I am excited....

[Mjh29]

Apparently YOU are also ignorant about the definition of Papal Infallibility . . .

Obviously the pope can't be PERFECTLY infallible... geez guys get it together lol

 

[Willie T]

My hat is off to many of you. Usually In the past, I just fleetingly glanced at some of the silliness BOL threw out, and then just dismissed it. But, I have to take a bow to you people who have been steadily trying to get past his religious paranoia in order to try and help him see even a little truth.

Frankly, I am not up to it. But, I applaud those of you who keep trying.

 

[Taken]

Yeah, there were hundreds of people moving toward Protesting, and most — especially Luther — seemed intent on getting back to the original Bible words..... in the vernacular of the common man.

Agree.

I was leaning toward customs/ traditions....
Yes they were early on, established.

And no one noticed the increase of assumed power and hypocrisy that spun off....except Jesus?

Where was Jesus' Altar, fancy garb, stained glass, artwork, holy water, statues, bejeweled head covering...etc.

And what was the point of the Temple, its exclusive admittance and adornments, special room, artworks, etc. being turned to rubble?

Only to be continued?
Or no longer promoted?

And IF continued to be promoted why would the expectation be anything less than the assumed power and hypocrisy as before?

BECAUSE repeating something that Failed...will lead to a success?

Perhaps for the few gaining Control and wealth.... but I'm leaning, not so much for the People at large.

God Bless,
Taken

 

[epostle]

The hardest thing to do is shed prejudice and take an honest look the biblical evidence for doctrines that give Protestants fits. It seems to me the only thing that Protestants can see is the abuses of the doctrine, never examining the doctrines themselves.

The bulk of Newman’s extraordinary work is devoted to the exposition of a series of analogies, showing conclusively that the Protestant static conception of the Church (both historically and theologically) is incoherent and false. He argues, for example, that notions of suffering, or “vague forms of the doctrine of Purgatory,” were universally accepted, by and large, in the first four centuries of the Church, whereas, the same cannot be said for the doctrine of Original Sin, which is agreed upon by Protestants and Catholics.

Protestants falsely argue that Purgatory is a later corruption, but it was present early on and merely developed. Original Sin, however, was equally if not more so, subject to development. One cannot have it both ways. If Purgatory is unacceptable on grounds of its having undergone development, then Original Sin must be rejected with it. Contrariwise, if Original Sin is accepted notwithstanding its own development, then so must Purgatory be accepted.​

Columns

"An indulgence is obtained through the Church who, by virtue of the power of binding and loosing granted her by Christ Jesus, intervenes in favor of individual Christians and opens for them the treasury of the merits of Christ and the saints to obtain from the Father of mercies the remission of the temporal punishment due for their sins." The Church does this not just to aid Christians, "but also to spur them to works of devotion, penance, and charity" (CCC 1478).

"the power of binding and loosing When someone repents, God removes his guilt (Is. 1:18) and any eternal punishment (Rom. 5:9), but temporal penalties may remain. One passage demonstrating this is 2 Samuel 12, in which Nathan the prophet confronts David over his adultery:

"Then David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’ Nathan answered David: ‘The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin; you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die’" (2 Sam. 12:13-14). God forgave David but David still had to suffer the loss of his son as well as other temporal punishments (2 Sam. 12:7-12). (For other examples, see: Numbers 14:13-23; 20:12; 27:12-14.)

Protestants realize that, while Jesus paid the price for our sins before God, he did not relieve our obligation to repair what we have done. They fully acknowledge that if you steal someone’s car, you have to give it back; it isn’t enough just to repent. God’s forgiveness (and man’s!) does not include letting you keep the stolen car.

This technical definition can be phrased more simply as, "An indulgence is what we receive when the Church lessens the temporal (lasting only for a short time) penalties to which we may be subject even though our sins have been forgiven." To understand this definition, we need to look at the biblical principles behind indulgences.

