You posted the following:
"I understand the Reformation and Luther quite well Vladimir."
No, actually you don't. Let me demonstrate:
You wrote: "When studying Paul's letters, between 1512 and 1520, he became keenly aware through Scripture of what the doctrine of Justification was."
Incorrect. In 1511 or 1512 he had his famous "Tower Experience". Luther suffered from serious stomach and bowel problems. He often spent hours on the toilet. He would take his personal vulgate with him to read. (This was clearly before he invented the myth of never having yet seen a complete Bible). He read Romans and Galatians and saw it in a new way. He came to believe justification was by grace alone (as Catholic too believed) but only through faith alone (which Catholic never had believed). This suited Luther's dark mind which was never at ease and endlessly worried about salvation.
"Somewhere before 1517's thesis, Johann Tetzel arrived under the papal flag preaching about the sale of indulgences."
Incorrect. Tetzel never preached the sale of indulgences since there was no such thing. It was simply called the "preaching of indulgences." Indulgences were NEVER to be sold and were worthless if sold.
"He would say "Don't you hear the voices of your dead parents and other relatives crying out, "Have mercy on us, for we suffer great punishment and pain. From this, you could release us with a few alms . . . We have created you, fed you, cared for you and left you our temporal goods. Why do you treat us so cruelly and leave us to suffer in the flames, when it takes only a little to save us? [ Die Reformation in Augenzeugen Berichten, edited by Helmar Junghaus (Dusseldorf: Karl Rauch Verlag, 1967), 44.]"
Interesting. Now tell me, did you do the translation there? It is not typical for German books printed in the late 1960's to be published in Germany in English. That's why I ask. Unless you did the translation you got this from a webpage. You should always cite those.
"And famously "Each time a coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs." Luther was livid. He wrote to protest this sale to the Archibishop (indicating that he believed at that point in church authority), and when nothing would be done posted the 95 theses on the door to the Wittenburg chapel. In these theses, he denied certain abilities of the Pope to remit sin but did NOT deny church authority: .....As you can see, Luther's mind was being transformed. But it was REFORM he wanted, not a revolution."
Irrelevant. He got Revolution. He even encoraged it soon enough.
"He was still very Catholic in much of his theology. Rather than take a look at his church, Pope Leo dismissed him as a drunken German who will think better when he had sobered up."
He admitted being a rather drunken man - on more than one occasion too. He seems to have been a tortured soul.
"When he finally did get a full audience with the church it was for a heresy trial."
No. He never had an audience with the Church nor was he deserving of one. He appeared before the Diet of Worms - which was NOT an ecclesiastical body.
"He had been promised safe conduct, but the Elector had to hide him. By this point, he was standing on Scripture alone."
He was standing on only his interpretations. He never stood on scripture.
"In first years of the 1520s, Luther, hidden away did translate the Bible into German."
Incorrect. He translated, if it can be said he really did that either, the NT in the early 1520's. The OT was only done years later.
"The epiphany that I spoke of did occur at this time period where you see Luther's understanding of Scripture growing and a further transformation of his theology occuring. It was here that he truly understood Sola Gratia as never before: ...It was also around this period of time, maybe a little earlier, that the break with Rome, initiated BY ROME, would become permanent."
You're nuts if you think the whole Church BROKE FROM ONE MAN. He broke off from the Church when he lied about his obedience, obstinantly held to his heresy and spread it.
"Something about being locked up with nothing but a Greek Bible that changes a person. SOLA FIDE. SOLA GRATIA. SOLA SCRIPTURA. SOLOS CHRISTOS. Became more real than ever. He would not go back to Rome."
He would not go back? So you mean it wasn't the Church that broke from him now? Freudian slip there Blogger? You tell tall tales, but you could at least stick to one tall tale!
"Check your history. Tetzel sold indulgences under the authority of the Pope, Leo X."
