be found by such inference to one of God's positive or negative commands, that man was punished for.

There is no such example.

Adding the law "what God has not commanded is forbidden", is just that, ADDING to God's law.

[Edited on 10-21-2005 by Saiph]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Mark -

Do you own "Gospel Worship" by Jeremiah Burroughs?

Read his first sermon here:
http://www.apuritansmind.com/PuritanWorship/BurroughsJeremiahWorshipRPW.htm

It covers your question on something "not" commanded and yet punished for.

 

[Saiph]

I read that paper Matt, and while I enjoy Burroughs on Christian Contentment, I part ways with him here.

Nadab and Abihu I have addressed in another thread. They did what God commanded NOT. Not something He did not command.And Jeremiah 7, 13 and Isaiah 1 are also the same issue.

But even IF I grant that this is an incident of what is NOT commanded, it is the singular instance that most RPW advocates point to. Why is that ?

Consider this from Matthew Henry:

2. Presuming thus to burn incense of their own without order, no marvel that they made a further blunder, and instead of taking of the fire from the altar, which was newly kindled from before the Lord and which henceforward must be used in offering both sacrifice and incense (Rev_8:5), they took common fire, probably from that with which the flesh of the peace-offerings was boiled, and this they made use of in burning incense; not being holy fire, it is called strange fire; and, though not expressly forbidden, it was crime enough that God commanded it not. For (as bishop Hall well observes here) "œIt is a dangerous thing, in the service of God, to decline from his own institutions; we have to do with a God who is wise to prescribe his own worship, just to require what he has prescribed, and powerful to revenge what he has not prescribed."

3. Incense was always to be burned by only one priest at a time, but here they would both go in together to do it.

4. They did it rashly, and with precipitation. They snatched their censers, so some read it, in a light careless way, without due reverence and seriousness: when all the people fell upon their faces, before the glory of the Lord, they thought the dignity of their office was such as to exempt them from such abasements. The familiarity they were admitted to bred a contempt of the divine Majesty; and now that they were priests they thought they might do what they pleased.

5. There is reason to suspect that they were drunk when they did it, because of the law which was given upon this occasion, Lev_10:8. They had been feasting upon the peace-offerings, and the drink-offerings that attended them, and so their heads were light, or, at least, their hearts were merry with wine; they drank and forgot the law (Pro_31:5) and were guilty of this fatal miscarriage. 6. No doubt it was done presumptuously; for, if it had been done through ignorance, they would have been allowed the benefit of the law lately made, even for the priests, that they should bring a sin-offering, Lev_4:2, Lev_4:3. But the soul that doth aught presumptuously, and in contempt of God's majesty, authority, and justice, that soul shall be cut of, Num_15:30.

Notice there are other possibilities involved.

Also consider this:

Num 15:26 And all the congregation of the people of Israel shall be forgiven, and the stranger who sojourns among them, because the whole population was involved in the mistake.
Num 15:27 "If one person sins unintentionally, he shall offer a female goat a year old for a sin offering.
Num 15:28 And the priest shall make atonement before the LORD for the person who makes a mistake, when he sins unintentionally, to make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven.
Num 15:29 You shall have one law for him who does anything unintentionally, for him who is native among the people of Israel and for the stranger who sojourns among them.
Num 15:30 But the person who does anything with a high hand, whether he is native or a sojourner, reviles the LORD, and that person shall be cut off from among his people.
Num 15:31 Because he has despised the word of the LORD and has broken his commandment, that person shall be utterly cut off; his iniquity shall be on him."

Note K&D:

But it was only sins committed by mistake (see at Lev_4:2) that could be expiated by sin-offerings. Whoever, on the other hand, whether a native or a foreigner, committed a sin "œwith a high hand," - i.e., so that he raised his hand, as it were, against Jehovah, or acted in open rebellion against Him, - blasphemed God, and was to be cut off (see Gen_17:14); for he had despised the word of Jehovah, and broken His commandment, and was to atone for it with his life. "œits crime upon it;" i.e., it shall come upon such a soul in the punishment which it shall endure.

