Dutch young person of the male persuasion 88:
I surely am enjoying these exchanges bunches more than our clashes a few weeks ago. Thanks to you and thanks to God.
Would you be so kind as to gimme some words on "Dialectic?" I'd like to get a more precise sense of what you mean.
Ninja Mad Dawg
LOL
Okay, the near-dialectic: Hegel's methodology of pushing ordinary reality (thesis) into a melting pot with its antithesis to form a new tension (synthesis) that only the illuminati (Hegel, et al) could appreciate while they sit sipping their brandy. The Catholic Church, because of its contention that it alone holds all "keys" to the Kindgom, performs such silly voodoo upon the Scriptures. Instead of just allowing the ordinary sense of the text (say, Rom. 9), they manufacture a hyper-spiritual Catholic take on important and foundational ideas. Anything else is YPIOS. Just watcth the sparks fly over this post.
The Reformers warred against this self-importance. They pointed at the Scriptures, written not by Catholics, but by the Apostles and associates of Jesus and noted this extra-biblical stuff is just not there without unjustified extensions. Such arguments are rejected out of hand by the Catholics as an affront to their authority. Self-proving argument: I am the authority and I have decided that I am the authority. Okay, now where do we go? Oh, right, just to worship at the feet of Rome.
This is not to say the reformed thinkers got it all right. Luther's consubstantiation is as wrong as transubstantiation. But, they did not retreat to the self-styled bastion of "Didn't we mention that WE are THE authority." They left it out there for discussion and argument. And, yes, (here come your pals from the RCC hit squad), Calvin went overboard. But, no one on this side of the isle says, "Now that was a good idea." We do examine whether the Scriptures teach justification by faith, alone, in Jesus Christ, alone? But, the Catholics rally round the pornographic popes (yes, there were many with illegitamate children by nuns, etc.) claiming ex-cathedra authority to add the sacraments, indulgences, inquisitions and other nonsense. Such blind loyalty is required by headquarters, even though some will say, "Okay, there were some errors, but..." Please. This is more of the dialectic I am referring to. The RCC has made a pot full of theological and behavioral errors and cannot, will not, be scrutinized.
You just have a soft, clever (in the good sense) demeanor that minimizes the offense of the organization. I was cautioning the former poster not to be disarmed by such kindness...you still held to the firm view that there is no firm view, except the firm view that when the RCC decides a firm view should be a firm view.
I find Paul vigorously claiming the Jewish community made similar errors, and I stand with Paul. Pauliolatry is the error the RCC pack has now accused me of. Pauliolatry...there is the dialectic, again.