Incorrect. If Tetzel sold indulgences it was under his own authority for it was illegal to do so. What you listed from the Catholic Encyclopedia in no way contradicts that either. While Leo was pope, his desire for money meant that he turned his head away from many serious abuses of Church offices. It does not mean in the slightest that he EVER authorized indulgences to be sold. Also, if you knew what you were talking about, and you don't, you would know that Albrecht of Mainz, the Archbishop who allowed Tetzel to preach in his diocese made it clear exactly what his instructions were. Albrecht told Tetzel what amounts should be donated for the indulgence depending on the person’s social standing. In the Middle Ages, it was expected that people would donate according to their status. Those who were wealthy would donate more than those who were merely lower class. Albrecht made it explicitly clear that those who had no money to donate should still be given the indulgence anyway. That means there were to be NO SALES OF INDULGENCES. A sale would mean money MUST be exchanged. That was not to be the case with Tetzel. If he sold indulgences he was violating the explicit instructions of the presiding authority in the diocese in which he was operating and, therefore, would be violating canon law.
“Concerning your "Hubric" Luther quote, do you even care to see the context. Of course, Luther was being Luther when he wrote it - and I have to laugh because his language is so typically Luther. But, you cherry pick a quote as evidence that Luther wasn't Sola Scriptura and fail to take the whole context which Luther Himself explained later on. Read and enjoy.”
No, I quoted Luther in no cherry pick way. It shows EXACTLY who Luther was. Luther was not just his own master, but he believed he was, in a sense, master interpreter of the scriptures. He condemned those who disagreed with him, including eventually old friends.
Your further quoting of Luther only proves just how full of himself he was. He believed he could change scriptures to fit his ramblings.
“As to Baptism (boy you did have a loaded post there),I do not believe it is an essential.”
And you will is reason enough, right? And now you will twist scriptures to suit your purpose? Right.
“The thief on the cross was not baptized.”
1) How do you know he was not? You are assuming he was not.
2) Would baptism be expected of a man who could not be baptized?
“Paul was thankful that he had only baptized a few folks. If it were part of one's actual salvation, then it would be an essential.”
Christ makes it plain it was essential.
“You cite the unity of certain protestant groups verses baptists. To my knowledge, none of the groups mentioned believes that one must ABSOLUTELY be baptized to be saved.”
I didn’t say they did. But if it is essential, then there is a quandary for Protestants.
“Calvin believed Baptism was much like the covenant God had with Israel through circumcision. In an infant, it was a way to dedicate that infant through grace to God's care in the belief that the infant would one day grow to be a Christian. He believed it should be practiced indiscriminately though. The elect would be properly baptized. The non-elect would get wet and would be no worse off. Luther believed in infant baptism, but justified it with passages of Scripture that seem to teach infant faith and analagous to circumcision.”
Again, I think you need to read more and talk less. Luther and Calvin both could give mixed messages on baptism: “In the second place, since we know now what Baptism is, and how it is to be regarded, we must also learn why and for what purpose it is instituted; that is, what it profits, gives and works. And this also we cannot discern better than from the words of Christ above quoted: He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. Therefore state it most simply thus, that the power, work, profit, fruit, and end of Baptism is this, namely, to save. For no one is baptized in order that he may become a prince, but, as the words declare, that he be saved. But to be saved, we know, is nothing else than to be delivered from sin, death, and the devil, and to enter into the kingdom of Christ, and to live with Him forever.” (The Larger Catechism by Martin Luther, p. 113).
“God in baptism promises the remission of sins, and will undoubtedly perform what he has promised to all believers. That promise was offered to us in baptism, let us therefore embrace it in faith.” (Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin, p. 1462).
“Vladimir, you do seem to be heavily tainted by Catholic bias against the reformers.”
They weren’t reformers. They were Revolutionaries. And Catholic bias? Yeah, and Protestants have no Protestant bias? I have a Christian bias. My Church was established by Christ. Yes, it’s the Catholic Church.
“Nobody here follows the reformers.”
Wow, you really need to read more (here if no where else).
“We enjoy reading them, yes. But as human beings they were very imperfect. Then again, all of us are. We follow Christ and listen to man insofar as he is in harmony with Scripture. It can be no other way.”
It is another way for you. You listen to men, Protestant men, tell you what the Bible says. When you study it, you study it according to the principles of Protestants. You interpret according to Protestant principles. It isn’t the scriptures you live in harmony with. You force Christianity, what parts of it you can tolerate, to bend to your wills.