Under examination? Is the Inquisition ongoing?
I did not set about to present some massive defense...I merely pointed out the error of your flawed claims of Reformed teaching. You're chastising me for failing to do something I never attempted or intended to do in the first place. That's hardly within the realm of intellectual honesty.
None of this is found in the OT. The OT is more concerned with retribution and less concerned with mercy.
Now see...if you had said (and could prove) that the OT was only concerned with retribution and never concerned with mercy, you might have something approaching a point. But you wisely did not say such a thing because it's simply Scripturally untenable. As such, the claim that "none of this is found in the OT" is nothing but an empty claim.
And so on. The Old Covenant is obsolete and the New has replaced it, according to Saint Paul. How does Reformed theology handle this?
Why are you asking me? You've made it abundantly clear that you know everything the Reformed claim, so why bother with the charade of asking me when anything I respond with will be twisted to fit your preconception about what I as a Reformed Christian believe?
The truth is that the New Covenant was built upon the framework of the Old Covenant. The core of the New Covenant is Christ's fulfillment of the terms of the Old Covenant on our behalf. The New Covenant is meaningless outside the context of the Old Covenant.
And that is exactly how different Reformed theology is from early and traditional Christianity. Christianity from early times has understood that Christ is the Word of God; the Bible is the word - that is, man’s understanding of the Word - selected by the Church in accordance to its adherence to the Creeds. You cannot guarantee an authentic theology by working backwards - as evidenced by the millions of different individual beliefs and theologies and more being developed every year.
Yeah...because the theology of the Roman Catholic Church has never changed in the last 2000 years. Keep telling yourself that so you can delude yourself into the false sense of security you've built by putting your faith in an earthly institution. That's precisely where you have put your faith, and allowed yourself to understand the formal canonization of the Scriptures as being the equivalent of conferring upon them authority when in fact they already inherently had such authority as divinely inspired Scripture. The church did not make those works Scripture, they simply recognized the truth about them.
Jesus created the Church for men; man created the Bible in order to create a united witness to Jesus. One cannot go backwards as the Protestants attempt to. The children of the Reformation have attempted to create a Jesus out of the Bible; whereas Christianity created the Bible from its witness of Jesus.
That's wonderful linguistic sophistry, but at the end of the day it's empty and meaningless. Jesus never appealed to the authority or unity of the covenant people of God as the ultimate source of authority establishing the truth of His claims. He appealed to Scripture and to His own works. To claim that the Scriptures themselves are insufficient to give requisite knowledge of everything needed to the salvation of the soul is to be at complete odds with the very witness Jesus Himself established in Scripture. Of course, in placing ones faith in an earthly institution rather than Scripture itself as an authority, it's easy to embrace the circular arguments of that institution as it fashions Scripture into whatever suits its interest.
As for myself, like Luther before me my conscience is held captive by the Word of God. Yours is held captive by an earthly institution based in Europe. Your tagline says it all: "I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)"
For the record, Christianity reads the NT through the prism of the Gospels and the OT through the prism of the New. Not vice versa.
For the record, your claim is at odds with the witness of Christ Himself, as well as the Apostles, who labored extensively to show the inseperable and complementary nature of both the Old and New Testament works.
Revisionist history and projection of doctrine upon history at large is no substitute for coherent and consistent argumentation, nor is it interchangeable with truth.
***I notice that you do not speak of the Gospels; though, you, like many Reformed under examination, speak only of the NT.
Under examination? Is the Inquisition ongoing? ***
It is a interesting thing to observe the amorphous theologies of men; sometime I compare them to the Church, many times it is irrelevant.
***I did not set about to present some massive defense***
If Reformed theology was correct, would the Reformed need one?
***I merely pointed out the error of your flawed claims of Reformed teaching. You’re chastising me for failing to do something I never attempted or intended to do in the first place. That’s hardly within the realm of intellectual honesty. ***
My claims include the posit that the Reformed rely largely on Paulian and OT proofs and snippets only of the Gospels. I think that you have indirectly supported this claim admirably.
***None of this is found in the OT. The OT is more concerned with retribution and less concerned with mercy.
Now see...if you had said (and could prove) that the OT was only concerned with retribution and never concerned with mercy, you might have something approaching a point. But you wisely did not say such a thing because it’s simply Scripturally untenable. As such, the claim that “none of this is found in the OT” is nothing but an empty claim. ***
Let us go and see what I said that ‘none of this is found in the OT’ refers to.
