That's certainly news to Saint Paul.
(If nobody minds, I'm gonna stick with the King James Version -- nasty "four-letter-words" and all):
If "Jesus abolished nothing!", as you so falsely claim in service of the Dispensationalist Heresy which has unfortunately Enslaved you -- then you're Dead, I'm Dead, We're both Dead, We're both Damned...
...and I'll see you in Hell.
Fortunately, however... According to the Bible, you're entirely Wrong, Dispensationalism's entirely Wrong, and by God's Grace you and I may yet be Saved in spite of Ourselves.
If a Vain Fool may offer you some advice... get used to being Wrong. It's one of the only ways I've ever learned anything important.
He fulfilled it.
Of course He did. Jesus Christ fulfilled and replaced the Old Rites and Rituals of the Jews -- which is why Saint Paul warned against the Judaization of the Christian Church.
St Augustine is not inspired, and, yes, a statement such as this is reprehensible if spoken by anyone.
WELL, MY, MY -- all of a sudden your Slanders against John Calvin take a back-burner, when you are reminded that I am quoting Saint Augustine.
Poor little Un-Christian Hatemonger -- I've deprived you of your favorite target!!
But, be advised, your own personal opinion counts for nothing, here. You're debating Calvinists, who read and respect Magisterial Tradition (unlike you); and so we'd like to see some Scripture evidence, some Patristic citation... something to buttress your own personal opinion that Saint Augustine's exigesis is "reprehensible".
Just give me some sort of Evidence to buttress your Argument -- anything -- because if it's just you against Saint Augustine... then guess what, kemosabe! You Lose, You're Wrong, and you look silly!!
I have worshipped with Messianic Jews who have willingly submitted themselves to the Law that they might win some of their people to the Lord Jesus. This is line with the philosophy of the Apostle Paul who admonished Jews who accepted the Messiah to remain Jews and Greeks who did so not to become Jews. Your "us-four-and-no-more" strategy would win few, if any.
Actually, we have plenty of Converted Jews in the Reformed faith. Whole Churches and Congregations full, in fact (I guess you didn't know that onw of my favorite Reformed Presbyters was the Converted-Jewish Presbyter of Messiah's Congregation, NYC, the Reverend Steve Schlissel). But as you have proven in every single one of your Posts so far -- You don't care about the Facts, just the False-Witness mud you can sling.
Also, I did not slander your Pope, John Calvin. First of all, you cannot slander a dead person.
John Calvin is not my Pope; and what is more, John Calvin is not Dead.
Based upon your foolish assumption that every Christian needs a human "Pope", I am guessing that you are a poor, schismatic Roman Catholic. You obviously have no comprehension of the Truly-Biblical and Eastern Orthodox conception of the Living Kingdom of the Saints:
Saint John Calvin is alive, right now, even as we speak; and do you not know, that he shall Judge the entire World?
Secondly, I did not directly say it was attributed to your Pope.
By that, I assume you mean "John Calvin"... Of course not. Since you were too implacably Anti-Calvinist to even bother to look it up (or even read my own citations), you weren't aware that I was quoting from the most Esteemed Theologian since the Apostles in the entire history of the Christian Church.
No, you just assumed that you had another opportunity for cheap Slander against Saint John Calvin; and when you got caught with your pants down, you claimed the personal authority to call Saint Augustine "reprehensible" (yes, that hubbub from the peanut gallery IS every Christian Theologian in history laughing at you.)
BTW, I am willing to overlook certain antisemitic statements made by some of the Fathers and by the Reformers because they were children of their age.
Well, WHOOP-DEE-DOO!!
Guess what -- They don't care. Your opinion matters NOTHING compared to the Fathers and the Reformers, because the Fathers and the Reformers had a decent primary respect for Infallible Scripture, and a decent secondary respect for the teachings of the Patristic Magisterium.
You're just some dude with an Anti-Calvinist bias and your own Personal Opinion. That counts for squat, kemosabe.
Modern Christians ought to have moved beyond such attitudes.
"Move Beyond" Scripture and the Patristics?
Okay, the Romanists can "go ahead" without us. We Calvinists will stick to Scripture and the Patristics.
Nice seein' ya...
Also, I was not aware that the principles of the Reformation--solo fidi, sola scriptura, solo Christi--had been superceded by a new principle--solo Calvinus. This is"Evil, Ugly, Heretical, and Just Plain Wrong." You also are guilty of using the fallacy of composition by arguing that since some dispensationalists teach such and such, that, therefore, taints all dispensationalists. Such broad brushing represents a number of these quasi-formal fallacies. It could be said also that your statements represent a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter--the error of generalizing from the atypical.
Oh, look... Attila found a copy of a Freshman Logic 101 Textbook in the remainder bin! Why, I bet he even thinks he can conjugate Latin, and actually thinks he can read and understand it! Ain't that bloody cute.
NO, you intellectual dilettante... if I were "generalizing from the atypical", then I might have quoted from "Reverend" Hagee... but I've already admitted that the man is a full-blown nut-case.
Instead, I am quoting from Ryrie, Pentecost, Walvoord, Hoyt, Hunt, and Thomas Ice. These are universally acknowledged as the leading theological expositors of Dispensationalism in the late-19th and 20th Centuries, and I am quoting their own words.
By way of comparison, you might say that quoting from Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and Castro on the subject of Communism is "generalizing from the atypical"... it certainly is not, and you certainly don't know what you're talking about. I am certainly not "generalizing from the atypical", rather I am "observing argumentative charity" -- I am allowing the leading expositors of a contrary position to express themselves in their own words, and to be hoisted upon their own petard.
You don't understand Logic, Rhetoric, or Dialectic, Attila. ("Jerry's Kids", of course, must have a command of all three -- Dr. Jerry Falwell tolerates Calvinists only as long as we keep winning National Championships for him. That's the Price. That's the Deal.)
Furthermore, your exegesis of Gal. 3:28 is atrocious. Your interpretion "that henceforth any ideology which proposed any Racial Division of the Body of Christ whatsoever was Heretical, and Damned by God" can no more be lifted from the text than by declaring that sexual differences are 'henceforth damned by God', the implication being that in order to be saved, we ought to be gender-benders!
No, actually, a consistent application of my exegesis (if you were to ask me -- or for that matter, just read the Bible) would imply ONLY that Men and Women, Jews and Gentiles, Rich and Poor, and what have you all enjoy Perfectly-Equal Kingdom Heirship under Christ.
Dr. Eckleburg -- You're a Wife, with a Husband. Conveniently, for the sake of my example, I am a Husband with a Wife! Now, I rather suspect that you try to perform certain duties with regard to your Husband and Family, as do I (respectively) We both try to perform the duties for which God has best equipped us, and there's no need for "gender-bending" on either part -- but I am sure that you would agree with me that any theology which said "All Men shall be kings for a thousand years, and All Women shall be their slaves" is Un-Biblical and Heretical... not the least because, such a "theology" utterly perverts the Biblical idea of Marriage and Kingdom Equality before God!
In like manner, then, why do we Christians tolerate this Racially-Divisive Heresy known as "Dispensationalism"?