Really? So when Jesus ordered His disciples to obey those who "sat in the chair of Moses, but don't do as they do", THAT had no theological purpose??? And Jesus didn't NEED to quote Scripture.
In this case, I think He did. I don't think that was oral tradition, the "seat of Moses" was known. Jesus was speaking based on scripture. :
Ex. 18:13-14 : 13 The next day Moses took his seat to serve as judge for the people, and they stood around him from morning till evening. 14 When his father-in-law saw all that Moses was doing for the people, he said, "What is this you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit as judge, while all these people stand around you from morning till evening?"
---------------
Which ones (oral Traditions) are we NOT to follow? The ones that lead us away from God - such as Corban. It seems pretty easy to ascertain that the concept of Corban was a deliberate means of circumventing the Fourth Commandment.
Yes, exactly those. I agree that the "Corban rule" was used by children to stiff their parents.
Col. 2:8 : See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.
Of course we would have an honest disagreement as to which traditions are being referred to here. But in more general terms, I would "say" to not follow any oral traditions that elevate man and diminish God. Many of these involve God's delegation of authority away from Himself, and man being partially responsible for his own salvation.
John 3:30-31 : 30 He must become greater; I must become less. 31 "The one who comes from above is above all; the one who is from the earth belongs to the earth, and speaks as one from the earth. The one who comes from heaven is above all.
---------------
Then what is the "correct" interpretation? That Jesus actually breathed upon ALL of His followers, present and future, giving them the power to forgive sins? What is your historical basis for this interpretation?
I don't think Jesus gave away any of His powers to forgive sin, as this would contradict the scriptures that say that only God can forgive sin. It is the same as God not giving away His power to heal to Peter. It was God who did the healing through him, Peter did not have the authority to do anything on his own. If all a priest ever said was "your sins will be forgiven" then that would be fine. It would simply be declaring what scripture says. But as I understand it, and please correct me if I am wrong, it is perfectly normal for a priest to say "I forgive you". To me, that is radically different, and is the basis for my objection.
You have not shown me any convincing evidence (nor has anyone else here) that "man has free will" is antithetical to the Scriptures.
That's because there is no evidence that you will accept. :) Wasn't the original point of this whole thread free will? The section "The Battle of the Biblical Texts" lays everything out. I just re-read it and evidence is given.
Thus, Scripture is twisted in so many places...Man is automatically saved by making a simple declaration, Man is saved without doing works of love, man is saved by imputed grace, love adds nothing to salvation, and man is NOT judged to heaven/hell based on what they did in life.
We both think that scripture is being twisted in so many places... Man is saved by Baptism plus the actions of his free will afterwards, man is saved in part by choosing to do works of love, man is saved by earned grace (grace increases with works), man must choose to love God on his own account to be saved, man's salvation is judged based on his actions, not on God's will.
And finally, "lost" people is another strange-sounding term to me and my Orthodox brothers, I believe. NO ONE is lost until that day of judgment. Salvation is viewed from our point of view. NO ONE knows God's point of view or can know it. So it is pointless to theorize and claim "he is lost" or "that person is lost, so he must seek only the evil". This leads me to believe that you think God doesn't really love man.
Methinks you are jumping to conclusions again. :) Of course I can't pronounce anyone individually as being ultimately lost, but I can pronounce them as being currently lost, based on their own admissions. You do the same thing. When I speak of the lost I am just acknowledging that some WILL ultimately wind up in hell. You agree with that too. Due to the fallen nature of man, all of us will only seek evil, UNTIL those who are of the elect are saved. This has nothing to do with whether God loves man, He does love His elect. That's why He saves them.
Nor was Adam. He, too, was born without sin. HOW did God create Adam? In sin? Was Adam's nature sinful and evil? Was he BOUND to sin? Again, this is at the heart of our disagreement. You seem to believe that God made Adam to sin - that his humanity could NOT resist temptation.
I don't think Adam was born with a sin nature, but I do believe he was bound to sin. God ordained it. I don't understand how Jesus not being born with a sin nature translates to Him only pretending to be human. He was fully human, but since the sin nature came from Adam, and Adam was not His paternal ancestor, Jesus did not have it. He was fully human in every other respect.
From your answer, I take it that you think Jesus was born with a wounded nature, that He was flawed and imperfect, just like Adam. I can't agree with this. Jesus was perfect from before the Incarnation, not because He made a free will choice to be perfect.
So when Moses sits down, that is supposed to be the chair that passes down all authority from over 1000 years ago? Is this a literal chair, or a concept of authority passed down? It is quite a stretch to see Mat 23 come from Ex 18! In the end, I don't see that Christ gave up ALL traditions. What is the reason? I understand traditions that move people from God, but I think this is a Protestant overreaction.
