I’m not the one appealing to my own understanding here. I’m appealing to the final and controlling authority Christ and the apostles themselves appealed to.
Oh, did Christ tell you you hold the correct interpretation? Or did He establish His apostolic Church and sent the Holy Spirit at Pentecost to guide it? Are you sure that same Church didn't have a synodal structure with sacraments and ordination of bishops? All this is evident in Acts and the Epistles. But I guess your infallible interpretation of Scripture missed that part.
Jesus didn’t say “you have heard from the fathers,” He said “it is written.” And when Satan quoted Scripture correctly but applied it wrongly, Jesus didn’t defer to tradition. He corrected the interpretation with more Scripture.
You just lost the debate. Oral and liturgical tradition was how the Church operated in the first centuries before the canon of Scripture was decided by the Church fathers you reject. I swear, Protestantism hinges on being ignorant of early Church history.
Yes, the God of the Old Testament is Jesus Christ. John 1, Colossians 1, and 1 Corinthians 10 are explicit about that. No argument there. But acknowledging that doesn’t mean every covenantal command given to Israel applies unchanged to Christians after the cross. The apostles explicitly say otherwise. Hebrews exists for this exact reason, and it wasn’t written by modern Protestants.
Sure, Christ changed the moral prescriptions. The question was if OT morality was still normative or if it was replaced by new evolved morality. Do you believe that capital punishment or war suddenly became unchristian because hippy-Jesus came to sing Imagine to the people? Of course nothing in Scripture was written by Protestants because the early Church didn't run on Protestant presuppositions, which destroys your entire position. The ideas of Protestantism are post-scholastic modern developments, reactionary to the degeneracy and errors of the RCC.
If you had any idea about history and philosophy of ideas, you'd know that Protestantism is based around nominalism, which is a late Medieval position on metaphysics. No one in the first centuries of the Church thought like Luther and Calvin. It's like applying Critical race theory to something that happened in the middle ages - you don't understand how ridiculously anachronistic and retarded all this is. Protestantism is ahistorical.
Psalm 110 is messianic. Jesus Himself says so in Matthew 22. David is speaking prophetically about Christ’s exaltation and God subduing His enemies. But notice something important: Christ Himself tells us how that psalm is fulfilled, and it’s not by His followers taking vengeance. He reigns until His enemies are made a footstool.. by the Father. That’s divine judgment, not Christian retaliation. The same distinction applies to Revelation, the Psalms of judgment, and prophetic language throughout Scripture.
As for Psalm 58 and Psalm 139, those are imprecatory psalms. They describe righteous longing for God’s justice, not a license for believers to cultivate hatred or take vengeance themselves. Paul, who knew those Psalms far better than either of us, still says plainly: “Bless those who persecute you… never avenge yourselves… leave room for the wrath of God.” If David’s emotional expressions override apostolic command, then Paul is contradicting Scripture.
So does Paul contradict himself when in Roman 13 where he says that the ruler has the sword and can exact justice? Or maybe Christ's teaching is not to avenge YOUR injuries YOURSELF and to be forgiving instead but when it comes to justice He never taught wrongdoing, crime and sin should go unpunished.
For the final time - your have a broken mind and you read Scripture as a set of either/or's when it's both/and's depending on context. If Jesus saved the woman from being stoned and made people realize they too have sins and should show mercy, it doesn't follow that therefore no one should ever be punished ever again or that now the death penalty is rendered immoral.
On interpretation: Scripture interprets Scripture And those same apostles warn repeatedly that tradition can nullify God’s word.
Scripture interprets Scripture? Do you know what a circle is? No, dude. Interpretation requires a person - an interpreter. What you basically said is the same as 'Scripture reads Scripture'. Does that seem rational to you?
because Christ authorized the apostles, not an amorphous later tradition, to bind and loose doctrine.
The irony of not realizing Sola Scriptura itself which you appeal to, is exactly such a later tradition and no one believed this for 15 centuries before Luther came.
Christ gave the apostles the keys to the Church and reassured them that the Church won't cease to exist even before the gates of hell. Yet you claim the apostolic tradition was lost and the Church capitulated shortly after they died. So what happened, was Christ wrong? Btw, that same 'amorphous later tradition' later compiled the Bible you appeal to as I already stated.
