We Reformers don't base our theology mostly on Paul, we base it on the totality of scripture. Paul just happened to write a lot of it. :) The problem I see with your theology is that when there appears to be a conflict, the favored verse (Gospels) is declared correct [in the way it is interpreted], and the disfavored verse (Paul, or almost anything in the OT) is declared wrong. OTOH, the Spirit shows us a way that both verses are completely true. We don't have favored and disfavored verses in terms of truth. While Gospel verses may be more important to our salvation, they are no more true than the statistics in Numbers.
Did not the Protestants introduce a different (Hebrew) OT from the one the Apostles and the Church chose (Septuagint)?
To my knowledge, the Protestants didn't "introduce" anything. Apparently, the Apostles quoted from both the Septuagint and the Masoretic text. The question is over which version, that we have, is more reliable. Obviously, the original was in Hebrew. It's a fair debate. But you can't tell me that the Apostles "CHOSE" the Septuagint in terms of throwing the Masoretic text aside in its favor. That would make no sense. At that time, presumably there were still reasonable copies of the Hebrew text around. Why would the Apostles toss the originals in favor of a Greek translation as a matter of authority? They wouldn't.
Did not the Protestants introduce private interpretation of the Scriptures?
No, of course not. Reformers do not use private interpretation any more than you do today. Think of it, do Reformers or the Orthodox have more settled and agreed upon scriptural principles that "all" agree upon? I would say the Reformers do.
And regardless of what you think of Protestants and private interpretation, you cannot possibly assert that we introduced it. Many of your most beloved Fathers were cast aside on issues on which they were accused of private interpretation.
:::And regardless of what you think of Protestants and private interpretation, you cannot possibly assert that we introduced it. Many of your most beloved Fathers were cast aside on issues on which they were accused of private interpretation.:::
Exactly. Cast aside. End of the line.
Today, we have churches that follow Calvin and Luther and Knox and Schuller and Haggard and Roberts and...
I don't think the Church ever says that any part of the Bible is "wrong." Misinterpreted, yes, imperfect, yes, but wrong, no. I must remind yout of how the Church understood and still to this day understand the nature of the scriptures (my emphases):
[T]he Holy Spirit inspires, and the sacred author follows the Holy Spirit's injunctions, utilizing his own human and imperfect ways to express the perfect message and doctrine of the Holy Spirit.
In this sense, we can understand possible imperfections in the books of the Bible, since they are the result of the cooperation between the all-perfect and perfecting Divine Author, the Spirit, and the imperfect human author. Biblical textual criticism is completely normal and acceptable by the Orthodox, since they see the Bible in this light. Nothing human is perfect, including the Bible, which is the end product of human cooperation with the divine Spirit. [from Greek Orthodox Archidiocese of America]
If the Bible is "perfect" than the Bible is "God." That leads to another Protestant error: bibliolatry.
the Apostles quoted from both the Septuagint and the Masoretic text
They used the Septuagint in over 93% of the cases, FK. The ratio is very lobsided in favor of the Septuagint. How can you compare this to the Protestant's innovation of 0% Septuagint and claim they did not introduce anything new and heretical? Is that not the same as saying the Apostles were "wrong?" Luther knew better?
Reformers do not use private interpretation any more than you do today
You must be joking! Being a Protestant is not subscribing to or eschewing "traditions of men"(except one's own).
And regardless of what you think of Protestants and private interpretation, you cannot possibly assert that we introduced it
Well, the New Testament prohibits it, and yet the entire Protestant movement is based on one's private interpretation, so someone had to introduce it, and it wasn't the Church. :)