Even if it is not specifically stated, we still have the example of Christ. How often did He quote from oral tradition vs. how often did He quote from scripture? And, I've never advocated abrogating all oral tradition, just that which disagrees with scripture. For example, I have no problem with the basic concept of confessing sins to clergy. Although, as far as I know, it is unbiblical (as opposed to anti-biblical) as a formal structure, it appears to be a legitimate means of sanctification. As we have discussed, I do have problems with it in other respects.
IF "all men are evil, no one comes to God", then explain away Psalm 119 and many other Scriptures that talk about men seeking God, about men being righteous. Or does God's Word contradict? Plainly speaking, Romans 3 CANNOT mean that ALL men are evil, no one seeks God.
I don't think I have ever understood what you think the contradiction is on my side here. All men are BORN into sin, and no one will seek God ... BY HIMSELF. Of course when God does touch those whom He will, they will seek God. After salvation, they will be righteous in His eyes. I don't see any contradiction.
If all men are evil, then Christ took on the nature of evil during the incarnation. Is that what you are saying?
Not at all. I did answer for this in another post (later), which I'm almost positive I pinged you to. If not, just let me know and I'll find it.
Jesus did a number of things that were "tradition". For example, the celebration of Hanukkah, the Feast of Lights. Find that in your Old Testament. Yet, in John's Gospel, He celebrated it. In Matthew 23:3, He tells His disciples to obey the Pharisees, who sit on the "seat of Moses". What is that? Jesus also follows many customary rules - for example, Jesus reclines at the Passover meal - with the Apostles. Scriptures in Exodus say this is a meal to be taken standing for future generations. Christ practices the higher ideals of the Pharisees in some cases (who go beyond the Scriptures) AND He also teaches things that are NOT in the Old Testament, for example, Matthew 5-7. Jesus is not restricted to the Bible, but clearly ALSO follows oral traditions passed down that DO NOT move man away from God.
The point is that NOWHERE does Scripture abrogate oral tradition, and neither does Jesus tell us to refuse ALL oral traditions. He commands His disciples to follow them!
For example, I have no problem with the basic concept of confessing sins to clergy. Although, as far as I know, it is unbiblical (as opposed to anti-biblical) as a formal structure, it appears to be a legitimate means of sanctification. As we have discussed, I do have problems with it in other respects.
It is biblical. How else do you explain John 20:23? Jesus knew the psycological effect that confession has for men. Even secular psychologists talk about the need to open up to another person and come to a resolution on such things. I do not understand why you consider it "unbiblical". Do men baptize themselves? What is the difference between going to another "elder" to receive baptism or relief from post-baptismal sins through confession?
As we have discussed, I do have problems with it in other respects.
Traditions that are ANTI-BIBLICAL, or ones you just don't approve of?
I don't think I have ever understood what you think the contradiction is on my side here. All men are BORN into sin, and no one will seek God ... BY HIMSELF. Of course when God does touch those whom He will, they will seek God. After salvation, they will be righteous in His eyes. I don't see any contradiction.
This whole idea of "totally corrupt" from SOME Protestants is that EVEN WITH God's graces, man STILL is not righteous when that man is able, through God's graces, to do good deeds or repent. Thus, the concept of Christ's righteousness "covering" ours because even the regenerated man cannot do good...Man cannot come to God alone. In this sense, we are corrupt. Man CAN do morally good things without God, but without faith, man is not pleasing to God. Faith comes from God. So far, we agree, I believe.
But Catholics believe that God INFUSES His grace into us, He doesn't cover us due to our "total inability to come to God EVEN WITH God". Thus, Jesus' words "unless your righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees, you shall not enter the Kingdom of Heaven" make sense. When Jesus moves our will to do good, WE are doing something. God's Gifts enables us to do good, which is "credited to our account". Thus, the idea that man is totally corrupt per classic Protestantism (taken from an incorrect reading of Romans 3) is false. The Church has said throughout the centuries that man is WOUNDED, not totally corrupt. Thus, with God's grace, we are saved, healed, restored to our originally created status (although some of the effects of original sin remain).
My argument is that Romans 3 does not teach that men are ALL evil. Only wicked men do not reach to God. Thus, the word "all" is not a universal "all", which INCLUDES regenerated men! I hope my point is slipping in.
If all men are evil, then Christ took on the nature of evil during the incarnation. Is that what you are saying?
You said no. However, IF man's nature is TOTALLY evil - as some Protestants claim, then Jesus took on a totally evil nature. We, by nature, were NOT created evil. We LOST sanctifying grace, God's life within us. But our nature did not become totally evil. Men do not SEEK the evil. Men still desire good, not evil. Very few men do evil for the sake of doing evil. They do things that are evil, based on a mis-guided concept of what is right and wrong. They feel that doing something (that is inherently evil) that brings happiness is good, even if it meant committing evil.
IF Christ was a totally different nature than man's, than we weren't reconciled to the Father and He is not the Mediator between us and Him. Being sinless is not impossible for man, properly led by God (as Christ or Mary was). Thus, Jesus Christ was fully man, with our fully realized human nature. Man becomes Christ-like (or fully man) by receiving sanctifying grace into His soul, which enables that man to love. Thus, our nature is MISSING something - it is not totally corrupted.
Regards