PabloSerna said:

---

"Tetzel was an idiot"

You know little of the man to pass such judgement.

---

Have you read any of his justification behind the selling of indulgences? It's essentially "this one guy said it was okay so I figured it had to be ok".

"attributed" - I guess your level of research is well... scholarly?

He never wrote such a jingle, but don't let that stop the hate!

I have read plenty. Not an idiot. Quite the opposite. Do you think the RCC's concept of indulgences has changed much since that time?

PabloSerna said:

---

"attributed" - I guess your level of research is well... scholarly?

He never wrote such a jingle, but don't let that stop the hate!

---

I had a feeling you'd try to hide behind that and forgo that they clearly mention that whether he actually said it or not (many sources refer to him as an indulgence salesman), it absolutely was what he taught and promoted.

PabloSerna said:

---

I have read plenty. Not an idiot. Quite the opposite. Do you think the RCC's concept of indulgences has changed much since that time?

---

No, of course not, but again indulgences aren't the issue are they? It's the selling of them.

jrico2727 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

I mean..the entire concept of indulgences is silly, but yeah, that's a different issue.

---

What was Christ thinking when he gave Peter, the Apostles and their successors the authority to loose and bind? Clearly he he should have checked with clearer minds such as Luther and company.

---

TV ES PETRVS ET SVPER HANC PETRAM AEDIFICABO ECCLESIAM MEAM

jrico2727 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

I mean..the entire concept of indulgences is silly, but yeah, that's a different issue.

---

What was Christ thinking when he gave Peter, the Apostles and their successors the authority to loose and bind? Clearly he he should have checked with clearer minds such as Luther and company.

---

I'm not sure what's more sad.

Believing that Christ instituted indulgences or that the early church had any concept of it, especially the monstrosity that Rome came up with.

jrico2727 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

I mean..the entire concept of indulgences is silly, but yeah, that's a different issue.

---

What was Christ thinking when he gave Peter, the Apostles and their successors the authority to loose and bind? Clearly he he should have checked with clearer minds such as Luther and company.

---

I'm not sure what's more sad.

Believing that Christ instituted indulgences or that the early church had any concept of it, especially the monstrosity that Rome came up with.

---

.

Christ gave the authority to loose and bind on heaven and earth. You thinking Christ didn't know how it would be used is what is sad. The strawman you've made it into is what is monstrous. A indulgence is the partaking of a pius action that has been sanctioned by the church to reach a spiritual reward. Actions such as a pilgrimage, prayers for the dead during the octave of all souls, which we are currently in, currently can gain one an indulgence. If a member of the faithful partakes of these actions after receiving the sacrament of penance, holy Communion, and doing the prescribed act of faith and is also free from attachment of sin receives an indulgence. For someone to attach a indulgence to almsgiving, which is a pius act, that is heavily encouraged by scripture is problematic, especially in optics. But truly the straw man the protestant revolutionists turned this practice into is a monster. Especially considering that it was used to cause schism, and rip souls from the grace only found by living a sacramental life within the church Christ created.

---

No strawman given at all. I stated two facts.

Christ gave authority to the Church yes.

What he didn't do is say..."I give you this authority to charge people for the service."

What he did say was: " 18 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).


He doesn't say, "Forgive them and then make them do penance because my grace given to you is insufficient."

So yeah...the entire concept is silly, and thankfully it's contained to Rome and the error hasn't flowed elsewhere.

Not quite, the orthodox toll houses and interaction between angels and demons attendant are similar to Catholic "merit" just aren't as cut and dry, at least in my understanding

jrico2727 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

I mean..the entire concept of indulgences is silly, but yeah, that's a different issue.

---

What was Christ thinking when he gave Peter, the Apostles and their successors the authority to loose and bind? Clearly he he should have checked with clearer minds such as Luther and company.

---

I'm not sure what's more sad.

Believing that Christ instituted indulgences or that the early church had any concept of it, especially the monstrosity that Rome came up with.

---

.

Christ gave the authority to loose and bind on heaven and earth. You thinking Christ didn't know how it would be used is what is sad. The strawman you've made it into is what is monstrous. A indulgence is the partaking of a pius action that has been sanctioned by the church to reach a spiritual reward. Actions such as a pilgrimage, prayers for the dead during the octave of all souls, which we are currently in, currently can gain one an indulgence. If a member of the faithful partakes of these actions after receiving the sacrament of penance, holy Communion, and doing the prescribed act of faith and is also free from attachment of sin receives an indulgence. For someone to attach a indulgence to almsgiving, which is a pius act, that is heavily encouraged by scripture is problematic, especially in optics. But truly the straw man the protestant revolutionists turned this practice into is a monster. Especially considering that it was used to cause schism, and rip souls from the grace only found by living a sacramental life within the church Christ created.

