The Jews certainly saw forgiving sins as a supernatural power, and if any "man" tried to do it, it was blasphemy. They hated Jesus for it. I sort of see your belief as God having delegated His sole authority on these matters to men. Not only that, but He also delegated the further delegation of that sole authority that God (used to?) have. If instead of going to confession, a Catholic just decided to confess his sins to God directly, would that "count"? :)
The Reformation went too far. It's one thing to want to reform perceived abuses within the community. It is quite another to leave the Church established by Christ to start another "church". There is absolutely no precedent for this anywhere in the Bible.
I suppose the way I see it is that what the Reformers did was 1/100th as radical as what the early Jews did when they converted to Christianity. While it might be true that Paul and Barnabas did not split over doctrine, it is an example of good Christians having differences and going their separate ways. That's what happened with the Reformation, albeit that it was over doctrine. We all still believe that Christ died for our sins and that salvation is through Christ alone, and through no one else.
I don't see God as giving the keys to anyone but Peter. Where does Christ give the keys of the Kingdom to anyone else?
Your whole theology has the exclusive keys of the Kingdom in only the hands of your leaders, hundreds of thousands of them or maybe millions across time. According to you, I think, God didn't give Peter one key, He gave him an infinite number of keys to be given out freely, but exclusively. This will go on until the second coming. God delegates away His authority to men.
Where does Scripture limit God's Word to the written format? I have asked this question over and over, but I have yet to hear an answer.
The answer is that I don't know that it says that anywhere in scripture. That is the answer. But, from your side, since when does anything need to be in scripture to be true? :) You believe in tons of things that are not in scripture. You are trying to have it both ways. I say that I do believe in sola scriptura as authority, and in the same breath I can say that I'm sure I would have no problem with anywhere from some to many things in Tradition. It's just in the cases when Tradition and scripture do not match, by plain reading, that I have "issues". :)
Read and heed, brother. This is the Gospel of Christ. Handed down through men. In the Scriptures, Paul is not saying the Gospel is from men. The Bible is part of that. If you don't believe the men who gave us the Bible, then you don't believe the teachings found within the Bible. Paul doesn't seem to agree with you - what was passed down to us is the Word of God, not the word of men. When you say you "follow God", are you sure about that??
Thank you for all the verses. I've never had any problem with the fact that the Apostles taught the truth. I also believe that the Apostles wrote down much of what they taught in writings that are now the Bible. I believe those are consistent. The huge disconnect, of course, is when Tradition is required to twist the meaning of scripture into something it doesn't say. That's what I don't understand.
How can a person say "I am saved by grace alone", then go back and say "I was never saved to begin with, because I didn't believe enough"???? Think about it. That is not Saved by Grace alone. Your salvation is now dependent upon how fervently you recited the Sinner's Prayer...
Because it's the grace that does the saving, not the words alone. A person to whom saving grace has not been given can say the sinner's prayer a thousand times. It would make no difference, he is still not saved, or "he was never saved to begin with". Since only God can have divine knowledge of who is saved, I give the benefit of the doubt to anyone saying the sinner's prayer, until there is evidence that he was, in fact, never saved. Salvation has zero to do with how fervently someone says the prayer. It has 100% to do with whether or not the person has been chosen of the elect and been given saving grace.
The Jews will still tell you that man cannot become God. But, we believe that God can become a man; with God everything is possible, and the new Testament clearly shows that the power to "bind and loosen" was given to +Peter and then to the rest of the Apostles. God's will.
"The huge disconnect, of course, is when Tradition is required to twist the meaning of scripture into something it doesn't say. That's what I don't understand."
But FK, that isn't what Holy Tradition does at all. A very long time ago, maybe on this thread but I doubt it, I wrote that Holy Tradition, what The Church always and everywhere believed, was the standard, the measuring stick if you will, by which the various writings "contending" for a place in the canon of the NT were measured. Once the canon was closed (and I don't mean by the tinkering the Reformers did with it)that canon and the various scriptures contained within it, became part of Holy Tradition, the highest part of it to be sure. But it achieved that status because its inspired nature became obvious since it was in complete accord with what The Church believed.
