ECT MARTIN LUTHER ON OBEDIENCE TO THE CHURCH

[Cross Reference]

Do not speak of credibility. You have proved yourself thoroughly dishonest and so have less than anyone on TOL, except possible B57.

LOL!!! You are for sure, a piece of work.

 

[Cruciform]

The selling if indulgences is absolutely NOT clearly taught in the Bible.

You're right about that, however the "selling" of indulgences has never been a formal teaching of the Catholic Church. Rather, it was an abuse of the doctrine of indulgences that was popular during the Late Renaissance Period, and which was ultimately corrected by the Catholic Church itself. In short, the doctrine of indulgences is legitimate, but the abuse of that doctrine is not.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cross Reference]

You're right about that, however the "selling" of indulgences has never been a formal teaching of the Catholic Church. Rather, it was an abuse of the doctrine of indulgences that was popular during the Late Renaissance Period, and which was ultimately corrected by the Catholic Church itself. In short, the doctrine of indulgences is legitimate, but the abuse of that doctrine is not.

How then, can't you not see yourself capable of having more flexibility when considering your notions re RCC infallibility?

 

[chrysostom]

You're right about that, however the "selling" of indulgences has never been a formal teaching of the Catholic Church. Rather, it was an abuse of the doctrine of indulgences that was popular during the Late Renaissance Period, and which was ultimately corrected by the Catholic Church itself. In short, the doctrine of indulgences is legitimate, but the abuse of that doctrine is not.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

many will not admit this
I once mocked this by suggesting a two for one sale
and
later on I found out they actually did that

 

[Cruciform]

many will not admit this. I once mocked this by suggesting a two for one sale and later on I found out they actually did that.

Yikes! :doh:

 

[chrysostom]

Yikes! :doh:

here is an off the wall question for you

would it be honored in heaven
if
someone did buy an indulgence in good faith?

I say yes

 

[Cruciform]

would it be honored in heaven if someone did buy an indulgence in good faith? I say yes.

I would think so as well, though the human "powers that be" would have something to answer for.

 

[desiringGod7]

You're right about that, however the "selling" of indulgences has never been a formal teaching of the Catholic Church. Rather, it was an abuse of the doctrine of indulgences that was popular during the Late Renaissance Period, and which was ultimately corrected by the Catholic Church itself. In short, the doctrine of indulgences is legitimate, but the abuse of that doctrine is not.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

So far, no substantive Protestant answer whatsoever for why Luther was supposedly wrong in his statements as recorded in the OP. Very telling. :think:

 

[Totton Linnet]

So far, no substantive Protestant answer whatsoever for why Luther was supposedly wrong in his statements as recorded in the OP. Very telling. :think:

It's very simple.....he later got the revelation, he saw the light. That changes everything.

 

[6days]

here is an off the wall question for you
would it be honored in heaven if
someone did buy an indulgence in good faith?
I say yes

What*is an 'indulgence'? Is it sort of like a company purchasing a 'carbon offset' that forgives them for a certain amount of polluting?*

 

[Cruciform]

It's very simple.....he later got the revelation, he saw the light.

Now go ahead and actually disprove Luther's observations in the OP.

 

[Lon]

we know why
they were selling indulgences
and
you should buy a couple
if
they ever do it again

they would be honored in heaven

just like it says in your bible

Verse please.

 

[Lon]

So far, no substantive Protestant answer whatsoever for why Luther was supposedly wrong in his statements as recorded in the OP. Very telling. :think:

:nono: Not at all. Acts 9 for instance? Otherwise you are just merely pitting Luther against a necessarily Reformed Luther.
No doubt his awakening was stark and profound, as profound perhaps as Saul's own conversion when we hear him tell it. I am actually wondering what kind of Luther scholar you might be. Perchance this sweeping generalization steamed full-speed through an layman's Catholic forum somewhere? :think: Keep looking for the proverbial nails if you wish, but we all should be concerned over His nails. Mark 9:29 We all need to be about it Luke 2:49

 

[Cruciform]

Not at all. Acts 9 for instance? Otherwise you are just merely pitting Luther against a necessarily Reformed Luther.

I understand that Luther later changed his doctrine. My question with respect to the OP is why Protestants reject his earlier statement. In short, why is Luther's statement supposedly wrong?



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

What*is an 'indulgence'?

See this.

Is it sort of like a company purchasing a 'carbon offset' that forgives them for a certain amount of polluting?*

No.



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[oatmeal]

He obviously learned tons after he spoke that.

He did not intend to split off, but had to when the RCC rejected the scripture he taught and decided to murder him.

Hence he went into hiding.

The RCC has a history of that kind of stuff.

The RCC does not like scripture.

I prefer sola scriptura to the RCC doctrine of "anything but scripture"

 

[Totton Linnet]

Now go ahead and actually disprove Luther's observations in the OP.

It is simple...the papacy is the usurpation of Christ as Head of His body the church. Instead of being ruled by the Holy Spirit since Ignatias it has been ruled by bishops out of which grew the Papacy.

This is the true reason that the gifts and manifestations of the Holy Spirit ceased in the early church.

The clergy had become so wicked by Martin Luther's day that they even sold pardon for money.

 

[Cruciform]

He obviously learned tons after he spoke that.

Or---as all heretics ultimately do---he chose to depart from the authoritative teachings of Christ's one historic Church and presumed to make doctrine up for himself based upon his subjective and non-authoritative interpretations of the Bible.

The RCC does not like scripture.

Once again, oats presumes to publicly comment on things he knows exactly nothing about.

I prefer sola scriptura to the RCC doctrine of "anything but scripture"

• Just another Straw Man Fallacy on your part.
• Rather, you prefer the heterodox 16th-century Protestant invention known as sola scriptura to the historic Christian doctrine referred to as sola Dei verbum ("God's word alone").

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Cruciform]

It is simple...the papacy is the usurpation of Christ as Head of His body the church. Instead of being ruled by the Holy Spirit since Ignatias it has been ruled by bishops out of which grew the Papacy.

Your utterly imaginary scenario here is simply and demonstrably false. Bishops were already in a position of authoritative leadership in the Church from the very beginning, a fact that is unambiguously demonstrated in the New Testament itself---for example, in Ac. 15:2, 6; 16:4).



Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+