---

No strawman given at all. I stated two facts.

Christ gave authority to the Church yes.

What he didn't do is say..."I give you this authority to charge people for the service."

What he did say was: " 18 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).


He doesn't say, "Forgive them and then make them do penance because my grace given to you is insufficient."

So yeah...the entire concept is silly, and thankfully it's contained to Rome and the error hasn't flowed elsewhere.

---

So by what authority do you or Luther judge how this grace given to the church is applied? You grant the church has the authority to loose and bind, but then by your own judgement say how it should be applied. Then you state he didn't say...., well how did he say to apply it then? A bible alone answer isn't possible, because it is silent on the exact and total application of this authority granted. By what other than your own incredibly biased view do you judge? it is easy to hate Rome and like your spiritual guru, throw a bunch of excrement against the wall, surely something will stick right.

Christ the King, the eternal logos, appointed Peter and his apostles and their successors. In his wisdom he gave the authority to loose and bind to them, including the ability to apply it, in his sovereignty he said he that hears them hears me. He gave the church the Holy Ghost to lead and guide and promised to be with it always, guaranteeing that not even the gates of hell could prevail against her. What promise or authority did Christ give to those who are passing judgement against her? By what authority were they given to start their own religion?

What I find silly is taking the word if someone who broke their oath to God, and physically attacked the body of Christ causing schism. Someone who took authority given to the church for themselves. Someone who didn't even make it a decade before those following him in schism chose to follow his schismatic path and start their own church making in their own images, until the next predictable schism happens.

And yes his Grace is sufficient. Why would anyone oppose the sacraments given by Christ to obtain his Grace?

---

Reformed here and get most of my teaching (beyond church I attend) from Ligonier, and those guys are 100% against double predestination doctrine.

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/the-history-of-the-reformation

10andBOUNCE said:

---

Reformed here and get most of my teaching (beyond church I attend) from Ligonier, and those guys are 100% against double predestination doctrine.

---

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/double-predestination-biblical

I understand what Sproul is saying but the outcome is the same for the reprobate. And is predetermined by God.

You can call it "passing over" instead of actively condemning but the outcome is the same. How can you have kids knowing they may not be in the elect.

And from my reading saying Ligonier is firmly against double predestination is a stretch.

Wrong emoticon.Sorry.

It's good we can get a couple things out of the way already.

First, that there's no Scriptural support for indulgences so you have to appeal to a self-claimed authority. It helps to support what I've said in many of these threads. Rome cannot defend it's practices with Scripture or Church Tradition, so it claims it has the authority.

I'll take the easiest route and point out that this claimed tradition doesn't exist in the early church, nor any other group.

Quote:

---

Christ the King, the eternal logos, appointed Peter and his apostles and their successors. In his wisdom he gave the authority to loose and bind to them, including the ability to apply it, in his sovereignty he said he that hears them hears me. He gave the church the Holy Ghost to lead and guide and promised to be with it always, guaranteeing that not even the gates of hell could prevail against her. What promise or authority did Christ give to those who are passing judgement against her? By what authority were they given to start their own religion?

---

Which says nothing about indulgences. Or maybe I missed the verse where Christ was taking payment for the deeds he did.

Certainly Paul talks about how he takes payment for the miracles he performs?

I guess we can also rely on this same reasoning to justify burning heretics as Rome was fond of doing. You know...it's the authority God gave them...

Quote:

---

What I find silly is taking the word if someone who broke their oath to God, and physically attacked the body of Christ causing schism. Someone who took authority given to the church for themselves. Someone who didn't even make it a decade before those following him in schism chose to follow his schismatic path and start their own church making in their own images, until the next predictable schism happens.

---

This is why Rome failed during the Reformation and will continue to struggle.

Nobody here "takes the word" of Luther. He's was never a Pope nor desired to be because he saw the flaw in it. An infallible man can never be the head of the Church. An infallible man can never make unilateral decisions. So no, I don't follow Luther because of what he said. And to avoid any silly claim, it was Rome that gave the name "Lutheran" to the Reformers as a smear.