Forgiving sins was clearly delegated to men, as I have related, in John's Gospel, and 2 Corinthians, and James. Jesus talks about the principle of it in Mark and Matthew. However, I think even this power is more a delegation of authority - God's authority has been delegated to visible men, rather than a supernatural power, such as levitation, or raising the dead. I believe God still works that power, but it is not based on the Apostolic Succession. By the way, Catholics CAN and DO confess our sins WITHOUT a priest. At every Mass, we, with the community, have our minor sins forgiven. Mortal sins, however, are reserved for forgiveness through the Apostles' Successors.
I suppose the way I see it is that what the Reformers did was 1/100th as radical as what the early Jews did when they converted to Christianity.
That is true except for one very important issue...Martin Luther never claimed to be God. Jesus Christ proved that He was through the resurrection. IF Luther had such credentials, the Reformation would have been validated in God's eyes. However, Christ is the end of all public revelation. God did not speak a new Gospel to Luther in contradistinction to Christ and His Church. Luther's Gospel was of his own making.
Your whole theology has the exclusive keys of the Kingdom in only the hands of your leaders, hundreds of thousands of them or maybe millions across time.
The Keys are only given to the Pope - there has been some 250 over 2000 years, not millions.
God delegates away His authority to men.
God doesn't "delegate away His authority"! In Revelation, Jesus still has a key! Look at it this way... When you leave on vacation, you give your neighbor a spare key. That person has authority over your house while you are away. Yet, you still have ultimate authority. Your neighbor doesn't own your house! When you return, you have your own key, AND you will hold your neighbor accountable for the care of your house. Christ will do EXACTLY the same thing to His pastors that He has left behind until His victorious second coming.
You believe in tons of things that are not in scripture.
As do you, I presume. Chemistry, biology, astronomy, history of the world after 100 AD. All outside of the realm of the Bible, yet TRUE. As to when Tradition and Scripture don't "match", I would tend to agree. One must be wrong - either the interpretation of the Scripture OR the Tradition is not legitimate. The problem I see is that you hold to a narrow view of Scripture that is often times ANTI-Scriptural (such as everything must be written in the Bible, or we are saved by faith alone, or that a man can never fall away from salvation, or that Baptism does not save, and so forth). The problem is that we disagree on Bible interpretation, not that Catholic teaching is ANTI-Biblical. An example is Romans 3. Clearly, you believe Paul thinks that ALL men are evil and cannot come to God, none are righteous. WE interpret that passage differently, that Paul was not speaking universally, but was quoting the OT Psalms that the wicked will never turn to God. Frnakly, we believe that Protestantism has invented a theology that was not part of Christianity until the 1500's, so we reject it as misinterpretation of Scripture. Of course, you claim the opposite. Thus, the need for an authority outside of yourself.
The huge disconnect, of course, is when Tradition is required to twist the meaning of scripture into something it doesn't say.
As we have been discussing, we have given explanations that are valid in interpreting verses. You disagree with our interpretations. But if you step back, they ARE valid. The thing is that you already have established who and what God is by reading Scripture through a particular lenses called Protestantism. By putting on another paradigm, you will have different attitudes toward theology. Put on the Jehovah Witness theology on, and you will think that the Bible says something else. Unfortunately, the Bible is not a systematic theology book. Clearly, it is not divided into subjects that lay down in plain language what we are to believe on EVERY subject, like a Catechism would. Thus, people can believe they hold to the "true" Bible teachings, when in fact, it comes down to interpretation. Plainly, the need for a valid authority to tell us what Scripture MEANS is necessary. We have one in the Catholic Church. It is Scriptural. It is Traditional. What can I say...
A person to whom saving grace has not been given can say the sinner's prayer a thousand times. It would make no difference, he is still not saved, or "he was never saved to begin with".
I agree, thus the Sinner's Prayer serves little purpose in discussing the day you were "saved" - because in five years, you might have to "take it back"...Oops, I guess I really didn't say it fervently enough - all of those good deeds were not from God...
Salvation has 100% to do with whether or not the person has been chosen of the elect and been given saving grace. Of course. So why does a Protestant KNOW he is saved after repeating it? Getting my drift?
Regards