On This Day, 31 October 1517

Martin Luther nailed his 95 points of disputation with the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) to the door of the castle church in Wittenberg. His concerns predominately had to do with Purgatory and the selling of indulgences which was raging through the area. John Tetzel championed this effort, by request of Pope Leo X, in order to bring much needed funds into the church for the construction of St. Peter's.

According to the RCC, indulgences have always been

the extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment due, in God's justice, to sin that has been forgiven, which remission is granted by the Church in the exercise of the power of the keys, through the application of the superabundant merits of Christ and of the saints, and for some just and reasonable motive.

At the Council of Trent, during the final session on 4 December 1563 (session xxv), the RCC declared

Whereas the power of conferring Indulgences was granted by Christ to the Church; and she has, even in the most ancient times, used the said power, delivered unto her of God; the sacred holy Synod teaches, and enjoins, that the use of Indulgences, for the Christian people most salutary, and approved of by the authority of sacred Councils, is to be retained in the Church; and It condemns with anathema those who either assert, that they are useless; or who deny that there is in the Church the power of granting them.

**Where do you happen to fall? I not only say they are useless, but also that the RCC has any power at all to use them. Guess I am anathema.**

Now, there is a distinction between a plenary and a partial indulgence. Plenary indulgence is "the remission of the entire temporal punishment due to sin so that no further expiation is required in Purgatory." On the other hand, partial indulgence only cancels out a certain amount of time from one's punishment in Purgatory. God alone knows exactly how many years someone is to spend in Purgatory, and even the severity of the punishment during that time.

That is why Purgatory remains one of the most damning teachings in the RCC. People for so many years have been deceived, and have not understood the grace of God and the substitutionary atonement of His Son, Jesus.

Without the actions of Martin Luther, I believe a Reformation still would have continued. God, however, sovereignly used Luther at that time and the foundations of Wycliffe and Hus were not in vain. We today are the product, without question, of what happened in the sixteenth century. I choose to agree with the soteriology of Calvin (of which Luther's was extremely similar) and many of the ideals and practices of the Anabaptists. Not that I hold them as my foundation, but because I agree with their views of Scripture on the respective issues.

I thank God for the Reformation. Soli Deo Gloria!