One thing at a time

Zoltan has the mistaken idea, apparently, that I am trying to avoid him:

Your desire to keep things “on topic” now seems selective. Like many other RC’s I have encountered, it seems you want to narrow the scope of discussion when it suits you.

By way of assuring him that this is not the case, I offer this post as a beginning in addressing things he said in another comment here. My remarks here are drawn from an abortive reply of my own to that comment. I determined that my reply was off-topic in view of his last paragraph there, and so I withheld it. Since it appears that he thinks I am attempting to dodge him, I’ll see about breaking that withheld reply into bite-size pieces that can be more readily digested.

In my original post, to which you are replying, I wrote:

Consider: with respect to doctrine, the Reformed Protestant claims that he only accepts as true what is written in Scripture. But he goes further than that. He also says that this can only be determined by means of grammatical-historical interpretation of the Bible. And he goes further still than this: he also insists that the literal meaning of the Bible is “one” (WCF I.ix): that is, what God means or intends by a passage is the same as what the human author meant or intended by it.

In response to this, you wrote:

Here I think you take the meaning of the Westminster Confession completely out of context. Jesus Christ is the Word incarnate. In Him we have two natures (divine and human) and yet He is One person (The Second Person of the Holy Trinity). In this, you seem to be a Scriptural Nestorian. There is only One Truth (Christ). How is the Westminster Catechism in denial of that reality?

I made three assertions in the paragraph to which you are replying:

  1. “with respect to doctrine, the Reformed Protestant claims that he only accepts as true what is written in Scripture.”
  2. “He also says that this can only be determined by means of grammatical-historical interpretation of the Bible.”
  3. “he also insists that the literal meaning of the Bible is “one” (WCF I.ix): that is, what God means or intends by a passage is the same as what the human author meant or intended by it.”

To which of those three assertions are you objecting?

Advertisements
Posted in Apologetics

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories
Pages
Archives

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 162 other followers

%d bloggers like this: