Did everyone get a copy? All right, so first thing we'll do is open up in a word of prayer and seek the Lord. Father, thank you for this evening, Lord. I thank you, Lord, for the Reformation, Lord, and how you preserve your church and bring her back to your word and to sound doctrine. I pray, Lord, that you give me grace in teaching tonight, Lord. I can do nothing without you. I pray, Lord, that you would be glorified and help my thoughts to be clear. And I pray, Lord, that everyone would be edified, Lord, and you would be glorified most of all. In Jesus' name, amen. All right, so tonight's lesson we're gonna teach on the, or I'm gonna teach on the, I'm just one person, on the 95 Theses, which many people have heard about this document, and many Reformed people will refer to it and put in hashtags and stuff like that. But many of us haven't just read through it and seen what's actually in there. And the Lord used this document mightily in history, and so it's important to learn about. So if you don't know what the 95 theses are, they're basically 95 theses that Martin Luther wrote in response to indulgence preaching. I'll give a bit of history on exactly the context in which that happened. So we'll try and read through them all, and we're not gonna stop at each one. A lot of them bunch together into the same topic, so we'll stop intermittently, but mainly not. So this was basically the start of the Protestant Reformation, which we owe a lot to, and this was kind of the spark, if you will, that lit the flame of the Reformation. So the reason we're studying these tonight is because Reformation Day is October 31st, if you didn't know, which we call that Reformation Day because it was the anniversary of the day that Martin Luther nailed these 95 theses on the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg, Germany. 508 years ago it'll be on Friday, so a long time ago. So yeah, so we'll actually take a look at what's in them. You may be surprised at what some of these say. Some of them we actually disagree with now, but it's an important lesson, I think. In looking at church history, we can find basically with every person other than the Lord Jesus and what's written in Holy Scripture, we can find things we disagree with with people. But a few things that I think are important to keep in mind when we look at church history is when we look at Martin Luther, he lived in a certain time in a context that we don't live in anymore. So in his context, there was only ever one church. That was the Roman Catholic Church. And at a point way, way back before Martin Luther, the Roman Catholic Church was actually a true church and actually did believe the true gospel. But by the time it gets to Martin Luther's day, they'd abandoned the true gospel. They had added in the traditions of men that superseded scripture. And so understanding that not only was Martin Luther's understanding of the church here was like not much different than, say, someone who grew up in the Southern Baptist Convention understanding, you know, what a church is like based on an SBC context. So that's something to keep in mind. Not saying the Roman Catholic Church and SPC are the same thing, but you've got to understand the context that he's in with what is the Church at that time. There wasn't any Protestant Church. There was just the one Church. And then Martin Luther's personal Reformation progression. So he started out, if you don't know who Martin Luther was, he was originally a law student, and then he was in a thunderstorm and prayed to Saint Anne that he would become a monk if he survived the thunderstorm, and he did. So he became a monk, much to the chagrin of his father. And so as an Augustinian monk, he was much tortured by the law of God, and he was very convicted of sin. He would spend hours in confessional, thinking that that was how he got forgiveness. But he was sent at that time to Rome. to do an errand for the monastery, I guess, that he was at. And when he was in Rome, he was a bit appalled at all the debauchery that Rome had become, very vile things that were going on, brothels for clerics even, like things that were just depraved but were endorsed or attached adjacent to the church. And he was very troubled by that. So that kind of form kind of somewhat started his thinking and like, there's something wrong here. And then later on, he was sent to Wittenberg in Germany to be a priest and a professor at the university there. So what kind of brought the tipping point of writing these 95 theses was Pope Leo X at that time wanted to rebuild St. Peter's Cathedral in Rome, but he needed money. As surprising as it was, the Vatican didn't have money at that time. So what he did to raise funds was he made these things It's a long story. We could get into what indulgences are. Quatras taught on that too, but the short of it is that it's basically this document that the Pope signs that can grant forgiveness of sins, that you can be set free from purgatory, in their view, with this document from the Pope, but not only was this one for yourself, but you could also