What Luther did is make the Scriptures available. To rip it from the authoritarian hands of Rome and put it to the people who could see what it actually said vs what Rome claimed. So why was the Reformation successful? Because it put God back into control from a man.

What is the RCC interpretation of Matthew 18:18? Christ once again granted authority to loose and to bind, but not to just Peter but to all of his disciples. And it is not clear from the passage whether the reference to disciples means the 12 or all of the hundreds of people who were also disciples of Christ.

AgLiving06 said:

---

It's good we can get a couple things out of the way already.

First, that there's no Scriptural support for indulgences so you have to appeal to a self-claimed authority. It helps to support what I've said in many of these threads. Rome cannot defend it's practices with Scripture or Church Tradition, so it claims it has the authority.

I'll take the easiest route and point out that this claimed tradition doesn't exist in the early church, nor any other group.

Quote:

---

Christ the King, the eternal logos, appointed Peter and his apostles and their successors. In his wisdom he gave the authority to loose and bind to them, including the ability to apply it, in his sovereignty he said he that hears them hears me. He gave the church the Holy Ghost to lead and guide and promised to be with it always, guaranteeing that not even the gates of hell could prevail against her. What promise or authority did Christ give to those who are passing judgement against her? By what authority were they given to start their own religion?

---

Which says nothing about indulgences. Or maybe I missed the verse where Christ was taking payment for the deeds he did.

Certainly Paul talks about how he takes payment for the miracles he performs?

I guess we can also rely on this same reasoning to justify burning heretics as Rome was fond of doing. You know...it's the authority God gave them...

Quote:

---

What I find silly is taking the word if someone who broke their oath to God, and physically attacked the body of Christ causing schism. Someone who took authority given to the church for themselves. Someone who didn't even make it a decade before those following him in schism chose to follow his schismatic path and start their own church making in their own images, until the next predictable schism happens.

---

This is why Rome failed during the Reformation and will continue to struggle.

Nobody here "takes the word" of Luther. He's was never a Pope nor desired to be because he saw the flaw in it. An infallible man can never be the head of the Church. An infallible man can never make unilateral decisions. So no, I don't follow Luther because of what he said. And to avoid any silly claim, it was Rome that gave the name "Lutheran" to the Reformers as a smear.

What Luther did is make the Scriptures available. To rip it from the authoritarian hands of Rome and put it to the people who could see what it actually said vs what Rome claimed. So why was the Reformation successful? Because it put God back into control from a man.

---

I hate to be rude but there is no way you can be this dense without purposefully trying. I refuse to believe you are this dense and you're adopting it as merely a defense mechanism to enable you to maintain an internally inconsistent outlook on Christianity.

The church has the authority to bind and to loose, given to them by Christ himself, therefore if they come up with a system by which temporal punishment is remitted, Christ looses the temporal punishment. You do not need scriptural support for what the Catholic Church does if you have scriptural support that what the Catholic Church binds and looses, Christ binds and looses.

You also once again fail to understand the difference between an indulgence and the selling of the indulgence by your comment "surely Paul takes payment for the miracles he was performing".

Making the scriptures available to a person without the proper hermeneutic with which to digest them is more dangerous than handing a loaded gun to a child. Look what you did with access to the scriptures, instead of 1 pope and 1 magisterium you have infinite. Everyone's own "personal relationship with Christ" reigned supreme. You lost the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, you lost the Sacraments, and greatly imperiled your salvation, limitless mercy of God notwithstanding.

You were not humble enough to take a page from the Orthodox and sever diplomatic ties with Rome while maintaining the deposit of faith. In order to make yourself more marketable you severed ties with Rome AND divorced yourself from the fullness of truth in order to better appeal to the masses. Shame

Terminus Est said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

It's good we can get a couple things out of the way already.

First, that there's no Scriptural support for indulgences so you have to appeal to a self-claimed authority. It helps to support what I've said in many of these threads. Rome cannot defend it's practices with Scripture or Church Tradition, so it claims it has the authority.

I'll take the easiest route and point out that this claimed tradition doesn't exist in the early church, nor any other group.

Quote:

---

Christ the King, the eternal logos, appointed Peter and his apostles and their successors. In his wisdom he gave the authority to loose and bind to them, including the ability to apply it, in his sovereignty he said he that hears them hears me. He gave the church the Holy Ghost to lead and guide and promised to be with it always, guaranteeing that not even the gates of hell could prevail against her. What promise or authority did Christ give to those who are passing judgement against her? By what authority were they given to start their own religion?

