You are beguiled by a clinging to Reformation legend and of course by Lutheran doctrine—and please do not say that you owe nothing to him because you owe everything this single priests private view of what is right and true. It boils down to a question of authority. The Church claims to speak with an authority given it by Jesus Christ. You reject that claim, but that does not mean your right but only that you have your own claims to make, which is that you rather than the Church know what the true Gospel is. Like Luther you reject the authority of pope, bishops and councils and accept only the authority of the Bible. Further that you are authorized to interpret the Bible by the Holy Spirit, although why you expect anyone to accept this is beyond me because you invoke an unseen authority who may not be in fact who you think him to be. Regarding Indulgences, this is like that of a Presidential pardon—it absolves a person of the consequences of his actions but not his guilt. It is different because it is conditional on the admission of guilt. More the person who has admitted the guilt and is asking for the indulgence or the person for who he is acting must truly be repentant, or the indulgence has no effect whatsoever. In the end, a person’s heart is known but to God.
So here we see how an RC deals with the problem of not being able to establish a doctrine as being Scriptural. Which is to demand we accept the authority of Rome. At least it is remarkable that, contrary to most RC apologists, rather than appealing to Scripture as if warrant from that was necessary or determinative of the veracity of your beliefs, which it is not, you actually contend for the very thing that is the goal of RC apologists, despite their attempt to appeal to Scripture.
Which goal is that of rejecting the weight of Scriptural substantiation as the basis for veracity, and instead to implicitly submit to Rome, as she has infallibly declared she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
And you talk about being "beguiled." Thus we have the counsel
And the fact is that Luther was neither a pope, nor novel in his views, regardless of what Catholics who are ignorant of history imagine. Nor do we follow him as a pope, and overall differ from him on certain things. For unlike RCs, we are not bound to accept what a man says, and can actually can, and are to, with honest hearts for truth, "prove all things" and search the scriptures daily, whether that which is taught conforms to it. (Acts 17:11)
It boils down to a question of authority. The Church claims to speak with an authority given it by Jesus Christ.
It does boil down to a question of authority. Those who sat in Moses seat presumed, like Rome, that no one could have authority without their sanction, and could teach mere traditions of men as doctrine, and thus rejected the Itinerant Preacher from Galilee who reproved them by Scripture. But they were wrong, else the church would be illicit, but which was established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.
Rome claims to speak with an authority given it by Jesus Christ, but that does not make it so, and we reject that claim based upon the fact that not only is Rome critically contrary to Scripture, but so is the idea of a perpetually infallible office as per Rome, and instead the church began in dissent from those who also basically presumed assured veracity.
You reject that claim, but that does not mean your right but only that you have your own claims to make, which is that you rather than the Church know what the true Gospel is.
Rather, it is the pope who supremely engages in the exaltation of the individual, as he presumes he can supremely determine what is right, and no one can oppose him. In contrast, rather than being as a bunch of individual popes who claim to infallibly determine what the true Gospel is, we are to establish truth upon Scriptural substantiation, which the Lord and the apostles supremely did , in word and in power: "But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. " (2 Corinthians 4:2)
Like Luther you reject the authority of pope, bishops and councils and accept only the authority of the Bible
Rather, we do not reject all authority nor councils, but like the Lord, we reject any authority of man on earth as being assured infallible and warranting unconditional obedience, but hold Scripture as the supreme authority on truth on earth, and being the standard for obedience and by which truth claims are tested and established.
As Westminster (CHAPTER XXXI ) states, "For the better government and further edification of the Church, there ought to be such assemblies as are commonly called synods or councils." " It belongeth to synods and councils, ministerially, to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same: which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission, not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God, appointed thereunto in his Word."
Further that you are authorized to interpret the Bible by the Holy Spirit, although why you expect anyone to accept this is beyond me because you invoke an unseen authority who may not be in fact who you think him to be.
And you and your fellow RCs engage in interpreting your supreme authority to varying degrees, for which you have no infallible interpreter.
The Scripture teaches the spiritual man does discern things by the Holy Spirit who reveals truth, (1Cor. 2:12-15) but as you wrongly presume that 1Pt. 1:20,21 condemns relying upon the Holy Spirit for interpretation in rejecting Rome as infallible, while presuming we expect people to believe us as if we claimed assured infallibility like the pope, it is not surprising our reasons for expecting souls to concur with is is beyond you. The church began as souls saw Scriptural substantiation for truth claims in word and in power, for of such is the kingdom of God, not in self proclamation as per Rome. (1Cor. 4:20)
The fact is that historically evangelicals have long held to and contended for core truths, separating from liberals (which you are stuck with), many of which truths we share with Rome because they are Scripturally warranted. And likewise they have contended against unBiblical traditions of men, while not being alone in sects divisions as Catholicism also has these to a significant degree, and abound in disagreements. This does not
Regarding Indulgences, this is like that of a Presidential pardon—it absolves a person of the consequences of his actions but not his guilt.
Defining it was not the issue, but that an experience of purifying torments commencing at death to atone for sin and make one perfect enough is not what is seen in Scripture, versus believers postmortem experience (or at His return) that being with the Lord.
Are you that ill informed? Someone's private view is right and true for you? I have to stop laughing for a bit to make this statement.
GOD'S Word has the ONLY Truth there is - for He IS Truth. He IS Who He IS and that makes HIM the ONLY Way and through Him ALONE is Eternal Life.
That's the reason HIS OWN are His Own - they obey and listen to Him ALONE and never to 'another'.
I'll just presume your children listen to others as 'your word' holds NO AUTHORITY in your house - since you apparently don't 'get it'.