Principle 1: Sin Results in Guilt and Punishment

When a person sins, he acquires certain liabilities: the liability of guilt and the liability of punishment. Scripture speaks of the former when it pictures guilt as clinging to our souls, making them discolored and unclean before God: "Though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool" (Is. 1:18). This idea of guilt clinging to our souls appears in texts that picture forgiveness as a cleansing or washing and the state of our forgiven souls as clean and white (cf. Ps. 51:4, 9).

We incur not just guilt, but liability for punishment when we sin: "I will punish the world for its evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; I will put an end to the pride of the arrogant and lay low the haughtiness of the ruthless" (Is. 13:11). Judgment pertains even to the smallest sins: "For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil" (Eccl. 12:14).

Principle 2: Punishments are Both Temporal and Eternal

The Bible indicates some punishments are eternal, lasting forever, but others are temporal. Eternal punishment is mentioned in Daniel 12:2: "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt."

We normally focus on the eternal penalties of sin, because they are the most important, but Scripture indicates temporal penalties are real and go back to the first sin humans committed: "To the woman he said, ‘I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children (Gen. 3:16).

Principle 3: Temporal Penalties May Remain When a Sin is Forgiven

When someone repents, God removes his guilt (Is. 1:18) and any eternal punishment (Rom. 5:9), but temporal penalties may remain. One passage demonstrating this is 2 Samuel 12, in which Nathan the prophet confronts David over his adultery:

"Then David said to Nathan, ‘I have sinned against the Lord.’ Nathan answered David: ‘The Lord on his part has forgiven your sin; you shall not die. But since you have utterly spurned the Lord by this deed, the child born to you must surely die’" (2 Sam. 12:13-14). God forgave David but David still had to suffer the loss of his son as well as other temporal punishments (2 Sam. 12:7-12). (For other examples, see: Numbers 14:13-23; 20:12; 27:12-14.)

Protestants realize that, while Jesus paid the price for our sins before God, he did not relieve our obligation to repair what we have done. They fully acknowledge that if you steal someone’s car, you have to give it back; it isn’t enough just to repent. God’s forgiveness (and man’s!) does not include letting you keep the stolen car.

Protestants also admit the principle of temporal penalties for sin, in practice, when discussing death. Scripture says death entered the world through original sin (Gen. 3:22-24, Rom. 5:12). When we first come to God we are forgiven, and when we sin later we are able to be forgiven, yet that does not free us from the penalty of physical death. Even the forgiven die; a penalty remains after our sins are forgiven. This is a temporal penalty since physical death is temporary and we will be resurrected (Dan. 12:2).

Principle 4: God Blesses Some People As a Reward to Others

In Matthew 9:1-8, Jesus heals a paralytic and forgives his sins after seeing the faith of his friends. Paul also tells us that "as regards election [the Jews] are beloved for the sake of their forefathers" (Rom. 11:28).

When God blesses one person as a reward to someone else, sometimes the specific blessing he gives is a reduction of the temporal penalties to which the first person is subject. For example, God promised Abraham that, if he could find a certain number of righteous men in Sodom, he was willing to defer the city’s temporal destruction for the sake of the righteous (Gen. 18:16-33; cf. 1 Kgs. 11:11-13; Rom. 11:28-29).

Principle 5: God Remits Temporal Punishments through the Church

God uses the Church when he removes temporal penalties. This is the essence of the doctrine of indulgences. Earlier we defined indulgences as "what we receive when the Church lessens the temporal penalties to which we may be subject even though our sins have been forgiven." The members of the Church became aware of this principle through the sacrament of penance. From the beginning, acts of penance were assigned as part of the sacrament because the Church recognized that Christians must deal with temporal penalties, such as God’s discipline and the need to compensate those our sins have injured.

In the early Church, penances were sometimes severe. For serious sins, such as apostasy, murder, and abortion, the penances could stretch over years, but the Church recognized that repentant sinners could shorten their penances by pleasing God through pious or charitable acts that expressed sorrow and a desire to make up for one’s sin.

