Temporal Justification

Would you provide a link that affirms your assertion?

Secondly, Martin Luther never sought to revolutionize the Catholic Church, but bring about reform. You do know the difference between the two, right?

Lastly, on this comment, it is quite plain what Luther's objections were of in his Theses, and since Cathode has affirmed Luther's objections were shared by the Catholic Church and the abuses were corrected, it would seem that Martin Luther's attempt for reform worked.

;)


God bless.

 

It's not sarcasm, it is an attempt at grandiosity, lol.

And if you have never read them, how is it that you think you can comment on the validity of what Luther believed at the time of the writing or "later in life?"

How do you know? You've never read them, remember?

You keep digging yourself in deeper, Campion.


God bless.

 

So let me see if I have this correct: someone trained by the Catholic Church didn't understand what the Catholic Church had taught him?

Please provide a link where Martin Luther makes this confession.


God bless.

 

So you can have penalty for sin forgiven by reading in the Bible?

Can you show me the Apostolic Tradition you base that on?

Or the Scripture?


God bless.

 

Right, I have never read Luther. ( <--- more sarcasm)

 

Sorry, no, the ultimate penalty for death is the Lake of Fire:


Revelation 20:12-15 King James Version

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.


The Catholic Church's teachings, nor your teachings, will change the clear statement of Scripture.

It is a reference to the common man, and "the Word of God falling into his hands."

In other words, are you a common man (laity. layman, regular ole Joe) or are you among those authorized to dictate doctrine and practice among the common folk?


God bless.

 

Then why do you point to points he raised as though you are familiar with them?

Because you are simply a copy and paste kind of guy who doesn't really have the first interest in truth? And are quite willing to blindly accept the beliefs of others?

When will have a faith of your own, Campion? And exactly what will you place that faith in?


God bless.

 

It looks like it's YOU who have never read Luther.

As the other poster correctly stated, many of Luther's initial complaints of abuses were in fact corrected. However, Luther was not interested in reforming the church, but rather forming something new.

 

Okay, thanks. Now you also have publicly admitted that the leadership of the Catholic Church was corrupt.


God bless.

 

Certainly. The Church has the authority to bind and loose. If you scroll up, I gave an example of St. Paul in 2 Cor.

 

While I have read very little of Luther's teachings, I have in fact read the 95 Theses.

Thus I have more authority to speak on the subject than you.


God bless.

 

Do you know what sarcasm is? You might want to look it up before continuing to proceed.

 

Campion, you simply aren't using your little gray matter: When you receive remission for the penalty of sin it is not the Church granting it to you, it is you working for it.


God bless.

 

Is that your way of saying you have actually read them?


God bless.

 

Charging money for indulgences was wrong, that’s why the Church fought the practice, it wasn’t the teaching of the church, it was the abuse of a few clerics in Italy.

 

Martin Luther's point for posting his theses was for the result of public debate. Whether that was actually nailed to the door of a church or not is irrelevant, it is simply a matter of him wanting to debate the issues.

That is not what I would call a move to revolutionize the Church.


God bless.

 

Looks like it's you who hasn't read Luther!

But I will indulge (pun intended) you...

Link to original work ---> Werke. Kritische Gesamtausgabe. [Hrsg. von J.K.F. Knaake et al.] : Luther, Martin, 1483-1546 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

"...and I (as truly as my Lord Christ redeemed me) did not know what the indulgences were, as in fact no one knew, I began to preach very gently that one could probably do something better and more reliable than acquiring indulgences."


FYI, if you are going to engage in this discussion, you need to do your homework. It will become quite evident if you just start talking out of your hat.

 

Has anyone actually denied this? Ever read the New Testament???

 

First, if you read teh 95 Theses and do not conclude that Luther was very much Catholic in his beliefs, then you aren't paying attention or really haven't read them.

Secondly, why you think I would affirm Luther's view of Purgatory as legitimate is beyond me (I have said numerous times I am not a luther groupie or cheerleader). I have just as much a problem with his erroneous doctrine as I do with the Catholic Church's.

So let's look at these points:


41. Papal indulgences must be preached with caution, lest people erroneously think that they are preferable to other good works of love.

43. Because love grows by works of love, man thereby becomes better. Man does not, however, become better by means of indulgences but is merely freed from penalties.

44. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a needy man and passes him by, yet gives his money for indulgences, does not buy papal indulgences but God's wrath.

51. Christians are to be taught that the pope would and should wish to give of his own money, even though he had to sell the basilica of St. Peter, to many of those from whom certain hawkers of indulgences cajole money.

73. Just as the pope justly thunders against those who by any means whatever contrive harm to the sale of indulgences.


All of this is Catholic nonsense, to begin with. Luther is clearly Catholic in his beliefs.

He is more in agreement with the Catholic Church than I am, so exactly what does this have to do with the false doctrine and practice of Indulgences?

I'm still waiting for your "Apostolic Tradition" and the Scripture to support it in the first century church.

Where is it?


God bless.

 

Actually, I don't work for "remission for a penalty of sin," because I know that no matter how healthy I live, how holy I live, this world offers only tribulation in a temporal context. I could be run over by a bus after living in a way that I thought would extend my physical life.

As long as God will have me here is the only time I have. My physical duration is in His hands.

And how you think "working to achieve remission for a penalty of sin ... is the ultimate penalty for death" even makes sense, much less is a Biblical perspective is beyond me as well.

Are you saying you believe physical death is the ultimate penalty for sin?

It's obvious you deny Christ's Sacrifice that men might have life.


God bless.

 

You should. Pretty Catholic stuff, you'd like it.


God bless.