Quote:
Originally Posted by chbrooking  We disagree as to the facts here (see links below). And this is absolutely crucial for your modus tollens... Again, I would not agree with your conclusion regarding Col. 2. |
I can see why this would be a reasonable point of contention. I attempted to be as brief as possible in regarding Col. 2, primarily to take it easy on the reader, initially anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chbrooking Quote:
Originally Posted by LockTheDeadbolt 2b. The “one covenant – multiple administrations” supposition (1b) which (1a) rests on is also in contradiction with the plain teaching of Scripture regarding multiple covenants with multiple respective administrations (Jer. 31, Heb. 8-9). | What will you say of the law being added? The same argument could be made about the Abrahamic versus the Mosaic versus the Davidic. But clearly these were administrative additions to the one covenant of grace. |
You've only begged the question against 2b here, specifically when you say, "clearly these were administrative additions to the one covenant of grace." This is, of course,
not so clear at all since it is one of the matters of contention presented in my argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chbrooking Otherwise, you will be forced to say that a Jew was saved by obedience to the law. This would be a case of good and necessary consequence. There is something radically new, but there is also continuity. |
It might be a case of what
you consider a "good" consequence, but I think you'll have a hard time demonstrating that it is "necessary." I never stated or implied anything about the relationship between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants and see no necessary consequence which would "force me" into adopting a theory of justification by works under the Mosaic covenant. Maybe you can demonstrate this necessary consequence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chbrooking You might profit by reading this and this, as your argument has a dispensational flavor. |
Yeah, well, that's just like your opinion, man.
Just kidding. I'm thoroughly familiar with the heavily flawed theory of redemptive history known as Dispensationalism, but I don't see any significant similarities between my stated arguments and the affirmations of dispensationalists. Maybe you believe in some sort of a reduction of all theories of redemptive history into either dispensationalism or covenant theology?