I do not dispute that He followed practices that were handed down via tradition. That is very different to me than quoting them as authority for theological purposes, which I don't know that He did. He certainly did quote from scripture in making theological points. Jesus does not tell us to throw away ALL oral traditions, but neither did He tell us to follow ALL of them. I would assume that His position was that if something led a man toward God, then it was good, and vice versa.
It is biblical. How else do you explain John 20:23? ... Do men baptize themselves? What is the difference between going to another "elder" to receive baptism or relief from post-baptismal sins through confession?
Again, I have no problem with the concept of confession. We are told to "confess our sins, to each other". No problem. One difference between Baptism and confession here is that basically any believer "can" administer a valid Baptism. However, confession has had attached to it a component of salvation, and that component can only be dealt with through Catholic priests. That cuts off hundreds of millions of Christians, (even though you say salvation is still possible for us). Thus, we disagree on the interpretation of the passage in John.
FK: "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?
Well, for example, I'm not sure what the official classification of free will is in Catholicism, whether it is considered scriptural or Tradition. But I do consider that to be anti-Biblical because it diminishes God, heightens man, and goes directly against what the Bible actually says.
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.
OK, let's see if I get this. You are saying that once God graces us, He puts literal righteousness inside us so that we are literally righteous. With these tools of righteousness then, we can make our own free will decisions to do good in God's eyes. We use the tools, but the decision is ours. That is contrasted with my belief that even with the Spirit, it is still not us doing the good, it is God doing the good through us.
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.
Now I think I understand better why you are adamant about Rom. 3:23. It's because of the further implications. It is more than just protecting Mary.
But our nature did not become totally evil. Men do not SEEK the evil. Men still desire good, not evil.
But isn't the definition of "good", God? Lost people do not seek God by their nature, on their own. That only leaves evil for men to seek, on their own. I thought you agreed to this basic idea.
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.
I don't think His nature was TOTALLY different than ours. He hungered and thirsted, etc. I just don't think He was subject to the fallen nature of Adam. He was sinless because there was no sin in Him. What would have happened if Jesus was able to sin, and then chose to? His fully human self would be sinning against His fully divine self. I think that's impossible.
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. His authority was manifest specifically by NOT quoting Scripture! "You have HEARD it said... but I tell you...". Seems Jesus is NOT relying on words in a book to teach the Word of God.
Jesus does not tell us to throw away ALL oral traditions
But Protestants tell us that we should...
...neither did He tell us to follow ALL of them"
Which ones 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. Can you point to some Catholic "traditions of men" that are dogmatic and move us away from God? Perhaps I could then understand your point of view better.
Thus, we disagree on the interpretation of the passage in John.
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?
But I do consider that to be anti-Biblical because it diminishes God, heightens man, and goes directly against what the Bible actually says.
I disagree that free will diminishes ANYTHING from God. Having NO free will goes directly against what the Bible AND Church history and Tradition has taught constantly. Thus, you are left to totally rely on your own self for interpretating Scripture. Does Scripture tell us we should interpret it by ourselves or within the community of believers? You have not shown me any convincing evidence (nor has anyone else here) that "man has free will" is antithetical to the Scriptures. You are reading Scripture with that presumption already present - that man has no free will. Thus, when you read my tagline, you totally disregard it and wave it off as nothing of consequence. The fact remains that God, through Moses, is telling man to CHOOSE. Sorry, free will is not anti-Biblical. You just disagree with it. Scripture clearly notes it.
We use the tools, but the decision is ours.
Even the decision making has God intricately interwoven into the formula. Phil 2:12-13 makes this clear - that God places within me the will and desire to do the good. Does He make it inevitable? No. Read Romans 7 and PAUL'S struggle with the flesh. I see that God enables us to love and do His will, but we DO have the ability to refuse. That much is perfectly clear. IF we have the ability to refuse, we have the ability to choose. Otherwise, we would have no responsibility under judgment.
That is contrasted with my belief that even with the Spirit, it is still not us doing the good, it is God doing the good through us.
That's because you have the idea in your head that man is evil and will always remain that way. see below
Now I think I understand better why you are adamant about Rom. 3:23. It's because of the further implications. It is more than just protecting Mary.
I do see it as one of the main reasons of why Protestants are in error about the anthropology of man - that ALL men are evil by nature. This thinking leads people to falsely believe that NOTHING is attributed to them - that men (with the impetus of God) CANNOT be righteous - despite Jesus specifically telling us that OUR righteousness must exceed the Pharisees. 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. This conversation has nothing to do with Mary.
These verses are instrumental in understanding the heart of error within Protestant salvation theology. By saying that EVEN A REGENERATED MAN is evil, then you are forced to invent "imputed righteousness" that covers all you do - removing you from the equation of judgment. Frankly, I find the whole thing a tool of the devil that keeps men and women of good will from coming closer to Christ. By the devil's machinations, such people are lulled into a false sense of security - they become lukewarm and presumptuous - and are ripe for a fall. Refer to John's Revelations if you forgot how Jesus deals with such "Christians". Perhaps this is why I am so "adamant" about you seeing this.
But isn't the definition of "good", God? Lost people do not seek God by their nature, on their own. That only leaves evil for men to seek, on their own. I thought you agreed to this basic idea.
In the end, yes. Man seeks goodness, truth, and beauty. It is ultimately found in God. But God created nature to point man TO this ultimate end. That is why Paul says even the pagans have no excuse in Romans 1. ALL men desire "goodness", defined as happiness. Can anyone contradict that? Because of original sin, our DEFINITION of this goodness, this means of obtaining happiness, is clouded. We look to selfish selves in trying to find this happiness. If we'd turn to God - often times by serving others (e.g. parable of goats and sheep), we WOULD come to true happiness. But this experiental knowledge does not come WITHOUT God. Men seek happiness - but inevitably seek it through transcient things - things that will falter or fade away. Thus, men do not usually seek evil - but are confused on what IS goodness. 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.
I don't think His nature was TOTALLY different than ours. He hungered and thirsted, etc. I just don't think He was subject to the fallen nature of Adam. He was sinless because there was no sin in Him.
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 tempatation. The problem with that is then Jesus did NOT take on our humanity. I would consider this very much akin to the Docetist heresy, where Jesus only APPEARED to be human. He was God pretending to be a man. Because if Jesus was a man - so the logic goes - then he WOULD have sinned, as well. You are saying that Jesus had a different composition or different nature than human. That He only APPEARED human. Fortunately, Protestantism appears to be the same old heresy that was refuted by John in the bible. Jesus REALLY DID BECOME MAN! FULLY. St. John warns Christians to beware of the "anti-Christs" who claim that Jesus did not come in the flesh. This means that He took on our nature. The nature that man initially created us in. That is why Jesus is called the Second Adam. The whole point of the devil's tempation of Christ is that man COULD HAVE REFUSED satan. Thus, man is NOT evil.
Regards