So “the fathers said so” is not an argument unless it agrees with apostolic teaching.
Lol, that's the point - it agrees with the apostolic teaching because it's part of the same uninterrupted tradition and the apostles laid hands on them so they can pass that tradition down the line. You have no way of knowing what the apostolic teaching is outside of that tradition because you lack the correct interpretation that goes along the text and is also part of the tradition.
You're reading your own wrong interpretation into the text because you hold the wrong presuppositions about what the teaching is. The Church fathers hold the correct interpretation of Scripture, not you. But you presuppose it's the other way around.
It's so funny and tragic at the same time looking at protestant being incapable of even entertaining the idea that their own personal interpretation of Scripture 20c later, may not be how the early Church of the apostles understood it. You're so full of pride that you can't even begin to repent.
Oh, did Christ tell you you hold the correct interpretation? Or did He establish His apostolic Church and sent the Holy Spirit at Pentecost to guide it? Are you sure that same Church didn't have a synodal structure with sacraments and ordination of bishops? All this is evident in Acts and the Epistles. But I guess your infallible interpretation of Scripture missed that part.
You just lost the debate. Oral and liturgical tradition was how the Church operated in the first centuries before the canon of Scripture was decided by the Church fathers you reject. I swear, Protestantism hinges on being ignorant of early Church history.
Sure, Christ changed the moral prescriptions. The question was if OT morality was still normative or if it was replaced by new evolved morality. Do you believe that capital punishment or war suddenly became unchristian because hippy-Jesus came to sing Imagine to the people? Of course nothing in Scripture was written by Protestants because the early Church didn't run on Protestant presuppositions, which destroys your entire position. The ideas of Protestantism are post-scholastic modern developments, reactionary to the degeneracy and errors of the RCC.
If you had any idea about history and philosophy of ideas, you'd know that Protestantism is based around nominalism, which is a late Medieval position on metaphysics. No one in the first centuries of the Church thought like Luther and Calvin. It's like applying Critical race theory to something that happened in the middle ages - you don't understand how ridiculously anachronistic and retarded all this is. Protestantism is ahistorical.
So does Paul contradict himself when in Roman 13 where he says that the ruler has the sword and can exact justice? Or maybe Christ's teaching is not to avenge YOUR injuries YOURSELF and to be forgiving instead but when it comes to justice He never taught wrongdoing, crime and sin should go unpunished.
For the final time - your have a broken mind and you read Scripture as a set of either/or's when it's both/and's depending on context. If Jesus saved the woman from being stoned and made people realize they too have sins and should show mercy, it doesn't follow that therefore no one should ever be punished ever again or that now the death penalty is rendered immoral.
Scripture interprets Scripture? Do you know what a circle is? No, dude. Interpretation requires a person - an interpreter. What you basically said is the same as 'Scripture reads Scripture'. Does that seem rational to you?
The irony of not realizing Sola Scriptura itself which you appeal to, is exactly such a later tradition and no one believed this for 15 centuries before Luther came.
Christ gave the apostles the keys to the Church and reassured them that the Church won't cease to exist even before the gates of hell. Yet you claim the apostolic tradition was lost and the Church capitulated shortly after they died. So what happened, was Christ wrong? Btw, that same 'amorphous later tradition' later compiled the Bible you appeal to as I already stated.
Lol, that's the point - it agrees with the apostolic teaching because it's part of the same uninterrupted tradition and the apostles laid hands on them so they can pass that tradition down the line. You have no way of knowing what the apostolic teaching is outside of that tradition because you lack the correct interpretation that goes along the text and is also part of the tradition.
You're reading your own wrong interpretation into the text because you hold the wrong presuppositions about what the teaching is. The Church fathers hold the correct interpretation of Scripture, not you. But you presuppose it's the other way around.
It's so funny and tragic at the same time looking at protestant being incapable of even entertaining the idea that their own personal interpretation of Scripture 20c later, may not be how the early Church of the apostles understood it. You're so full of pride that you can't even begin to repent.