The Church also recognized the duration of temporal punishments could be lessened through the involvement of other persons who had pleased God. Scripture tells us God gave the authority to forgive sins "to men" (Matt. 9:8) and to Christ’s ministers in particular. Jesus told them, "As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. . . . Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:21-23).

If Christ gave his ministers the ability to forgive the eternal penalty of sin, how much more would they be able to remit the temporal penalties of sin! Christ also promised his Church the power to bind and loose on earth, saying, "Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 18:18). As the context makes clear, binding and loosing cover Church discipline, and Church discipline involves administering and removing temporal penalties (such as barring from and readmitting to the sacraments). Therefore, the power of binding and loosing includes the administration of temporal penalties.

 

[epostle]

Principle 6: God Blesses Dead Christians As a Reward to Living Christian

From the beginning the Church recognized the validity of praying for the dead so that their transition into heaven (via purgatory) might be swift and smooth. This meant praying for the lessening or removal of temporal penalties holding them back from the full glory of heaven. For this reason the Church teaches that "indulgences can always be applied to the dead by way of prayer" (Indulgentarium Doctrina 3). The custom of praying for the dead is not restricted to the Catholic faith. When a Jewish person’s loved one dies, he prays a prayer known as the Mourner’s Kaddish for eleven months after the death for the loved one’s purification.

In the Old Testament, Judah Maccabee finds the bodies of soldiers who died wearing superstitious amulets during one of the Lord’s battles. Judah and his men "turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out" (2 Macc. 12:42).

The reference to the sin being "wholly blotted out" refers to its temporal penalties. The author of 2 Maccabees tells us that for these men Judah "was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness" (verse 45); he believed that these men fell asleep in godliness, which would not have been the case if they were in mortal sin. If they were not in mortal sin, then they would not have eternal penalties to suffer, and thus the complete blotting out of their sin must refer to temporal penalties for their superstitious actions. Judah "took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this . . . he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin" (verses 43, 46).

Judah not only prayed for the dead, but he provided for them the then-appropriate ecclesial action for lessening temporal penalties: a sin offering. Accordingly, we may take the now-appropriate ecclesial action for lessening temporal penalties— indulgences—and apply them to the dead by way of prayer.

These six principles, which we have seen to be thoroughly biblical, are the underpinnings of indulgences. But, the question of expiation often remains. Can we expiate our sins—and what does "expiate" mean anyway?

Some criticize indulgences, saying they involve our making "expiation" for our sins, something which only Christ can do. While this sounds like a noble defense of Christ’s sufficiency, this criticism is unfounded, and most who make it do not know what the word "expiation" means or how indulgences work.

Protestant Scripture scholar Leon Morris comments on the confusion around the word "expiate": "[M]ost of us . . . don’t understand ‘expiation’ very well. . . . [E]xpiation is . . . making amends for a wrong. . . . Expiation is an impersonal word; one expiates a sin or a crime" (The Atonement [Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1983], 151). The Wycliff Bible Encyclopedia gives a similar definition: "The basic idea of expiation has to do with reparation for a wrong, the satisfaction of the demands of justice through paying a penalty."

Certainly when it comes to the eternal effects of our sins, only Christ can make amends or reparation. Only he was able to pay the infinite price necessary to cover our sins. We are completely unable to do so, not only because we are finite creatures incapable of making an infinite satisfaction, but because everything we have was given to us by God. For us to try to satisfy God’s eternal justice would be like using money we had borrowed from someone to repay what we had stolen from him. No actual satisfaction would be made (cf. Ps. 49:7-9, Rom. 11:35). This does not mean we can’t make amends or reparation for the temporal effects of our sins. If someone steals an item, he can return it. If someone damages another’s reputation, he can publicly correct the slander. When someone destroys a piece of property, he can compensate the owner for its loss. All these are ways in which one can make at least partial amends (expiation) for what he has done.

