Posted on 02/19/2012 1:54:30 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
>>Straw man.
Didn’t know that was how he drank the hemlock.
Good to know.
One can abuse a good and valid thing. An unworthy reception of the Sacrament (Holy Communion), for instance. As for the matter of indulgences, we have the selling of what cannot be sold. Tetzel was the 16th Century equivalent of an Elmer Gantry. Ecclesiastics with glibe tongues are ever the bane of Christians. Conmen who say things they half-believe but gild the lilly in order to close the deal. Intetzel’s case he was getting gold for his employer who had purchased his bishopric and needed money to pay his debt. But it was not so simply. Rome was wanting money to pay for a new St.Peter’s but was also trying to collect money to ward off the Turks, who threatened to invade Europe. German princes felt their tax money was being drained into Roman coffers, and despite the Emperors’ please for help against the Muslims, they resented what was an effort to preserve Hapsburg lands in Austria .Luther was not oblivious to all this, and this is howe he helped secure the princes’ help in his revolt against Rome. Of course, there can be no doubt that he was most interested in saving his own soul. It is his theory of salvation that you have adopted as your own.
Well, we can forget about Greek philosophy, then, although you are stuck with the logic that Aristotle developed for us.
“...indulgences, burning folks at the stake, and eunuchs wearing pointee hats that look a lot like those worn by their Egyptian/Babylonian syncretic predecessors...”
Dominus vobiscum, idiot.
;^)
>>One can abuse a good and valid thing.
What’s the “good and valid” scriptural basis of Purgatory and Indulgences?
He always has been.
Sola scriptura.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.