Perhaps so, but it is nonetheless a sin which merits punishment.
Yes. But the question has to do with the degree of punishment merited. That is something that seems to fail Calvinist understanding. As I remember, EVERY sin deserves the same punishment -- eternal hell. Yet this doesn't even correspond with the earthly analogy of punishment found in the civil codes which God gave in the OT, does it? The punishment fits the crime, which is the point I am making, and not all sins are worthy of eternal hell. That was Luther's problem - he thought that every single peccadillo deserved God hanging him upside down and flame-roasting him to a golden brown, and as we know, Luther had some serious psychological problems.
No, it does not seem sensible to me according to the covenantal paradigm you have set forth for this reason: the church is not a single individual, as were both Mary and Eve.
There is nothing that says that the helpmeet cannot be a corporate entity such as the Church. This follows the paradigm in the OT where the coveantal head was the high priest (who offered the sacrifice of covenantal renewal once a year for his "family" -- YOM KIPPUR), the Jewish theocracy was the helpmeet to assist him in his work, consisting of the Law of God for direction and nurture and the priests to reconcile sinners to God, and the circumcized believers. It is a covenantal triad and therefore I feel I am on safe ground with this paradigm.
Rome's interpretation comes from believing in the authority of Rome's tradition, not from believing that Scripture is itself sufficient.
Is not the same thing to be said of the Presbyterian arguments from Scripture, as well as those of the Episcopalians, the Methodists, the Baptists, the Fundamentalists, etc. etc. etc?
You, as well as all Calvinists, totally misunderstand Holy Tradition. Tradition is that which comes from those who first interpreted the words of our Lord, who were given the oracles of the Faith, and who kept the Faith and passed it on. Tradition is not something which is made up of thin air and a couple bad pastrami with pickle sandwiches. It is the living link we have to all that was believed in the past. And in the case of the Catholic Faith and especially the writings of the first Christian leaders, the Early Fathers, that link is the link to what was originally believed and practiced, even before we had a canon of scripture.
Look, how do you think that they got the idea of the Real Presence and "baptismal regeneration" as Early as the writings of the Didache in 110 AD? Remember, those writings represent what was commonly believed among all Christendom at that time. There was simply no other teaching being taught.
That is what Holy Tradition is.
Now "tradition" (small "t") would be, for instance, how our Eastern Church administers the Eucharist. We do not use the flat paten you are familiar with, but instead, in the Orthodox praxis, place cubes of consecrated bread into the chalice and the wine soaked bread is then administered to the communicant by means of a golden spoon. Very different. That is an Eastern tradition. It is administrative, has nothing to do with the doctrines or teaching of the Church, and if we had to stop doing it tommorrow, would not invalidate our Eucharist to do it otherwise.
Omigoodness!! Stop and think about what you have just said. If salvation is totally dependant upon knowing God in truth -- if one may be considered as "not saved" because they hold to error, then by your own admission, we are in deep trouble, considering the multitude of opinions that are out there in Christendom. Some of these differences actually involve salvation itself, so that this is no light matter. Do you see what a problem this creates if you do not have a source of infallible truth?
For that matter, why even believe in the Trinity? That teaching was validated by a Catholic council, yet you state that neither they, nor anyone else is infallible or reliable as such for the proper interpretation of the scriptures.
Serious problem, my friend.
Cordially in Christ,
Brother Ed
