Okay, let's put [t]his to bed once and for all. Do you deny the "Trinity"?
No, I do not deny the doctrine of the Trinity. I affirm the doctrine of the Trinity.
Though the word doesn't appear in Scripture, it precisely describes the God-Head, right?
I would not use the word "precisely," but otherwise that is correct.
The concept and the teaching is found in Scripture,
Yes.
just like the Covenant of Grace;
That remains to be seen.
this precise phrase is not found
That is correct; the "precise" phrase is not found in scripture.
but concept, language and teaching is found in Scripture, so what's the hang up?
I do not know that there is a hang up other than the fact that most CTers lose all semblance of self-control when I poijnt out what should be obvious to
everyone, regardless of their theological orientation.
Now it's my turn. Let's see if you can be as direct and concise answering my questions as I just was answering your questions. Let's see if there can be some parity or whether or not double standards) or no standards) exist.
1) The Bible does not say Jesus appeared in the form of a yellow, purple-striped zebra. Based on the silence of the Bible as it pertains to Jesus being a yellow, purple-striped Zebra.... would it be appropriate to assert, "
Jesus came to earth in the form of a yellow, purple-striped Zebra"? If not, then why not?
2) The record now shows, "
the precise phrase is not found" [in scripture. or in the Bible]. This was previously stated in prior posts but not discussed with any substance. Appeals to silence and false equivalence were the responses. I have (repeatedly) stated the "
concept" of "
the covenant of grace" (and the "
covenant of works") is, therefore an inferential concept or, to be more precise, a concept within Covenant Theology that is arrived at solely through inference. The concept is
inferred because it is (logically) thought to be
implied by scripture. Is that correct?
3) If the answer to question #2 is "
Yes," then is it also correct to say the two phrases "
the covenant of works," and "
the covenant of grace," are
extra-biblical doctrinal additions to scripture because they are not something scripture itself actually explicitly states? I am not suggesting the extra-biblical nature is a good thing or a bad thing, nor am I in any way suggesting it is valid or invalid. I am simply making an observation of fact and asking if you agree. There's no need to explain or defend the answer. A simple "yes" or "no" is all that is requested. Whatever is the answer, the answer can be discussed in later posts. Let's put this specific matter to bed once and for all without further delay, obfuscation, or complication.
3) If the answer to Question #2 is "
Yes," then please explain,
in your own words, how it is YOU reason through the scriptures to obtain a) the covenant of works, and b) the covenant of grace. Understand what I am asking. I am asking how YOU reason through the scriptures to that conclusion those two covenants are valid terms given the fact scripture never, ever, explicitly states either phrase. I am not asking you to tell me how Luther, Calvin, Bullinger, Owen, Spurgeon, Warfield, Sproul, Horton, Ferguson, or any other notable theologian reasoned to those two positions. I am asking how YOU do it. And I am asking you to do it now, without further delay, and to do so
succinctly; to "
put this to bed once and for all".
What is the scriptural rational by which YOU agree with CT's assertion of two covenants not actually stated in the Bible?
4) Once the rationale for the doctrinal position is posted, tell me why it is YOU subscribe to an inferentially obtained doctrinal position instead of one that is more reliant on what is explicitly stated in scripture and less dependent on inference? Again, please keep the answer brief and clearly expressed;
succinct. Think about setting an example for everyone else that will try to answer these questions but won't stick to the questions asked. Show them that this can be done.
I laid out all of the above earlier and most of it is sitting in the thread unattended. Every Christian should be able to provide his/her own rationale for what they believe, and do so based on scripture first (not what others teach extra-biblically). If they cannot do so, then, conversely, every Christian should accept the fact they believe an extra-biblical doctrine they cannot, themselves explain in their own words. It's that simple. No judgment either way on my part; just a simple observation of the facts each of us provides for ourselves about ourselves. Let us, as you put it, "
put this to bed once and for all." Let's not delay any further. Let's get this stated in the thread so we can then move on to the next question (or set of questions).
Would you please answer the questions asked and put these matters to bed
before adding anything else to the discussion?
