How much of Luther's 95 Thesis do Protestants still agree with?

rossh

Well-known member
Why is that any of your business?


I never asked anyone to.
And as a Christian, I would dissuade anyone from bowing down to anyone but God.
But that's just my opinion.



<Chuckle>
YOUR "guesswork" is incredibly abysmal.
Who are you, that I would waste any time getting "upset" by anything you say?



My response is not "upset", it's relief.



You're the only one doing the "attacking".
So maybe you should take your own advice?
Opinions are worthless just as much like the owner of opinions... Only Gods Word matters.. Look at the RCC it thrives on opinions it's own of course. 1 John 4:19-20 EDITED Do not moderate other posters by telling them what to do.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

rossh

Well-known member
DELETED

Posters are reminded that according to rule 24 on Evangelism, Christians are not permitted to "debate theology" with other Christians excepting in threads such as Apologetics. Stick to the issue of the forum, and the particulaar thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

cjab

Active member
A most important thesis is this:

34. "For the graces of indulgences are concerned only with the penalties of sacramental satisfaction established by man."

I suppose it is true that if an indulgence could be purchased by money, the limit of what it relates to would be a [legal] penalty of sacramental satisfaction. But is even the concept of sacramental satisfaction biblical?

Contrariwise with repentance:

2Co 2:10 "To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ;"

2Co 2:10 removes the need for sacramental satisfaction altogether where there is repentance. Repentance will provide recompense to the injured party, if necessary. A [legal] penalty of sacramental satisfaction may not provide any recompense to an injured party.

So the evil of indulgences is built on another evil that undermines restorative justice which requires payment to the injured party. The Pope ensured that all monies went to himself, rather than those wronged by the evil acts. A facet of this is criminal penalties in the way of fines in a modern state going to the State itself, rather than to the aggrieved party. Fines to the State, e.g. for assaults or thefts, perpetuate the evils of indulgences and sacramental satisfaction in perpetuity, which may explain why western societies are so corrupt.
 

rossh

Well-known member
2 Cor:
1 So I made up my mind that I would not pay you another painful visit.

2 For if I cause you pain, who is left to make me happy except the people I have pained?

3 Indeed, this is why I wrote as I did - so that when I came, I would not have to be pained by those who ought to be making me happy; for I had enough confidence in all of you to believe that unless I could be happy, none of you could be happy either.

4 I wrote to you with a greatly distressed and anguished heart, and with many tears, not in order to cause you pain, but to get you to realize how very much I love you.

5 Now if someone has been a cause of pain, it is not I whom he has pained, but, in some measure - I don't want to overstate it - all of you.

I already know too well about " cheery picking " Scriptures..
 

rossh

Well-known member
A most important thesis is this:

34. "For the graces of indulgences are concerned only with the penalties of sacramental satisfaction established by man."

I suppose it is true that if an indulgence could be purchased by money, the limit of what it relates to would be a [legal] penalty of sacramental satisfaction. But is even the concept of sacramental satisfaction biblical?

Contrariwise with repentance:

2Co 2:10 "To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ;"

2Co 2:10 removes the need for sacramental satisfaction altogether where there is repentance. Repentance will provide recompense to the injured party, if necessary. A [legal] penalty of sacramental satisfaction may not provide any recompense to an injured party.

So the evil of indulgences is built on another evil that undermines restorative justice which requires payment to the injured party. The Pope ensured that all monies went to himself, rather than those wronged by the evil acts. A facet of this is criminal penalties in the way of fines in a modern state going to the State itself, rather than to the aggrieved party. Fines to the State, e.g. for assaults or thefts, perpetuate the evils of indulgences and sacramental satisfaction in perpetuity, which may explain why western societies are so corrupt.
so what is that then the pagan RCC then ?
 

cjab

Active member
so what is that then the pagan RCC then ?
One could argue that a secular State that reserves for itself all criminal penalties and thus negates the need for restorative justice is no difference in essence to the medieval and unreformed RCC.
 

rossh

Well-known member
One could argue that a secular State that reserves for itself all criminal penalties and thus negates the need for restorative justice is no difference in essence to the medieval and unreformed RCC.
well that could also just be supposition ?
BTW,, who on earth is talking about " restorative justice " anyway ?
 

rossh

Well-known member
A most important thesis is this:

34. "For the graces of indulgences are concerned only with the penalties of sacramental satisfaction established by man."