An excellent biblical illustration of this principle is given in Proverbs 16:6, which states: "By loving kindness and faithfulness iniquity is atoned for, and by the fear of the Lord a man avoids evil" (cf. Lev. 6:1-7; Num. 5:5-8). Here we are told that a person makes temporal atonement (though never eternal atonement, which only Christ is capable of doing) for his sins through acts of loving kindness and faithfulness.

 

[epostle]

Step number one in explaining indulgences is to know what they are. Step number two is to clarify what they are not. Here are the seven most common myths about indulgences:

Myth 1: A person can buy his way out of hell with indulgences.

This charge is without foundation. Since indulgences remit only temporal penalties, they cannot remit the eternal penalty of hell. Once a person is in hell, no amount of indulgences will ever change that fact. The only way to avoid hell is by appealing to God’s eternal mercy while still alive. After death, one’s eternal fate is set (Heb. 9:27).

Myth 2: A person can buy indulgences for sins not yet committed.

The Church has always taught that indulgences do not apply to sins not yet committed. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes, "[An indulgence] is not a permission to commit sin, nor a pardon of future sin; neither could be granted by any power."

Myth 3: A person can "buy forgiveness" with indulgences.

The definition of indulgences presupposes that forgiveness has already taken place: "An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven" (Indulgentarium Doctrina 1, emphasis added). Indulgences in no way forgive sins. They deal only with punishments left after sins have been forgiven.

Myth 4: Indulgences were invented as a means for the Church to raise money.

Indulgences developed from reflection on the sacrament of reconciliation. They are a way of shortening the penance of sacramental discipline and were in use centuries before money-related problems appeared.

Myth 5: An indulgence will shorten your time in purgatory by a fixed number of days.

The number of days which used to be attached to indulgences were references to the period of penance one might undergo during life on earth. The Catholic Church does not claim to know anything about how long or short purgatory is in general, much less in a specific person’s case.

Myth 6: A person can buy indulgences.

The Council of Trent instituted severe reforms in the practice of granting indulgences, and, because of prior abuses, "in 1567 Pope Pius V canceled all grants of indulgences involving any fees or other financial transactions" (Catholic Encyclopedia). This act proved the Church’s seriousness about removing abuses from indulgences. (yet Protestants have never heard of this)

Myth 7: A person used to be able to buy indulgences.

One never could "buy" indulgences. The financial scandal surrounding indulgences, the scandal that gave Martin Luther an excuse for his heterodoxy, involved alms—indulgences in which the giving of alms to some charitable fund or foundation was used as the occasion to grant the indulgence. There was no outright selling of indulgences. The Catholic Encyclopedia states: "t is easy to see how abuses crept in. Among the good works which might be encouraged by being made the condition of an indulgence, almsgiving would naturally hold a conspicuous place. . . . It is well to observe that in these purposes there is nothing essentially evil. To give money to God or to the poor is a praiseworthy act, and, when it is done from right motives, it will surely not go unrewarded."

Being able to explain these seven myths will be a large step in helping others to understand indulgences. But, there are still questions to be asked:

Myths about Indulgences | Catholic Answers

 

[Nancy]

Well, at least THIS Catholic seems to be agreeable to allowing McGrath to breath the same air he does. LOL
Alister McGrath: How Beauty, Meaning, and Purpose Brought an Atheist to Christianity. - The Catholic Astronomer

"VIDEO UNAVAILABLE"

 

[Enoch111]

Step number one in explaining indulgences is to know what they are.

The sad fact is that the RCC wants to play God with their unbiblical practice of indulgences. Here is how they are defined (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia).

"What an indulgence is
An indulgence is the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God's justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which remission is granted by the Church in the exercise of the power of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive."

So the questions we need to ask are:

1. If God has forgiven sins, why would there be temporal punishment?
2. What right does any human being or human institution have to play God and remit sins?
3. If the merits of Christ are "superabundant" then why should anyone believe in a mythical Purgatory?
4. Since the so-called *merits of the saints* cannot keep anyone out of Purgatory, why bring them up?

 

[brakelite]

@epostle I agree that there are consequences of sin in this life which God's forgiveness does not cover. Your own example being quite appropriate, in that if a person steals a car then is converted, comes to Christ, is forgiven, it cannot be expected that he could keep the car. He must return it by all and every means possible.
The question is however, according to the remission of temporal consequences by the church, does an indulgence therefore mean he can keep the car???

 

[quietthinker]

Have you ever wondered why the amount of words recorded of Jesus are so relatively few?
Human logic would think that being who he is he would address more issues and give more details, but no this wasn't the case.

I think it's because if we 'can't' hear the few words we would never hear the many, so I make the effort in hearing and applying what I've heard.
I'm also reminded of Solomon's words, 'the more the words, the less the meaning'... that concise little statement is a treasure.
If God can use half a dozen words and say, 'let there be animals and other living creatures' and it was so, it should give us a perspective. Think on that.

 

[Enoch111]

If God can use half a dozen words and say, 'let there be animals and other living creatures' and it was so, it should give us a perspective.

Correct. And God dismissed the amazing creation of countless stars thus:...[he made] the stars also. (Gen 1:16). And "he made" is not even in the Hebrew text! So verbiage does not impress God.

On the other hand, human beings have written countless books about stars, planetary systems etc.

 

[amadeus]

and that was after John Baptist came, baptising people in the Jordan! Tantamount to converting ppl to Islam in the Deep South, basically; right in front of the courthouse

Throughout the OT we see the people repeatedly going their own way instead of God's Way. The rejection of God seems to have been the usual instead of the unusual.

Today so many would say that since Jesus it has been better without having a clue as why it really could or should be better. Is it not easy to say, "I believe in Jesus" and thereafter it is all OK now, as we reach out and hold onto what so many want to call a done deal with only a Nehushtan? They would say that Jesus did all of the work for us even though God who never changes required something from us each time before He one more time helped natural Israel. He always required something from them. What was it God required?

When there had been no more judges, no more prophets, no more saviors from God for better than 400 years, all of the foolishness of man, not for just 400 years but for all of the time since man put himself outside of Eden, was remembered as it were by God and John the Baptist was sent to prepare for the "final" redemption, a final pathway to salvation. The Baptist spoke the right words and prepared the way and they cut off his head. Then came Jesus to reopen the closed door and when he had finished his work, they crucified him. Who was protesting when they cried out, "Give us Barabbas"?

Why would anyone need to Protest after that? For more than another judge or prophet or savior of the moment, had come and paid the price and opened the Way, but after his personal work was finished instead of building on that Foundation with gold and silver and precious stones people, with it would seem few exceptions, have been trampling underfoot what he did. Where is the Church? Where are the good fruits? Where is the Love? How many are Protesting the lack in these things? Let us look to ourselves to answer that question: What is it God requires?

Why should anyone Protest? Considering what Jesus did, was there not a greater need than even in the times of the judges and prophets who God sent before sending Jesus? Let us Protest against ourselves and our churches and our sent leadership who have NOT shown themselves to be doing the "greater works" of believers. Who is innocent here? What is it God requires?

Protesting against the errors does not fix anything. What the people did in the OT when they realized their own pain and their own shortcoming was humble themselves and then God sent those little saviors [judges, prophets, etc.]

That God would still remember us when we humble ourselves before Him rather than Protesting one more time really should speak to our hearts as to how great and loving He really is. It would seem to me that God doesn't want Protestants but rather humbled people. Consider the following words:

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." II Chron 7:14

What is it God requires? Not more Protests, but more humility.

Repenting is good, but when we sin after we have repented are we not required by God to humble ourselves to Him one more time? Is it easier or more correct to Protest again? Where does God say we need to Protest rather than humble ourselves?

 

[brakelite]

I can't help but wonder that if Luther was railing against a practice that was abused by a few such as Tetzel, and that the authorities and leadership of the church agreed with Luther that such distortions were evil, why persecute Luther?

My wife and I had a horrendous argument a month or so ago. I called her every foul name under the sun, and a few that hadn't even been invented yet. I walked out leaving her steaming in indignation and wrath. We didn't speak to one another for two weeks. Finally, I couldn't stand it any more. Burdened with guilt and remorse, I humbly approached her and begged forgiveness. We cried in each other's arms, reassured one another of our undying love, my darling said she forgave me, and as I turned to leave, she wacked me over the back of the head with the heaviest frying pan she could find.
When I woke up from my coma 3 days later and met her gaze as she looked down from me from my bedside, I asked, "I thought you had forgiven me?".
"I did" she assured me. "But I wanted to do that before you had the opportunity to ask the priest for an indulgence".

 

[Willie T]

It seems that Luther made the unfortunate choice of going over Tetzel's head, and reporting the abuse to the very man that Tetzel was taking these orders from. Luckily for Luther, at the time, Charles V, who was also complicit in this, was otherwise preoccupied with more pressing military concerns to care much about one little upstart of a monk, so reprisal was only partial for a year or two.

When things got real bad, one of the higher ups faked his "kidnapping", and hid him out for some time while Luther translated the Bible into German.

 

[brakelite]

I left a church that was almost a mirror image of the SDA (the CoC), so I think I will pass on that one.

In another thread you expressed admiration for creative writing re the book on Protestant history you are currently driving into. Ellen White never attended college, not even high school. In fact due to injury, she didn't even make it out of grade school. Yet she is one of the most prolific writers, on any subject, in history. And speaking authorititively and presenting concepts on subjects such as health and education that are only today being introduced to educators and finding traction in serious health providers.
The Great Controversy will offer you a perspective no other history book could provide. Another book of hers "The Desire of Ages" is a beautifully written commentary on the life of Christ. A man of your obvious discernment in writing and linguistics would appreciate both those books, apart from the spiritual food they offer. Especially when one considers Ellen White left school at aged 9.
An excerpt from Education

Chapter 26—Methods of Teaching
“To give prudence to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion.”
For ages education has had to do chiefly with the memory. This faculty has been taxed to the utmost, while the other mental powers have not been correspondingly developed.Students have spent their time in laboriously crowding the mind with knowledge, very little of which could be utilized. The mind thus burdened with that which it cannot digest and assimilate is weakened; it becomes incapable of vigorous, self-reliant effort, and is content to depend on the judgment and perception of others. Ed 230.1
Seeing the evils of this method, some have gone to another extreme.In their view, man needs only to develop that which is within him.Such education leads the student to self-sufficiency, thus cutting him off from the source of true knowledge and power. Ed 230.2
The education that consists in the training of the memory, tending to discourage independent thought, has a moral bearing which is too little appreciated. As the student sacrifices the power to reason and judge for himself, he becomes incapable of discriminating between truth and error, and falls an easy prey to deception. He is easily led to follow tradition and custom

 

[Willie T]

In another thread you expressed admiration for creative writing re the book on Protestant history you are currently driving into. Ellen White never attended college, not even high school. In fact due to injury, she didn't even make it out of grade school. Yet she is one of the most prolific writers, on any subject, in history. And speaking authorititively and presenting concepts on subjects such as health and education that are only today being introduced to educators and finding traction in serious health providers.
The Great Controversy will offer you a perspective no other history book could provide. Another book of hers "The Desire of Ages" is a beautifully written commentary on the life of Christ. A man of your obvious discernment in writing and linguistics would appreciate both those books, apart from the spiritual food they offer. Especially when one considers Ellen White left school at aged 9.
An excerpt from Education

Chapter 26—Methods of Teaching
“To give prudence to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion.”
For ages education has had to do chiefly with the memory. This faculty has been taxed to the utmost, while the other mental powers have not been correspondingly developed.Students have spent their time in laboriously crowding the mind with knowledge, very little of which could be utilized. The mind thus burdened with that which it cannot digest and assimilate is weakened; it becomes incapable of vigorous, self-reliant effort, and is content to depend on the judgment and perception of others. Ed 230.1
Seeing the evils of this method, some have gone to another extreme.In their view, man needs only to develop that which is within him.Such education leads the student to self-sufficiency, thus cutting him off from the source of true knowledge and power. Ed 230.2
The education that consists in the training of the memory, tending to discourage independent thought, has a moral bearing which is too little appreciated. As the student sacrifices the power to reason and judge for himself, he becomes incapable of discriminating between truth and error, and falls an easy prey to deception. He is easily led to follow tradition and custom

OK, perhaps she might have some interesting input. I will look into it further.