---

Which says nothing about indulgences. Or maybe I missed the verse where Christ was taking payment for the deeds he did.

Certainly Paul talks about how he takes payment for the miracles he performs?

I guess we can also rely on this same reasoning to justify burning heretics as Rome was fond of doing. You know...it's the authority God gave them...

Quote:

---

What I find silly is taking the word if someone who broke their oath to God, and physically attacked the body of Christ causing schism. Someone who took authority given to the church for themselves. Someone who didn't even make it a decade before those following him in schism chose to follow his schismatic path and start their own church making in their own images, until the next predictable schism happens.

---

This is why Rome failed during the Reformation and will continue to struggle.

Nobody here "takes the word" of Luther. He's was never a Pope nor desired to be because he saw the flaw in it. An infallible man can never be the head of the Church. An infallible man can never make unilateral decisions. So no, I don't follow Luther because of what he said. And to avoid any silly claim, it was Rome that gave the name "Lutheran" to the Reformers as a smear.

What Luther did is make the Scriptures available. To rip it from the authoritarian hands of Rome and put it to the people who could see what it actually said vs what Rome claimed. So why was the Reformation successful? Because it put God back into control from a man.

---

I hate to be rude but there is no way you can be this dense without purposefully trying. I refuse to believe you are this dense and you're adopting it as merely a defense mechanism to enable you to maintain an internally inconsistent outlook on Christianity.

The church has the authority to bind and to loose, given to them by Christ himself, therefore if they come up with a system by which temporal punishment is remitted, Christ looses the temporal punishment. You do not need scriptural support for what the Catholic Church does if you have scriptural support that what the Catholic Church binds and looses, Christ binds and looses.

You also once again fail to understand the difference between an indulgence and the selling of the indulgence by your comment "surely Paul takes payment for the miracles he was performing".

Making the scriptures available to a person without the proper hermeneutic with which to digest them is more dangerous than handing a loaded gun to a child. Look what you did with access to the scriptures, instead of 1 pope and 1 magisterium you have infinite. Everyone's own "personal relationship with Christ" reigned supreme. You lost the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, you lost the Sacraments, and greatly imperiled your salvation, limitless mercy of God notwithstanding.

You were not humble enough to take a page from the Orthodox and sever diplomatic ties with Rome while maintaining the deposit of faith. In order to make yourself more marketable you severed ties with Rome AND divorced yourself from the fullness of truth in order to better appeal to the masses. Shame

---

Lol what?

The very response my post against was "You grant the church has the authority to loose and bind, but then by your own judgement say how it should be applied."

I absolutely have the right to point out that their preferred method was to charge the commoner so the Pope could get a bigger house.

I chose to start at the root of the error, which I'm not even sure Jrico will admit was wrong.

The very concept of indulgence itself though has no scriptural basis either. Trying to rope the concept into "binding and loosing" is beyond a stretch, but we haven't gotten that far yet. Still on step 1.

Odd. Rome makes the same claim of "fullness of faith." Maybe you and Rome can get together and figure that one out and let me know who is correct.

Hey Jesus, your church needs some work. Jotted down a few thoughts. Donuts and coffee in the rectory.

AgLiving06 said:

---

Terminus Est said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

It's good we can get a couple things out of the way already.

First, that there's no Scriptural support for indulgences so you have to appeal to a self-claimed authority. It helps to support what I've said in many of these threads. Rome cannot defend it's practices with Scripture or Church Tradition, so it claims it has the authority.

I'll take the easiest route and point out that this claimed tradition doesn't exist in the early church, nor any other group.

Quote:

---

Christ the King, the eternal logos, appointed Peter and his apostles and their successors. In his wisdom he gave the authority to loose and bind to them, including the ability to apply it, in his sovereignty he said he that hears them hears me. He gave the church the Holy Ghost to lead and guide and promised to be with it always, guaranteeing that not even the gates of hell could prevail against her. What promise or authority did Christ give to those who are passing judgement against her? By what authority were they given to start their own religion?

---

Which says nothing about indulgences. Or maybe I missed the verse where Christ was taking payment for the deeds he did.

Certainly Paul talks about how he takes payment for the miracles he performs?

I guess we can also rely on this same reasoning to justify burning heretics as Rome was fond of doing. You know...it's the authority God gave them...

Quote:

---

What I find silly is taking the word if someone who broke their oath to God, and physically attacked the body of Christ causing schism. Someone who took authority given to the church for themselves. Someone who didn't even make it a decade before those following him in schism chose to follow his schismatic path and start their own church making in their own images, until the next predictable schism happens.

