Skip to comments.Yom Kippur: Israel's Reconciliation
Posted on 09/29/2006 8:27:34 AM PDT by Buggman
click here to read article
That's a fallacious argument. Scripture may be the only infallible rule of faith and of life, but that doesn't mean that an argument requires a succint sound-byte citation to verify it. Topcat, being Reformed, subscribes to the "good-and-necessary-inference" rule.
Usually it's good form to ping a FReeper when you quote them by name in a post as you did here.
"And the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom." -- Mark 15:38
Already answered a long time ago on multiple occasions, Jude. The New Covenant specifically includes this little proviso: "I will put My Torah in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts" (Jer. 31:33, Heb. 8:11).
"My Torah"--not another Torah, there is only one.
And because I grow weary of retyping the same arguments over and over again, I'll just point you to the article on my blog, Why the New Covenant Doesnt Do Away with the Torah.
None of the Apostles, least of all Sha'ul, made the artificial distinction of the "moral law" and "ceremonial law." They only spoke of "the Law."
All of the arguments on this have been made at length on this thread; I think you're being a bit unfair trying to jump in with a soundbite response which doesn't take those arguments into account at all.
You are absolutely correct, and it's something that I've called you down for before so that's particularly bad of me. I apologize for not doing so; I just didn't think to go back up and amend the ping list (usually the first thing I paste) when I quoted Forest Keeper and Lord_Calvinus.
LOL. I'm going to remember that line next time I make a mistake.
adjective 1. containing a fallacy; logically unsound: fallacious arguments. 2. deceptive; misleading: fallacious testimony. 3. disappointing; delusive: a fallacious peace.
What definition are you using?
What is the "good-and-necessary-inference" rule?
My faith is grounded in scripture. New ideas cannot contradict scripture because, well that would contradict scripture. If TC can show me how he comes to his conclusions from scripture, that would level the playing field alot and perhaps show me the error of my ways.
I meant that as conciliatory, Ecks--since I've called you down for that, it's that much more incumbant that I not do the same. I was acknowledging a higher guilt, not trying to mitigate--my apologies if it seemed like the latter.
Because they are the sacraments of an old, imperfect covenant which has vanished and passed away, along with its regulations for worship and earthly place of holiness (Heb. 8:13-9:1)......jude24
How then do you feel about the second, third, and fourth generation disciples of the last living Apostles, John and Phillip, celebrating Passover well into the fourth century? Polycrates
I'm sorry.....I forgot to ping you to my last post....also. You were quoted. #289
Apology accepted (happens to everyone), and if you follow the conversation I'm still having with Marlowe about this, I defend against it being boasting. We are all defending positions we believe are right. I'm just giving credit to God for my position because I consider it part of my sanctification. You could do the same if you think your position came from Him. If I thought I came to my current understanding on my own, then it would be boasting. That's not what I'm saying.
Thanks for the alert, Dr. E. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.