We should not be presumptuous in our worship AT ALL. But note how even Matthew Henry deduces what happened bu good and necessary consequence.

Whatever we have as an element or circumstance in the worship of God must be supported by scripture. But under the new covenant synagogue worship (no longer Temple/Sinaitic) we may burn incense in any order, and light it by any means, and use any kind, within reason of propriety and reverence.

 

[JohnV]

Mark:
First, I am assuming the RPW for the sake of the argument. I do hold to it, but the point is that it is a general rule in Presbyterianism. Whether you agree with it is irrelevant to the discussion; the point is Presbyterianism agrees with it. I'm trying to figure out why it applies to the lay person wanting to sing Amazing Grace but not a minister preaching the FH.

Second, it seems that you are arguing the same type of thing in regards to the part about what is forbidden. Though I think this is a contradiction in your reasoning, it still holds that you basic point is the same as mine, but only applied to a different thing.

Third, even if we drop the part about what is forbidden, we still have many positive commands to deal with. Not only is there a curse for men preaching what God has not sent them to preach, but we also have the office given to all believers to test the spirits of those who teach. This is not subject to the discretionary opinion of the elders, but based directly upon Scriptural testing points. The elders are given no direction that their liberty of conscience may overrule and negate the Christian's liberty of conscience. Because a minister may himself be convinced of the FH, that does not mean that he may preach it, thus making it the de facto teaching of his church, when there may be, or are, or perhaps are not, people in his church who hold to the Six-day view. Whether there are or not, it still is not what Scripture directs him to preach, even if he thinks it is. We have the structure of derived authority in the church that depends on no one individual for such things.

 

[Saiph]

JohnV,

The Bible does not command us to worship God by painting beautiful, representational art of nature or human beauty. Therefore it is forbidden to worship God by painting a picture of a pastoral countryside ? If I am to do all things to the glory of God (Like Bach and his music, a Lutheran), then why is my photography or painting not an acceptable act of worship ?

Is an instrumental etude I write on the guitar to be played during offertory, or procession, not acceptable to God ?

Why did He give me a talent for such things if I am not to use it for His worship and glory ?

Since the bible never commands us to play anything on the guitar why do you play guitar ?

Again, no one has shown from scripture a reason to seperate the regulations for private and public worship.

If EP the only prescribed biblical worship music, then there is no way anyone evr listening to Bach or lutheran hymns, or Bob Dylan, is not offering strange fire. Because ALL music is worship. All music ascribes worth to something and was written in honor of something or someone, or for the pleasure of someone.

Am I way out there ? ?



[Edited on 10-21-2005 by Saiph]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Originally posted by Saiph
I read that paper Matt, and while I enjoy Burroughs on Christian Contentment, I part ways with him here.

Nadab and Abihu I have addressed in another thread. They did what God commanded NOT. Not something He did not command.And Jeremiah 7, 13 and Isaiah 1 are also the same issue.

But even IF I grant that this is an incident of what is NOT commanded, it is the singular instance that most RPW advocates point to. Why is that ?

Consider this from Matthew Henry:

2. Presuming thus to burn incense of their own without order, no marvel that they made a further blunder, and instead of taking of the fire from the altar, which was newly kindled from before the Lord and which henceforward must be used in offering both sacrifice and incense (Rev_8:5), they took common fire, probably from that with which the flesh of the peace-offerings was boiled, and this they made use of in burning incense; not being holy fire, it is called strange fire; and, though not expressly forbidden, it was crime enough that God commanded it not. For (as bishop Hall well observes here) "œIt is a dangerous thing, in the service of God, to decline from his own institutions; we have to do with a God who is wise to prescribe his own worship, just to require what he has prescribed, and powerful to revenge what he has not prescribed."

3. Incense was always to be burned by only one priest at a time, but here they would both go in together to do it.

4. They did it rashly, and with precipitation. They snatched their censers, so some read it, in a light careless way, without due reverence and seriousness: when all the people fell upon their faces, before the glory of the Lord, they thought the dignity of their office was such as to exempt them from such abasements. The familiarity they were admitted to bred a contempt of the divine Majesty; and now that they were priests they thought they might do what they pleased.

5. There is reason to suspect that they were drunk when they did it, because of the law which was given upon this occasion, Lev_10:8. They had been feasting upon the peace-offerings, and the drink-offerings that attended them, and so their heads were light, or, at least, their hearts were merry with wine; they drank and forgot the law (Pro_31:5) and were guilty of this fatal miscarriage. 6. No doubt it was done presumptuously; for, if it had been done through ignorance, they would have been allowed the benefit of the law lately made, even for the priests, that they should bring a sin-offering, Lev_4:2, Lev_4:3. But the soul that doth aught presumptuously, and in contempt of God's majesty, authority, and justice, that soul shall be cut of, Num_15:30.

Notice there are other possibilities involved.

Also consider this:

Num 15:26 And all the congregation of the people of Israel shall be forgiven, and the stranger who sojourns among them, because the whole population was involved in the mistake.
Num 15:27 "If one person sins unintentionally, he shall offer a female goat a year old for a sin offering.
Num 15:28 And the priest shall make atonement before the LORD for the person who makes a mistake, when he sins unintentionally, to make atonement for him, and he shall be forgiven.
Num 15:29 You shall have one law for him who does anything unintentionally, for him who is native among the people of Israel and for the stranger who sojourns among them.
Num 15:30 But the person who does anything with a high hand, whether he is native or a sojourner, reviles the LORD, and that person shall be cut off from among his people.
Num 15:31 Because he has despised the word of the LORD and has broken his commandment, that person shall be utterly cut off; his iniquity shall be on him."

Note K&D:

But it was only sins committed by mistake (see at Lev_4:2) that could be expiated by sin-offerings. Whoever, on the other hand, whether a native or a foreigner, committed a sin "œwith a high hand," - i.e., so that he raised his hand, as it were, against Jehovah, or acted in open rebellion against Him, - blasphemed God, and was to be cut off (see Gen_17:14); for he had despised the word of Jehovah, and broken His commandment, and was to atone for it with his life. "œits crime upon it;" i.e., it shall come upon such a soul in the punishment which it shall endure.

We should not be presumptuous in our worship AT ALL. But note how even Matthew Henry deduces what happened bu good and necessary consequence.

Whatever we have as an element or circumstance in the worship of God must be supported by scripture. But under the new covenant synagogue worship (no longer Temple/Sinaitic) we may burn incense in any order, and light it by any means, and use any kind, within reason of propriety and reverence.

I think it would be important to remember that it only takes one instance for it to be law. We don't need 50 instacnes - just one. Also, remember that Nadab and Abihu did not have Levisticus, like you do. They probably had a couple of stone tablets, Exodus, and oral tradition until Moses penned it all down. They did what God did not command them to do.

 

[JohnV]

Am I way out there ?

No, and yes. You are not way out in respect to music as it is involved in worship. That would be my argument for hymns if I were to give it. So far it has not been necessary, and I have been content to simply ask of EP to ground their assumptions. I would not, however, go as far as you do. Its the principle, not the exaggeration that I agree with.

But yes, you way out here, in that this is not what this thread is about. I'm not arguing the RPW; I am assuming because Presbyterianism holds to it. It is completely irrelevant whether you or I agree with it. I do, and you don't, but that has absolutely no effect on the question of why, if the churches hold to it, it applies to one and not the other, why it applies to the less obvious, but not to the obvious.

 

[Saiph]

But yes, you way out here, in that this is not what this thread is about. I'm not arguing the RPW;

Mea culpa.

You are right. I have a bad habit of this.
I will shut up now.