I suppose it is true that if an indulgence could be purchased by money, the limit of what it relates to would be a [legal] penalty of sacramental satisfaction. But is even the concept of sacramental satisfaction biblical?

Contrariwise with repentance:

2Co 2:10 "To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ;"

2Co 2:10 removes the need for sacramental satisfaction altogether where there is repentance. Repentance will provide recompense to the injured party, if necessary. A [legal] penalty of sacramental satisfaction may not provide any recompense to an injured party.

So the evil of indulgences is built on another evil that undermines restorative justice which requires payment to the injured party. The Pope ensured that all monies went to himself, rather than those wronged by the evil acts. A facet of this is criminal penalties in the way of fines in a modern state going to the State itself, rather than to the aggrieved party. Fines to the State, e.g. for assaults or thefts, perpetuate the evils of indulgences and sacramental satisfaction in perpetuity, which may explain why western societies are so corrupt.
What you do is selective reading and editing out what you do not like nor agree with.. Governments have this habit too.

2 Cor 2:
1 So I made up my mind that I would not pay you another painful visit.

2 For if I cause you pain, who is left to make me happy except the people I have pained?

3 Indeed, this is why I wrote as I did - so that when I came, I would not have to be pained by those who ought to be making me happy; for I had enough confidence in all of you to believe that unless I could be happy, none of you could be happy either.

4 I wrote to you with a greatly distressed and anguished heart, and with many tears, not in order to cause you pain, but to get you to realize how very much I love you.

5 Now if someone has been a cause of pain, it is not I whom he has pained, but, in some measure - I don't want to overstate it - all of you.

6 For such a person the punishment already imposed on him by the majority is sufficient,

7 so that now you should do the opposite - forgive him, encourage him, comfort him. Otherwise such a person might be swallowed up in overwhelming depression.

8 So I urge you to show that you really do love him.

9 The reason I wrote you was to see if you would pass the test, to see if you would fully obey me.

10 Anyone you forgive, I forgive too. For indeed, whatever I have forgiven, if there has been anything to forgive, has been for your sake in the presence of the Messiah

11 so that we will not be taken advantage of by the Adversary - for we are quite aware of his schemes!

12 Now when I went to Troas to proclaim the Good News of the Messiah, since a door had been opened for me by the Lord,

13 I could not rest, because I failed to find my brother Titus. So I left the people there and went on to Macedonia.

14 But thanks be to God, who in the Messiah constantly leads us in a triumphal procession and through us spreads everywhere the fragrance of what it means to know him!

15 For to God we are the aroma of the Messiah, both among those being saved and among those being lost;

16 to the latter, we are the smell of death leading only to more death; but to the former, we are the sweet smell of life leading to more life. Who is equal to such a task?

17 For we are not like a lot of folks who go about huckstering God's message for a fee; on the contrary, we speak out of a sincere heart, as people sent by God, standing in God's presence, living in union with the Messiah.

Amen,,..//**
 

rossh

Well-known member
A most important thesis is this:

34. "For the graces of indulgences are concerned only with the penalties of sacramental satisfaction established by man."

I suppose it is true that if an indulgence could be purchased by money, the limit of what it relates to would be a [legal] penalty of sacramental satisfaction. But is even the concept of sacramental satisfaction biblical?

Contrariwise with repentance:

2Co 2:10 "To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ;"

2Co 2:10 removes the need for sacramental satisfaction altogether where there is repentance. Repentance will provide recompense to the injured party, if necessary. A [legal] penalty of sacramental satisfaction may not provide any recompense to an injured party.

So the evil of indulgences is built on another evil that undermines restorative justice which requires payment to the injured party. The Pope ensured that all monies went to himself, rather than those wronged by the evil acts. A facet of this is criminal penalties in the way of fines in a modern state going to the State itself, rather than to the aggrieved party. Fines to the State, e.g. for assaults or thefts, perpetuate the evils of indulgences and sacramental satisfaction in perpetuity, which may explain why western societies are so corrupt.
well what ever that is all about the very corrupted RCC, the torturing of victims to male them confess to anything then confiscating their wealth and homes or what ever they had. Also taking and using their young children for what ever ???? they deny this of course. They also had Kings and Queens of the past to protect them claiming that God Himself is King of Kings as they needed the Monarch's permission for the Inquisition/s..

1Cor 7:
6 I am giving you this as a suggestion, not as a command.

7 Actually, I wish everyone were like me; but each has his own gift from God, one this, another that.

8 Now to the single people and the widows I say that it is fine if they remain unmarried like me;

9 but if they can't exercise self-control, they should get married; because it is better to get married than to keep burning with sexual desire.