 

[Helen]

I can't help but wonder that if Luther was railing against a practice that was abused by a few such as Tetzel, and that the authorities and leadership of the church agreed with Luther that such distortions were evil, why persecute Luther?

My wife and I had a horrendous argument a month or so ago. I called her every foul name under the sun, and a few that hadn't even been invented yet. I walked out leaving her steaming in indignation and wrath. We didn't speak to one another for two weeks. Finally, I couldn't stand it any more. Burdened with guilt and remorse, I humbly approached her and begged forgiveness. We cried in each other's arms, reassured one another of our undying love, my darling said she forgave me, and as I turned to leave, she wacked me over the back of the head with the heaviest frying pan she could find.
When I woke up from my coma 3 days later and met her gaze as she looked down from me from my bedside, I asked, "I thought you had forgiven me?".
"I did" she assured me. "But I wanted to do that before you had the opportunity to ask the priest for an indulgence".

Excellent...good one.

 

[Willie T]

In another thread you expressed admiration for creative writing re the book on Protestant history you are currently driving into. Ellen White never attended college, not even high school. In fact due to injury, she didn't even make it out of grade school. Yet she is one of the most prolific writers, on any subject, in history. And speaking authorititively and presenting concepts on subjects such as health and education that are only today being introduced to educators and finding traction in serious health providers.
The Great Controversy will offer you a perspective no other history book could provide. Another book of hers "The Desire of Ages" is a beautifully written commentary on the life of Christ. A man of your obvious discernment in writing and linguistics would appreciate both those books, apart from the spiritual food they offer. Especially when one considers Ellen White left school at aged 9.
An excerpt from Education

Chapter 26—Methods of Teaching
“To give prudence to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion.”
For ages education has had to do chiefly with the memory. This faculty has been taxed to the utmost, while the other mental powers have not been correspondingly developed.Students have spent their time in laboriously crowding the mind with knowledge, very little of which could be utilized. The mind thus burdened with that which it cannot digest and assimilate is weakened; it becomes incapable of vigorous, self-reliant effort, and is content to depend on the judgment and perception of others. Ed 230.1
Seeing the evils of this method, some have gone to another extreme.In their view, man needs only to develop that which is within him.Such education leads the student to self-sufficiency, thus cutting him off from the source of true knowledge and power. Ed 230.2
The education that consists in the training of the memory, tending to discourage independent thought, has a moral bearing which is too little appreciated. As the student sacrifices the power to reason and judge for himself, he becomes incapable of discriminating between truth and error, and falls an easy prey to deception. He is easily led to follow tradition and custom

OK, I got the book. All 42 Chapters of it (almost 700 pages) I think that woman tried to write the entire Bible in that book.
It will be at least two weeks before I begin reading, but I have it, anyway.
Thank you for the suggestion.

 

[Phoneman777]

… to have discovered a recently written book concerning the development of Protestantism.

Here is just a tiny excerpt from that book:

THE TRIGGER FOR LUTHER’S REFORM: THE “INDULGENCE” CONTROVERSY

The event that is traditionally held to mark the beginning of the European Reformation, and hence the birth of Protestantism, took place at about midday on October 31, 1517, on the eve of All Souls’ Day. Martin Luther, a lecturer in biblical studies at the recently founded University of Wittenberg, nailed a piece of paper to the main north door of the castle church of that city. The paper fluttered in the wind alongside various other academic and civic notices, probably attracting little attention at first.

