When neither the law nor the facts fit, pound the table?
In the first place, I took the phrase, "More, ahem, catholic wing..." to be a fairly typical example of a Mad-Dawgwardian, light-hearted jab, complete with a lowercase "c", just to show there was no offense meant. My reply, "Yahrightwhatever." was given in that light, as an equally light-hearted return-jab, and nothing more. Lord help us if I had written "(*rolls eyes*)" behind it.
This kind of response betrays the rest of your post.
I find it highly ironic that you seem to have chosen this particular passage - A type of exchange which has always kept us FRiendly while in obvious opposition - That this is the phrase chosen as the exemplar of your ire.
However, since that is what seems to have transpired, I can only take that to mean that my interpretation was wrong in the beginning - In which case, that old adage, "If the shoe fits, stick it in your... sock drawer" would likely be my next retort.
What I wrote may be wrong. It may not be YOUR interpretation, but Scripture does not forbid it [...]
This is a peculiar way to look at Scripture. What it says is what is important. What it is silent about is infinite. Just like any contract (which in fact, each Covenant is), the import is meant to be positive - That which is IN IT, mentioned by it, both by inclusion and exclusion, are it's working members. A defense from silence is no defense at all.
[...] anymore than Scripture says that if you don't know something yet you will never know it.
But, a supposed revelation, based in extrapolation and innuendo, is hard put to be defended. That which is thematic is obvious. There is certainly revelation. I have no argument with you there... but the nature of the "revelations" purported by the Roman church... That is another story altogether.
The latter is a traditional assumption of some non-catholic groups, but it is only an assumption.
As is the position of the church in Rome... assumed. In more ways than one.
And I think that Acts 15 suggests a way that the Church rightly deals with things it doesn't know yet. I don't think Acts was written before the events of chapter 15 took place.
TRUE. It is your interpretation thereof which is suspect.
James attests that Moses is known to the converts (Acts 15:21)... So the Law is already there. This is about whether the "larger" Church authority would subsume the local church and it's authority, which, against the Pharisees among them, they DID NOT.
They suffered the local church with the burden from "on high" that their authority would only enforce the Noachide law - the lesser, though older law... Leaving the local church to work it out according to Moses... They most certainly did *not* tell them to ignore Moses.
As I said before, it is the Pharisaical, Nicolaitian-like hierarchical order which was defeated here - Because the Noachide response of the Council of Jerusalem is supported in Moses.
So one could have recourse to extra Biblical assumptions, like Sola Scriptura [...]
The logic of sola scriptura is unassailable. Again, these Covenants are contracts. When there is a dispute, one reverts to the original contract to determine the meaning. It is the only part of the contract process which is set-in-stone. The rest is merely hear-say. It is not a matter of the words "sola scriptura" being found within, but more the natural purpose of a contract which gives sola scriptura voice.
The Roman church uses it's !!!TRADITIONS!!! to make the Bible a "living document" in the very same way that liberals use the law to make our Constitution a "living document". The parallel is profound, and to exactly the same effect. It is unconscionable.
So when you write dismissively of an assertion merely because it is a Catholic assertion or one which supports the Catholic view, what is apparent is that we are not really talking about what can be 'proved' from Scripture, because any interpretation which might support the Catholic view is shouted down rather than dealt with.
I write dismissively because the argument is without merit. That it is against the Roman church is simply icing on the cake. And I am an equal opportunity offender. I offend my Protestant brethren in much the same way. One doesn't rise against the trinitarian concept without offending pretty near everyone.
And equally, I write in a straightforward manner when dealing with you specifically, because you have always had the ability to discuss things in a straightforward manner without offense. That is a great compliment btw: I prefer to talk meat and not milk. There are few that are equipped to do so.
If that was an affectation on your part, then perhaps I will have to address you with a more nuanced response.
As to the use of Greek thought (not Greek belief) if you think that it essentially runs counter to revelation so that things like the Hypostatic Union and the Doctrine of the Trinity are made out of whole cloth, then there is a problem in conversation, because there is, as I have said often to loud and outraged objection, a different attitude about reason. The attitude is that your side, or many on your side, despise reason, hold it of too little account.
To the contrary. I hold reason to be of a very high value. It is when it is used to extrapolate a conclusion which makes the original contract null and void that I draw the line. That is no longer reasonable.
There HAS to be a "We hold these truths to be self-evident" portion which is unassailable, or the whole mess can be created out of whole cloth. Protestants have concluded that part to be the written Word, precisely because it is written down, Set-in-stone, un-maleable and unchangeable. That is a very good thing. And on the basics within, you and I are in a great agreement.
Some, notoriously Quix, just go directly to pounding the table, which large and colorful posts which do not argue so much as repeat, in an exotic way, the charges, while unabashedly poisoning the well.
Your observations about Quix are your own, but that does not mean that they fit me as well. And if they do, in your opinion, then I find myself in good company.
Ecumenicism is not found in compromise. It is found in TRUTH.
r-1: The logic of sola scriptura is unassailable. Again, these Covenants are contracts. When there is a dispute, one reverts to the original contract to determine the meaning. It is the only part of the contract process which is set-in-stone. The rest is merely hear-say. It is not a matter of the words "sola scriptura" being found within, but more the natural purpose of a contract which gives sola scriptura voice.
And that is exactly what Jesus did when debating with the Pharisees. He stated the traditions that the Pharisees established and countered with "It is written,...."
There is nowhere in the Bible where I can find that tradition supersedes Scripture. Whenever there's a conflict, it's Scripture that is appealed to. Jesus Himself did it and set the example.
For goodness sake, Scripture is the Word of God. Tradition is the word of man. What possesses anyone in their right mind to equate the two is beyond me.
No, I take that back. A thirst for power and control has to be it. Only someone who wants total control of others would claim that their words are equivalent to those of God Himself. Claiming to be God's sole mouthpiece on earth with the ability to condemn someone for eternity is blasphemy. God never gave that ability or right to any fallible or easily corruptible man. That's too much power given to one human being to hold over another. God is the final Judge, never any man.
EXCELLENT:
This is a peculiar way to look at Scripture. What it says is what is important. What it is silent about is infinite. Just like any contract (which in fact, each Covenant is), the import is meant to be positive - That which is IN IT, mentioned by it, both by inclusion and exclusion, are it’s working members. A defense from silence is no defense at all.
I find it highly ironic that you seem to have chosen this particular passage - A type of exchange which has always kept us FRiendly while in obvious opposition - That this is the phrase chosen as the exemplar of your ire.
Dawg flips on his back, in submission posture. (which is something to see in a rabid dog.)
I'll go to the substance (koff, koff, if any) later, but I thought I should make my apology clear. I must ask for help in remembering that I am dealing with a host of persons rather than one amorphous foe.
I was wrong. Sorry.
Amen