10 To those who are married I have a command, and it is not from me but from the Lord: a woman is not to separate herself from her husband

11 But if she does separate herself, she is to remain single or be reconciled with her husband. Also, a husband is not to leave his wife.
 

cjab

Active member
well what ever that is all about the very corrupted RCC, the torturing of victims to male them confess to anything then confiscating their wealth and homes or what ever they had. Also taking and using their young children for what ever ???? they deny this of course. They also had Kings and Queens of the past to protect them claiming that God Himself is King of Kings as they needed the Monarch's permission for the Inquisition/s..

1Cor 7:
6 I am giving you this as a suggestion, not as a command.

7 Actually, I wish everyone were like me; but each has his own gift from God, one this, another that.

8 Now to the single people and the widows I say that it is fine if they remain unmarried like me;

9 but if they can't exercise self-control, they should get married; because it is better to get married than to keep burning with sexual desire.

10 To those who are married I have a command, and it is not from me but from the Lord: a woman is not to separate herself from her husband

11 But if she does separate herself, she is to remain single or be reconciled with her husband. Also, a husband is not to leave his wife.
Yes, one must wonder why a question about indulgences prompted Luther to rebel against the RCC, when it had spent the past five hundred years exterminating heretics, and inciting kings to launch bloody crusades against their subject peoples, commencing with those against the Waldenses and Albigenses. The funny thing was even the RCC acknowledged that its own ministers were disreputable in these parts where the heretics were strongest, being given over to simony and greed etc. There is little doubt that the Albigensian religion was unscriptural and exhibited Manichaean tendencies, but the right approach would have been to send in godly ministers to reform the errors, not exterminate the heretics.

I suppose the indulgence issue just appeared to Luther as the irritation of the day, but it had come a long time (six years) after he had witnessed the harlotry of Rome first hand in 1511. "If there is Hell, then Rome is built over it!", he says, calling it a "cesspit of sin". Shows you how enslaved everyone was in those days to the Romish church that they could ignore such sins.
 
Last edited:

BJ Bear

Well-known member
A most important thesis is this:

34. "For the graces of indulgences are concerned only with the penalties of sacramental satisfaction established by man."

I suppose it is true that if an indulgence could be purchased by money, the limit of what it relates to would be a [legal] penalty of sacramental satisfaction. But is even the concept of sacramental satisfaction biblical?
Thesis 34 was in explanation of 33, "Men must especially be on guard against those who say that the pope's pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to Him."
 

rossh

Well-known member
Yes, one must wonder why a question about indulgences prompted Luther to rebel against the RCC, when it had spent the past five hundred years exterminating heretics, and inciting kings to launch bloody crusades against their subject peoples, commencing with those against the Waldenses and Albigenses. The funny thing was even the RCC acknowledged that its own ministers were disreputable in these parts where the heretics were strongest, being given over to simony and greed etc. There is little doubt that the Albigensian religion was unscriptural and exhibited Manichaean tendencies, but the right approach would have been to send in godly ministers to reform the errors, not exterminate the heretics.

I suppose the indulgence issue just appeared to Luther as the irritation of the day, but it had come a long time (six years) after he had witnessed the harlotry of Rome first hand in 1511. "If there is Hell, then Rome is built over it!", he says, calling it a "cesspit of sin". Shows you how enslaved everyone was in those days to the Romish church that they could ignore such sins.
bottom line is, that selling anything is profit/money no outlay..
 

rossh

Well-known member
One could argue that a secular State that reserves for itself all criminal penalties and thus negates the need for restorative justice is no difference in essence to the medieval and unreformed RCC.
babble, this is just the ramblings of a confused mind, " this could and that could this may and that maybe not etc; etc; " then you point to the RCC, hah! homosexuals and pedophiles ,,, 1Cor 7:9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. etc;
 

cjab

Active member
babble, this is just the ramblings of a confused mind, " this could and that could this may and that maybe not etc; etc; " then you point to the RCC, hah! homosexuals and pedophiles ,,, 1Cor 7:9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. etc;
babble!
 

cjab

Active member
yes, that what they say when they can not prove anything..
I'm referring to your method of accusing others what you practice yourself.

As for proofs: the Pharisees didn't find Jesus had proved anything either.

If you've got a point on church history to make, say it.

This isn't the right forum for you, I think.
 
Top