---

This is why Rome failed during the Reformation and will continue to struggle.

Nobody here "takes the word" of Luther. He's was never a Pope nor desired to be because he saw the flaw in it. An infallible man can never be the head of the Church. An infallible man can never make unilateral decisions. So no, I don't follow Luther because of what he said. And to avoid any silly claim, it was Rome that gave the name "Lutheran" to the Reformers as a smear.

What Luther did is make the Scriptures available. To rip it from the authoritarian hands of Rome and put it to the people who could see what it actually said vs what Rome claimed. So why was the Reformation successful? Because it put God back into control from a man.

---

I hate to be rude but there is no way you can be this dense without purposefully trying. I refuse to believe you are this dense and you're adopting it as merely a defense mechanism to enable you to maintain an internally inconsistent outlook on Christianity.

The church has the authority to bind and to loose, given to them by Christ himself, therefore if they come up with a system by which temporal punishment is remitted, Christ looses the temporal punishment. You do not need scriptural support for what the Catholic Church does if you have scriptural support that what the Catholic Church binds and looses, Christ binds and looses.

You also once again fail to understand the difference between an indulgence and the selling of the indulgence by your comment "surely Paul takes payment for the miracles he was performing".

Making the scriptures available to a person without the proper hermeneutic with which to digest them is more dangerous than handing a loaded gun to a child. Look what you did with access to the scriptures, instead of 1 pope and 1 magisterium you have infinite. Everyone's own "personal relationship with Christ" reigned supreme. You lost the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, you lost the Sacraments, and greatly imperiled your salvation, limitless mercy of God notwithstanding.

You were not humble enough to take a page from the Orthodox and sever diplomatic ties with Rome while maintaining the deposit of faith. In order to make yourself more marketable you severed ties with Rome AND divorced yourself from the fullness of truth in order to better appeal to the masses. Shame

---

Lol what?

The very response my post against was "You grant the church has the authority to loose and bind, but then by your own judgement say how it should be applied."

I absolutely have the right to point out that their preferred method was to charge the commoner so the Pope could get a bigger house.

I chose to start at the root of the error, which I'm not even sure Jrico will admit was wrong.

The very concept of indulgence itself though has no scriptural basis either. Trying to rope the concept into "binding and loosing" is beyond a stretch, but we haven't gotten that far yet. Still on step 1.

Odd. Rome makes the same claim of "fullness of faith." Maybe you and Rome can get together and figure that one out and let me know who is correct.

---

I have zero problem with Orthodoxy making the claim of the fullness of truth; in my estimation we are both correct and are talking past each other due to centuries of rivalry and differing perspectives and philosophies. Jesus Christ is the fullness and truth, and both East and West have the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. .

I have zero idea about what sort of "rights" you're claiming, no one is infringing upon your right to be wrong on an alumni discussion board, I'm just pointing out you're unable to separate what an indulgence is, and what selling an indulgence is; which is odd.

There absolutely is a scriptural basis for indulgences, but it is unnecessary if the Catholic Church has the power to bind and loose given to it by Christ himself. Both arguments are losers. The Church has been binding and loosing things well before the advent of Protestantism and you find yourself in the same sort of "where did the bible come from" merry-go-round when you ponder where all these things that have been bound and loosed came from in the first 1500 years of Christianity if the Church did not have that power.

Quote:

---

There absolutely is a scriptural basis for indulgences

---

As I posted above, how do you and the RCC deal with Mathew 18:18?

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

There absolutely is a scriptural basis for indulgences

---

As I posted above, how do you and the RCC deal with Mathew 18:18?

---

In Matthew 16:19 The power of loosing and binding along with the Keys sign of authority given to Peter first and with primacy
In Matthew 18:18 the power given to all apostles, not disciples who didn't have the same authority or office, along with their successors the bishops.

Not given to all disciples or believers, even though it does appear that many believe they have this authority

jrico2727 said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

There absolutely is a scriptural basis for indulgences

---

As I posted above, how do you and the RCC deal with Mathew 18:18?

---

In Matthew 16:19 The power of loosing and binding along with the Keys sign of authority given to Peter first and with primacy
In Matthew 18:18 the power given to all apostles, not disciples who didn't have the same authority or office, along with their successors the bishops.

Not given to all disciples or believers, even though it does appear that many believe they have this authority

---

I don't see any reference in Matthew 18 to apostles. Is it there in a different translation than the one I'm using?

And the NT uses the word "disciples" at times to refer to the 12, but more frequently to refer to the hundreds that followed Jesus.

Others have interpreted Matthew 16 and 18 together to mean something, what exactly isn't clear, but it's to the entire church (small "c" church, i.e., all believers no matter in what Church they might worship).

AgLiving06 said:

---

It's good we can get a couple things out of the way already.

First, that there's no Scriptural support for indulgences so you have to appeal to a self-claimed authority. It helps to support what I've said in many of these threads. Rome cannot defend it's practices with Scripture or Church Tradition, so it claims it has the authority.

I'll take the easiest route and point out that this claimed tradition doesn't exist in the early church, nor any other group.

Quote:

---

Christ the King, the eternal logos, appointed Peter and his apostles and their successors. In his wisdom he gave the authority to loose and bind to them, including the ability to apply it, in his sovereignty he said he that hears them hears me. He gave the church the Holy Ghost to lead and guide and promised to be with it always, guaranteeing that not even the gates of hell could prevail against her. What promise or authority did Christ give to those who are passing judgement against her? By what authority were they given to start their own religion?

---

Which says nothing about indulgences. Or maybe I missed the verse where Christ was taking payment for the deeds he did.

Certainly Paul talks about how he takes payment for the miracles he performs?

I guess we can also rely on this same reasoning to justify burning heretics as Rome was fond of doing. You know...it's the authority God gave them...

Quote:

---

What I find silly is taking the word if someone who broke their oath to God, and physically attacked the body of Christ causing schism. Someone who took authority given to the church for themselves. Someone who didn't even make it a decade before those following him in schism chose to follow his schismatic path and start their own church making in their own images, until the next predictable schism happens.

---

This is why Rome failed during the Reformation and will continue to struggle.

Nobody here "takes the word" of Luther. He's was never a Pope nor desired to be because he saw the flaw in it. An infallible man can never be the head of the Church. An infallible man can never make unilateral decisions. So no, I don't follow Luther because of what he said. And to avoid any silly claim, it was Rome that gave the name "Lutheran" to the Reformers as a smear.

What Luther did is make the Scriptures available. To rip it from the authoritarian hands of Rome and put it to the people who could see what it actually said vs what Rome claimed. So why was the Reformation successful? Because it put God back into control from a man.

---

Thanks for the cute Meme

Do they have one for days that someone didn't come up with their own personal interpterion/opinion and then started their own church?

Since we agree the authority to loose and bind was given to the Apostles and their successors the Church, we then devolve into where is their action approved in scripture?

To answer this first would have to say it doesn't matter if it there or not, because we don't follow the sola scriptura heresy.

That is not to say there isn't a biblical answer because it clearly shows they had the ability to forgive since and to bind sins. Now the Bible doesn't say how to apply other than "Whatever you choose" That is a pretty open-ended application to the church. So under that bible own approach it is totally biblical for there to be indulgences. What your problem is you reject authority.

Your rejection of authority comes only with accusation. That the Church abused their authority. When it comes to indulgences did they, I want to say kind of, it was certainly unsavory but there is a lawyerish answer that makes it permissible under the letter of the law but it certainly was opposed by not only Luther and his band of revolutionaries, but by true reformers that stayed with Holy Church and this practice isn't done anymore.

However by your bible only approach where does it say if religious authorities abuse their power to revolt and start your own Church? Is that the approach Christ took in his day? In the Gospel yesterday we read in Matthew 23, a week before his passion Jesus after speaking about the scribes and Pharisees "2 'The scribes and the Pharisees occupy the chair of Moses.

3 You must therefore do and observe what they tell you; but do not be guided by what they do, since they do not practice what they preach."

So Christ showed respect to their office, but made distinction to their actions. But still commanded obedience to them, one that he followed unto death on a cross shortly after.


So if Jesus saw what was happening in the day of Luther with indulgences would he have said this is kinda messed up and would have challenged the occupant of the seat of Peter. Probably so. But to Luther and everyone else he would have and has said " Do and observe what they tell you"


on side note a do find it ironic that some those who justify schism because of medieval fundraising tatics, are the same ones who tell me just have faith give them money and God will multiply it and build mega churches and buy personal jets but hey at least they're not papist right

Jabin said:

---

jrico2727 said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

There absolutely is a scriptural basis for indulgences

---

As I posted above, how do you and the RCC deal with Mathew 18:18?

