Because Rome's doctrines, embodied in indulgences, was just as corrupt and false as its leaders.
You are conflating doctrine with practice. What was corrupt was the PRACTICE. The doctrine is fine. It was the PRACTICE that needed to be reformed. Luther wanted to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The Body of Christ, Bonnie, is a team. There is no I in team. Thus, the idea that we can benefit from the actions of someone else in the team is quite in keeping with the nature of the Church as the Body of Christ. And yes---everything that the Church is, in the ultimate sense, depends upon and comes from Christ. The question has never been WHETHER everything, including salvation depends upon and flows from Christ, but HOW it works and flows from Christ.
Protestants and Catholics do not disagree that Salvation comes from Christ alone through Grace alone. The disagreement is on whether Grace is operative in works. For Catholics, because works are done in Faith, they are products of Faith, and thus, meritorious. When God sees our Faith, He sees Christ. When God sees works done in Faith, He sees on and the same Christ. Because God sees Christ in our works, our works merit salvation. Christ produces those works through Faith, so how can they be anything BUT meritorious?
Luther was entirely correct to go after those, after finding the truth in Romans. Did Paul teach falsely in that epistle?
Of course Paul did not teach falsely in the epistle of the Romans. It was Luther who taught falsely and Luther who projected in to the epistle his unique doctrine of Faith alone.
Pride, shmide. His so-called pride had zero to do with his breaking from your church!
It had EVERYTHING to do with it. Luther thought he knew better than everyone else. Luther thought no one knew anything but him and those who agreed with him.
That is another Catholic revisionist history. Your church excommunicated him. Remember?
Yeah---when it had no choice!
Because he refused to recant the truths he found in the pages of God's actual holy word, the Bible.
Talk about revisionist history....
Luther refused to recant his errors. He refused to recant the truths he CLAIMED to find in the pages of Scripture and was PROJECTING on the pages of Scripture.
He put his life in jeopardy doing so, and well knew it. But he also knew it is better to obey God than man--and he did.
Luther obeyed himself, Bonnie. Luther made himself God.
He did not and could not reject the wonderful truth of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, and not on account of any works we may do, that he rediscovered within the pages of the Bible...truths your church had buried under a ton of man-made doctrines for centuries.
Yes, I know that Luther believed that works have no role in salvation, Bonnie. What is more, I know that Luther thinks the Bible teaches that and that modern Lutherans believe this.
And Rome still teaches gross errors, including indulgences. Didn't learn much, did it?
Lutherans are the ones teaching gross error, Bonnie. And the ELCA? Don't even get me started on that. Talk about errors! At least your sect of Lutheranism believes in the authority of Scripture!
Sorry, but it is relevant. The abuse had been going on for decades, if not centuries. As did cover-ups, in more modern times.
Yeah--the funny thing is--most people only seem to be concerned about child abuse and cover-ups when it involves a priest and the RCC.
In other words--I grant when it comes to protecting children, the bishops did not do their jobs, they dropped the ball, they do not get it, etc. I grant that what happened is horrible. I am not justifying that. There is no justification for that.
What I am suggesting is that the reason this seems to only be a Catholic problem--is becasue the media only really pays attention to these things when the RCC is involved. We are the ones under the microscope. If the media turned their microscope elsewhere, I am sure they would find just as much corruption in other churches, schools, organizations, etc.