I posted Luke 22 which included the Last Supper, the New Covenant and the sacrifice that Jesus was going to make. Where is that in the OT?
I then posted Matthew 5 which included the Beatitudes and the admonition to be perfect just as your Heavenly Father is perfect. Where is that in the OT?
You speak of intellectual honesty. Interesting juxtaposition to my previous posting in which Jesus instructs us to follow the traditions we are supposed to, but not the examples of the Pharisees.
***And so on. The Old Covenant is obsolete and the New has replaced it, according to Saint Paul. How does Reformed theology handle this?
Why are you asking me? You’ve made it abundantly clear that you know everything the Reformed claim, so why bother with the charade of asking me when anything I respond with will be twisted to fit your preconception about what I as a Reformed Christian believe?
The truth is that the New Covenant was built upon the framework of the Old Covenant. The core of the New Covenant is Christ’s fulfillment of the terms of the Old Covenant on our behalf. The New Covenant is meaningless outside the context of the Old Covenant. ***
I see; Paul’s direct words calling the Old Covenant obsolete are meaningless to the Reformed? Interesting.
***Yeah...because the theology of the Roman Catholic Church has never changed in the last 2000 years. Keep telling yourself that so you can delude yourself into the false sense of security you’ve built by putting your faith in an earthly institution. That’s precisely where you have put your faith, and allowed yourself to understand the formal canonization of the Scriptures as being the equivalent of conferring upon them authority when in fact they already inherently had such authority as divinely inspired Scripture. The church did not make those works Scripture, they simply recognized the truth about them. ***
I do not consider the institution that Jesus built to be worthless in any way. The Church did Canonize the Bible; we have the history to prove it; and we also have Scripture itself defer authority to the Church.
***Jesus created the Church for men; man created the Bible in order to create a united witness to Jesus. One cannot go backwards as the Protestants attempt to. The children of the Reformation have attempted to create a Jesus out of the Bible; whereas Christianity created the Bible from its witness of Jesus.
That’s wonderful linguistic sophistry, but at the end of the day it’s empty and meaningless. Jesus never appealed to the authority or unity of the covenant people of God as the ultimate source of authority establishing the truth of His claims. He appealed to Scripture and to His own works. ***
What Scripture did He appeal to? And what authority did He confer on whom?
***To claim that the Scriptures themselves are insufficient to give requisite knowledge of everything needed to the salvation of the soul is to be at complete odds with the very witness Jesus Himself established in Scripture.***
The Bible itself doesn’t say that. Where do you get this from?
***As for myself, like Luther before me my conscience is held captive by the Word of God.***
Your posts appear to indicate some confusion between the Word of God - Jesus - and the word of God - scripture written by men to witness to Jesus. Can I help clear it up?
***For the record, Christianity reads the NT through the prism of the Gospels and the OT through the prism of the New. Not vice versa.
For the record, your claim is at odds with the witness of Christ Himself, as well as the Apostles, who labored extensively to show the inseperable and complementary nature of both the Old and New Testament works.***
The NT makes references from the Old in order to provide evidence to the first century converts from Judaism that the claims of the Apostles are correct. The pagans had no need of such references and would accept the witness of Jesus by itself. Jesus is the Revelation of God; the OT is merely the prefiguring of Jesus written in a way that shows misunderstanding by the Jews of who He was. Look at it this way; only a handful of Jews accepted Christ at first. And when He started to deviate in teaching from Judaism, they fled from Him in droves. Lord, this is hard, who can accept this?
How many were with Him during His passion? Even Peter deserted Him.
***Revisionist history and projection of doctrine upon history at large is no substitute for coherent and consistent argumentation, nor is it interchangeable with truth.***
I think that we’re beginning to make progress.
***Your tagline says it all: “I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)” ***
Really? Why thank you. “If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel, what would you answer him when he says, ‘I do not believe?’ Indeed, I would not believe in the gospels myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.” (St. Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani called ‘The Foundation’ 4:5, [397 A.D.])
If I have the Faith that Jesus Christ gave to the Apostles and they to their successors, it is because of these Doctors and Fathers of the Church who have laboured for 2000 years to fulfill the commands of Jesus to preach to all men in order to bring it to me. And I, in my turn, must also labour for Christ: Matt 25.