---

In Matthew 16:19 The power of loosing and binding along with the Keys sign of authority given to Peter first and with primacy
In Matthew 18:18 the power given to all apostles, not disciples who didn't have the same authority or office, along with their successors the bishops.

Not given to all disciples or believers, even though it does appear that many believe they have this authority

---

I don't see any reference in Matthew 18 to apostles. Is it there in a different translation than the one I'm using?

And the NT uses the word "disciples" at times to refer to the 12, but more frequently to refer to the hundreds that followed Jesus.

Others have interpreted Matthew 16 and 18 together to mean something, what exactly isn't clear, but it's to the entire church (small "c" church, i.e., all believers no matter in what Church they might worship).

---

Well if you take that in context Our Lord is saying if someone sins against you first try to hash it out, Then if that doesn't work bring 2 or 3 witnesses with you. If that doesn't work bring them to the Church and if they refuse the Church treat them like a tax collector ect. So basically if they refuse the Church, who has the teaching and authorities power here to them throw them out, basically excommunicate. So the head of the Church or Authority would be the bishop who is the successor of the apostles.

Ironically the same order of events took place after Luther nailed his 95 thesis. It is only after he refused correction by the church that he was excommunicated and then took it upon himself to start his own "Church".

Interesting that you capitalize church in summarizing Matthew 18, whereas Matthew did not. And then you segue quickly to apostles to try to justify the power of Bishops, although Matthew says nothing about either apostles or bishops.

If you, as a deeply committed member of the RCC, were taken in front of a RCC bishop who was clearly, obviously, and blatantly living in sin and in contradiction to every tenet of God's Word, would you take his decision as the final word?

What is the recourse when the bishop is clearly wrong?

Was Luther supposed to recant and approve the sale of indulgences, a practice that you and the rest of the RCC now concede was wrong?

Jabin said:

---

Interesting that you capitalize church in summarizing Matthew 18, whereas Matthew did not. And then you segue quickly to apostles to try to justify the power of Bishops, although Matthew says nothing about either apostles or bishops.

If you, as a deeply committed member of the RCC, were taken in front of a RCC bishop who was clearly, obviously, and blatantly living in sin and in contradiction to every tenet of God's Word, would you take his decision as the final word?

What is the recourse when the bishop is clearly wrong?

Was Luther supposed to recant and approve the sale of indulgences, a practice that you and the rest of the RCC now concede was wrong?

---

I truly felt you were trying to be more sincere than to try to back me into a gotcha question but. I would respect my bishop and his office and be obedient to him in all things that didn't oppose God's law. The "sale", which is a biased way off looking at giving alms and receiving an indulgence isn't against the law of God. It's against good taste. Every person had the ability not to "buy" an indulgence. They were not mandatory nor an article of faith. They were certainly not justification for schism.

Sorry, I did not think that I was trying to write a "gotcha" question, but was genuinely curious how you'd answer those problems. Some of them are insurmountable to me when even theoretically, or idly, considering converting to Roman Catholicism.

ETA:

Quote:

---

The "sale", which is a biased way off looking at giving alms and receiving an indulgence isn't against the law of God. It's against good taste.

---

C'mon. It's much more than simply against good taste; it is corrupt. The Bible is full of accounts of God judging men who were corrupt. Examples include not only Christ chasing the money changers out of the Temple, but also God judging Eli's and Samuel's sons.

Just because there's not a specific verse stating "Thou shalt not sell indulgences" does not mean that it's not against God's law.

Quote:

---

There are bishops and elders in every church in the NT

---

We don't know that. Yes, elders are mentioned, but we don't know that "every" church had them. They may have, but we just don't know, so your statement overstates what the Bible informs us of.

And even with regard to the bishop/elders, the Bible provides little to no explanation as to their authority. There certainly is no support for the extreme hierarchy of the RCC. In fact, the actions, clothing, and hypocrisy of the RCC hierarchy seems more in line with those of the Pharisees and temple priests that Christ condemned than that of the scant description of bishops/elders in the NT.

And I'm not just attacking the RCC. I have great respect for leading Protestants like Tom Howard who converted to Roman Catholicism. However, I see little point in the RCC's claims to "true doctrine" when their Popes and Bishops are so vile and anti-Christ in every aspect of their personal lives and leadership of the Church.

jrico2727 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

It's good we can get a couple things out of the way already.

First, that there's no Scriptural support for indulgences so you have to appeal to a self-claimed authority. It helps to support what I've said in many of these threads. Rome cannot defend it's practices with Scripture or Church Tradition, so it claims it has the authority.