Luther’s notice was a request to debate a series of theological propositions about the practice of “indulgences.” Such debates were a regular part of the academic life of the day and rarely attracted attention beyond the limited confines of the universities. There is no evidence that his attempt to arrange a routine debate attracted any interest within the University of Wittenberg, or any attention from a wider public. It was only when Luther circulated his demands more widely that controversy began to develop.

So, what was the issue at stake? The immediate cause was the visit of Johann Tetzel to Luther’s hometown of Wittenberg to sell indulgences, partly in order to raise capital for the rebuilding of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. Occupying something of a theological gray area, indulgences were popular without being entirely theoretically respectable. If there was a theological foundation to the notion, it lay in the idea that through their exemplary actions, Jesus Christ and the saints of the church had built up a “treasury of merit” on which pious Christians could draw, as and when necessary.

Over a period of time, the church had developed a complex theology of purgatory — an intermediate state in which the souls of believers were purged of their remaining sin in order to enter into the presence of God without stain or defect of any kind. This idea of an “intermediate state” could be traced back to the sixth century, although its elaboration is particularly linked with the later Middle Ages. By the early sixteenth century, a popular theology of purgatory had emerged that emphasized both the extended nature and the horrors of this refinement in purgatory — and at the same time offered a number of fast tracks through the process.12

One such accelerated pathway was based on prayer for the dead by the living. Throughout Europe, a whole system of intercessory foundations was created to offer prayers for souls in purgatory, including trentals (cycles of thirty requiem masses) and obits (a yearly memorial service). Chantries were established in order to ensure regular prayer for those who had died.13 The expenses attending such cults of the dead were considerable, a fact reflected in the rise of religious fraternities dedicated to the provision of the appropriate rites of passage for their members. In times of economic hardship, at least some degree of anticlerical sentiment was thus an inevitability: the clergy could be seen as profiting from the anxiety of the impoverished living concerning their dead kinsfolk.

It was, however, a second fast track through purgatory that aroused Luther’s ire. Although the theological foundations of the practice were highly questionable (it was abolished by Pope Pius V in 1567), the church began to finance military campaigns and the construction of cathedrals through the sale of “indulgences,” which reduced the amount of time spent in the torment of purgatory. Johann Tetzel was a shrewd marketer and knew how to sell his product. He had crafted a catchy slogan, making the merits of his product clear even to the simplest of people:

As soon as the coin in the coffer rings,
The soul from purgatory springs!

The canny spiritual investor could thus ensure that both he and his relatives (assuming, of course, that his budget stretched that far) could miss out on the pains of purgation. Aware of the wide appeal of his product, Tetzel had developed an additional crafty marketing technique. The cost of an indulgence was tailored to individuals’ ability to pay as much as to the spiritual benefits they hoped to secure.

Most people rather liked this idea, seeing it as a clever way of enjoying sin without having to worry too much about its alleged eternal consequences. Any extended experience of purgatory was strictly for those who failed to plan for the future. Yet Luther was appalled by the practice. Forgiveness was meant to be the free gift of God! For Luther, the indulgence controversy was a worrying symptom of a much deeper malaise — a loss of the foundational vision that lay at the heart of the gospel. How could the church claim to be Christian when it seemed, at least to Luther, to have lost sight of the most important of all Christian insights — that God offers salvation as a free gift? The sale of indulgences seemed to deny the essence of the Christian gospel, as Luther now understood it. And if the church denied the gospel, was it really a Christian church at all?

Dude, I've been telling you and others all this for ages it seems. So glad you're studying about the Protestant Reformation, for it is only by doing so that one can understand why what the Reformers believed about prophecy is so objectionable to Christianity today, but so acceptable to them at the time.

 

[quietthinker]

Dude, I've been telling you and others all this for ages it seems. So glad you're studying about the Protestant Reformation, for it is only by doing so that one can understand why what the Reformers believed about prophecy is so objectionable to Christianity today, but so acceptable to them at the time.

Ahhhhhh, the temptation to take glory to oneself is ever lurking. A serpent it is indeed and one that requires constant guarding against.