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
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.