I'll take the easiest route and point out that this claimed tradition doesn't exist in the early church, nor any other group.

Quote:

---

Christ the King, the eternal logos, appointed Peter and his apostles and their successors. In his wisdom he gave the authority to loose and bind to them, including the ability to apply it, in his sovereignty he said he that hears them hears me. He gave the church the Holy Ghost to lead and guide and promised to be with it always, guaranteeing that not even the gates of hell could prevail against her. What promise or authority did Christ give to those who are passing judgement against her? By what authority were they given to start their own religion?

---

Which says nothing about indulgences. Or maybe I missed the verse where Christ was taking payment for the deeds he did.

Certainly Paul talks about how he takes payment for the miracles he performs?

I guess we can also rely on this same reasoning to justify burning heretics as Rome was fond of doing. You know...it's the authority God gave them...

Quote:

---

What I find silly is taking the word if someone who broke their oath to God, and physically attacked the body of Christ causing schism. Someone who took authority given to the church for themselves. Someone who didn't even make it a decade before those following him in schism chose to follow his schismatic path and start their own church making in their own images, until the next predictable schism happens.

---

This is why Rome failed during the Reformation and will continue to struggle.

Nobody here "takes the word" of Luther. He's was never a Pope nor desired to be because he saw the flaw in it. An infallible man can never be the head of the Church. An infallible man can never make unilateral decisions. So no, I don't follow Luther because of what he said. And to avoid any silly claim, it was Rome that gave the name "Lutheran" to the Reformers as a smear.

What Luther did is make the Scriptures available. To rip it from the authoritarian hands of Rome and put it to the people who could see what it actually said vs what Rome claimed. So why was the Reformation successful? Because it put God back into control from a man.

---

Thanks for the cute Meme

Do they have one for days that someone didn't come up with their own personal interpterion/opinion and then started their own church?

Since we agree the authority to loose and bind was given to the Apostles and their successors the Church, we then devolve into where is their action approved in scripture?

To answer this first would have to say it doesn't matter if it there or not, because we don't follow the sola scriptura heresy.

That is not to say there isn't a biblical answer because it clearly shows they had the ability to forgive since and to bind sins. Now the Bible doesn't say how to apply other than "Whatever you choose" That is a pretty open-ended application to the church. So under that bible own approach it is totally biblical for there to be indulgences. What your problem is you reject authority.

Your rejection of authority comes only with accusation. That the Church abused their authority. When it comes to indulgences did they, I want to say kind of, it was certainly unsavory but there is a lawyerish answer that makes it permissible under the letter of the law but it certainly was opposed by not only Luther and his band of revolutionaries, but by true reformers that stayed with Holy Church and this practice isn't done anymore.

However by your bible only approach where does it say if religious authorities abuse their power to revolt and start your own Church? Is that the approach Christ took in his day? In the Gospel yesterday we read in Matthew 23, a week before his passion Jesus after speaking about the scribes and Pharisees "2 'The scribes and the Pharisees occupy the chair of Moses.

3 You must therefore do and observe what they tell you; but do not be guided by what they do, since they do not practice what they preach."

So Christ showed respect to their office, but made distinction to their actions. But still commanded obedience to them, one that he followed unto death on a cross shortly after.


So if Jesus saw what was happening in the day of Luther with indulgences would he have said this is kinda messed up and would have challenged the occupant of the seat of Peter. Probably so. But to Luther and everyone else he would have and has said " Do and observe what they tell you"


on side note a do find it ironic that some those who justify schism because of medieval fundraising tatics, are the same ones who tell me just have faith give them money and God will multiply it and build mega churches and buy personal jets but hey at least they're not papist right

---

They actually do have a meme for Protestants that says (in Oprah voice)..."And YOU get to create your own church and YOU get to create your own church"...

Every church has elders. St Paul instructs Titus to set in order what was lacking and appoint elders (presbyters) in every town. In Acts St Luke records St Paul and St Barnabus appointing elders in each church.

You should show evidence from the scriptures against the clear evidence - one church in each city, elders in each church - or from history, otherwise this is just argument from silence.

The Apostles didn't make up this arrangement, they were extending the structure of elders from Israel. What's more, there is ample evidence in history of the threefold clergy we see - presbyters, headed by a senior presbyter or overseer, and deacons - right from the earliest days. We don't need to speculate about what the early clergy were doing because we have concrete historical evidence.