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
Jesus proved it to you and me, but certainly not to everyone, for everyone is not saved. Even eyewitnesses to Christ were not saved. So what are the credentials that Luther was supposed to have? It is easy for you to invalidate the Reformation because you, through your hierarchy, claim sole authority to speak for God. It's that simple, and Protestants disagree. We just as easily declare that your leaders do not speak for God because God does not contradict Himself. There is the impasse.
I don't know that Luther ever claimed any of his teachings were on a par with a Biblical Gospel. Do you say that he did? Of course, we each have our separate opinions on Whom was leading him.
The Keys are only given to the Pope - there has been some 250 over 2000 years, not millions.
OK, maybe I'm not familiar with the term "Keys to the Kingdom" as a being a defined term. I was referring to all Catholic clergy, past, present, and future. If only the Pope has the keys, then how does this fit in with a "consensus" (which I assume includes others besides the Pope) declaring infallible doctrine? Do they not have the keys?
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.
That is an interesting way to look at it. I suppose I've just never thought of God being that much removed from us. I know you're not saying that God abandons us or anything, but for your analogy to work, there has to be some level of removal by God from the scene to a much higher degree than simply His assumption. I'm not sure how that squares with dozens of verses in the Bible, including in the Great Commission. On a scale of 1-10, with 1 being completely inactive, how active do you see God as being in our lives? I'll shock you and say that I believe it is a 10. :)
The problem is that we disagree on Bible interpretation, not that Catholic teaching is ANTI-Biblical.
Without being accusatory, what's the difference? :)
[continuing...] 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.
Yes, I believe Paul means that we are born that way and cannot come to God from only within ourselves. I'm still not sure about what your interpretation means. You agree that people need to come to God to be saved. Those who don't are lost. But surely, Paul agreed that some people who were formerly wicked, do come to Christ. He would probably start by naming himself. Therefore what is Paul's point, that those who are lost forever are lost forever? If so, this does not appear to be terribly instructive. :)
Put on the Jehovah Witness theology on, and you will think that the Bible says something else.
Do you know if they even use a scripture that is compatible with either yours or mine? I've read some of their pamphlets. Freaky stuff. :)
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.
Why would the Bible have to be topical to be systematic? Why couldn't God's "system" have been to lay it out just as it is? It is loosely chronological, so we both like that. But, it does intermix common subjects throughout. Why couldn't the system have been to reinforce same ideas in different contexts? That seems like a logical teaching mechanism to me. It also appears to be an effective technique to show cohesiveness within the Bible, i.e. "yes, all these verses really do go together", etc. We obviously do disagree on how much of it was written in plain language.
So why does a Protestant KNOW he is saved after repeating it [sinner's prayer]? Getting my drift?
No. :) You have been shown and given access to multiple assurance passages. Your leaders interpret them all out of existence, or assign new meanings to them contrary to plain meaning. I, also, do not know what I can say.
All this time, you've been a crypto-Calvinist!?!?!?!?!