I don't think Jesus gave away any of His powers to forgive sin, as this would contradict the scriptures that say that only God can forgive sin.
Nor do I. Jesus DELEGATED His authority. He still retains the ability to forgive sins - Catholic priests are the visible instrument through whom we confess to Christ. They act in the "person of Christ", since we don't see Christ or hear Him. The priest offers words of forgiveness and counseling to help us in our walk. It is not an usurping of authority! The Scriptures list several such parables of a ruler going on a long journey and leaving the servants behind to watch matters. For example:
"Who then is the faithful and prudent servant, whom his lord has made ruler over his household to give them food in due season? Blessed [is] that servant whom his lord when he comes shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods. But and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delays his coming, and shall begin to smite [his] fellowservants and even to eat and drink with the drunken, the lord of that servant shall come in a day when he does not look for [him] and in an hour that he is not aware of 51and shall cut him off and appoint [him] his portion with the hypocrites; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.: Mat 24:45-51
This is a warning to those who God calls to lead the community, the People of God. But at the same time, it clearly shows that men ARE being left in charge - which we see in the Acts of the Apostles. Christ expects His Church to continue for all time - and He will provide leaders who will serve His people - including the ministry of reconciliation.
It was God who did the healing through him, Peter did not have the authority to do anything on his own.
Of course. I think EVERY Catholic realizes this! No, everything that the priests say and do is based on their authority that Christ has given them through the Apostles. Not on their own power. HEAVENS NO!
That's because there is no evidence that you will accept. :) Wasn't the original point of this whole thread free will?
Brother, for every verse you post, I can double it with posts of free will verses. Obviously, we aren't going to find the solution to this by tossing verses back and forth. The original point of the thread was free will. But I have tried to answer all of your other questions. Was I wrong for doing this?
Man is saved by Baptism plus the actions of his free will afterwards, man is saved in part by choosing to do works of love,
Our definitions of "salvation" differ. We don't believe in 'once saved, always saved', thus, the necessity to remain justified in the Lord's eyes.
man is saved by earned grace (grace increases with works
You don't believe that man is being sanctified and becoming more holy as he turns more towards the Lord?
man must choose to love God on his own account to be saved
Sure, we are judged based on our works of love, our faith. All of this is our giving back what God gave us in the first place. We use His gifts. Again, that is pretty clear in Scripture.
man's salvation is judged based on his actions, not on God's will.
When if the two are the same thing?
Thanks, but theses are all Scriptural. What about Sola Scriptura? What about Sola Fide? What about NOT falling away? Anyway, I don't see this being resolved by further discussion. We are returning to ground discussed already - I doubt either will be convinced of the other's point of view.
I take it that you think Jesus was born with a wounded nature, that He was flawed and imperfect, just like Adam.
Of course not! Adam was not flawed - God says Adam was created in the image and likeness of God, WITHOUT sin. That is man's original nature, the one the Christ took on - sinless and with a free will.
Jesus was perfect from before the Incarnation
The Logos was not Jesus UNTIl He took on flesh.
Regards
"If all a priest ever said was "your sins will be forgiven" then that would be fine. It would simply be declaring what scripture says. But as I understand it, and please correct me if I am wrong, it is perfectly normal for a priest to say "I forgive you". To me, that is radically different, and is the basis for my objection."
In a sense, what you would prefer is sort of like what an Orthodox priest says. Here are the words of absolution usually used by Greek Orthodox priests.
" My spiritual child, who have made your confession to my humble person: I, humble and sinful, have no power to put away sins on earth unless God does it. But, trusting in the divnely uttered pronouncement that was addressed to the Apostles after the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, saying, "If you remit the sins of any persons, they are remitted; if you you retain the sins of any persons, they have been retained"--in that import we also boldly say: As many offences as you have owned up to to my most humble lowliness, and as many as you have failed to say either though ignorance or forgetfulness--of whatever kind--may GOD absolve you both in the present age and in the age to come.'
Then bidding the penitent to kneel, the priest places his stole and hand over the head of the penitent, and touching it in four places in the form of a Cross, says the following Prayer of Absolution:
'May GOD, Who through Nathan the Prophet forgave David when he confessed his sins; and Peter, who wept bitterly over his denial; and the harlot who shed tears on His feet; and the Publican and the Prodigal; may the very same God, through sinful me, absolve you of all transgressions both in the present age and in the age to come; and may He let you stand uncondemned before His dread Judgment Seat. As for the sins that you have confessed, have no further anxiety about them; go in peace.
The Grace of the All-Holy Spirit, through me, least of all, has exonerated and forgiven you. At the prayers of our holy Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ, God, have mercy and save us. Ameen."
Comments?