buy it on behalf of someone who is in purgatory already, which was, I mean, a big problem that, like, someone who's dead is dead, you know? I mean, the scriptures are pretty clear on that. When death comes, there's judgment, right? It's appointed unto man once to die, and after that comes the judgment. Can you guys hear me back there okay? Yeah, okay, good. So basically, he gives these indulgences and sends people to go sell them. And Johann Tetzel, or we call him John Tetzel, was an indulgence preacher who came to Germany to sell these indulgences. And you can perhaps say that he was the first sleazy salesman. He was the first to kind of come up with sayings that were catchy. He had this saying, a coin in the coffer rings a soul from Purgatory Springs. And so you can thank him for all the slogans that companies have nowadays that get stuck in your head. But he also would preach some vile things just for the sake of selling these things. He was quoted in saying that he could forgive a man who had violated the mother of God, Mary. herself, so it's like he went way too far with even what probably the Pope and everyone was comfortable with in selling these things, but basically the Roman Catholic Church was bankrupt and they were trying to raise money. you could do a whole lesson surrounding indulgences and indulgence preachers, but these indulgence preachers were really irked Martin Luther, that he was like, this is really not right. And he had been examining the scriptures and had been looking especially at Romans 1, 17, and seeing that salvation was not from works, but from faith. And so he wasn't completely, yet when he wrote these, completely in that mindset yet. So keep that in mind as we read these, because Luther later on even wouldn't believe some of these things that we're going to read here that he... Some of them you're like, whoa, that's like... very Roman Catholic, but he developed in his understanding as he went on too, right? So he wasn't looking for a separation from Rome at this time. He wrote these 95 Theses in Latin, which was not spoken by the common people, it was spoken by academics and clergy. mainly. So he wasn't looking for separation from Rome. He was, you might even say he was a bit naive at how bad Rome was, because he was going to be like, some people are going to be appalled at this, obviously, and then there's going to be some change, especially with these indulgence preachers. And so, but when he posted them, some people saw them and were like, these are great. So they translated them into German, the common language of the people. And with the new invention of the printing press, not too long before that, they printed them, widely distributed them. And so many of the German lay people read them and were able to see them too. What's that? It went viral before the internet, yeah. And so we kind of hear this idea of him nailing these theses on the church door, and we think like, whoa, that was like him taking his big stand and stuff and hammering this into the church door, but because we think it'd be weird if someone came and nailed something on our church door. But back then this was actually just how people would post things for discussion before the internet, like he said. That they would just post things on the door of the church, people would read them, and then, you know, and you'll see as we read through this that it was kind of expected that people would debate them and talk about them. So he wasn't like... this wasn't like his big here I stand moment like he had at the Diet of Worms, but he was just almost innocently posting these as topics of debate and really seeking to bring about reform in the church, but through normal academic and ecclesiastical channels, not through some like great revolution or something like that. So, But Luther had also forwarded a copy of this to Archbishop Albert of Mainz, who was Tetzel's superior, John Tetzel, the crazy indulgence preacher, because his heart in this was like, these indulgence preachers really need to be at least reined in, if not completely eliminated. And then Albert of Mainz forwarded that to the Pope, which eventually led to Luther's excommunication after he was examined and all that. So in that context, we'll start reading here now, and you can follow along in your handout. So he says, out of love for the truth and desire to bring it to light, the following propositions will be discussed at Wittenberg, under the presidency of the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and of Sacred Theology, and lecturer in ordinary on the same at that place. Wherefore, he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us may do so by letter. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, amen. So you see there, he was meaning to debate these, not to like take up arms and start a new church. This was, you know, just was mainly his intent. So number one, when our Lord and Master Jesus Christ said repent, the gospel according to Matthew 4.17, he willed the entire life of believers to be one of repentance. Number two, this word cannot be understood as referring to the sacrament of penance that is confession and satisfaction as administered by the clergy. Yet it does not mean solely inner repentance. Such inner repentance is worthless unless it produces various outward mortification of the flesh. The penalty of sin remains as long as the hatred of self that is true inner repentance, namely till our entrance into the kingdom of heaven. So he's saying that repentance isn't just, it's not just an outward act for the priest, the sacrament of penance, which is a very Catholic thing if you remember Quatro's teaching on that. But it's also not just something that you think and then your life doesn't change. He's saying, you know, it's an outward thing and leads to outward change as well. Number five is one that we would probably disagree with. The Pope neither desires nor is able to remit any penalties except those imposed by his own authority. or that of the canons, aka, he can't forgive sins, he can only forgive transgressions of rules that he or the church made up aside from scripture, is what he's saying. That one we do agree with, my bad. The Pope cannot remit any guilt except by declaring and showing that it has been remitted by God, or to be sure, by remitting guilt in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in these cases were disregarded, the guilt would certainly remain forgiven. So you still see that he has a great respect and admiration, he admires the office of Pope, which is false, and he is not the successor to Peter, but he's still in this context, right? So number seven, God remits guilt to no one unless the same time he humbles him in all things and makes him submissive to the vicar, to the priest. So again, we don't believe that you need to confess to a priest to be forgiven before God. That is not required for justification. The penitential canons are imposed only on the living, and according to the canons themselves, nothing should be imposed on the dying. Like we said before, dead people can't repent, and you can't buy repentance for them from the Pope. Therefore, the Holy Spirit, through the Pope, is kind to us insofar as the Pope, in his decrees, always makes exception of the article of death and of necessity. Those priests act ignorantly and wickedly who, in the case of dying, reserve canonical penalties for purgatory. So you also see that he still acknowledges purgatory even though he later denounces that as well as he progresses in his own reformation of belief as well. Those tares of changing the canonical penalty to the penalty of purgatory were evidently sown while the bishop slept. referencing the parable of the wheat and the tares. In former times canonical penalties were imposed not after but before absolution as tests of true contrition. So this may sound like a lot of confusing stuff, but a lot of this is like in relation to Catholic doctrine, right? Absolution was like when the priest declared you to be forgiven of your sins. And so he's saying that canonical penalties, a.k.a. penalties of purgatory that the church teaches, that was imposed before absolution as test of true contrition, not to people who are already forgiven, but kind of getting into the weeds there. May not understand it, and that's fine. The really good stuff comes a bit later. Number 13, the dying are freed from death from all penalties, and are already dead as far as the canon laws are concerned and have right to be released from them. Imperfect piety or love on the part of the dying person necessarily brings with it great fear. And the smaller the love, the greater the fear. The fear or horror is sufficient in itself to say nothing of other things to constitute the penalty of purgatory, since it is very near to the horror of despair. Hell, purgatory, and heaven seem to differ the same as despair, fear, and assurance of salvation." Which Catholics reject, remember. Assurance of salvation is not something Catholics believe you can have. It seems as though for the souls in purgatory, fear should necessarily decrease and love increase. Furthermore, it does not seem proved, either by reason or by scripture, that souls in purgatory are outside the state of merit, that is, unable to grow in love." So you've got to remember, these indulgence preachers were preaching that your loved ones are in great torment and anguish and fear and all this stuff, and he's saying, well, if they're being purified in purgatory, shouldn't they be growing in love, not fear? But anyway Nor does it seem prove that souls in purgatory at least not all of them are certain and assured of their own salvation Even if we ourselves may be entirely certain of it 20 therefore the Pope when he uses the words plenary remission of all penalties Does not actually mean all penalties, but only those imposed by himself Because he can't forgive sins only God can do that in reality 21, thus those indulgence preachers are in error who say that a man is absolved from every penalty and saved by papal indulgences. As a matter of fact, the Pope permits to souls in purgatory no penalty, which according to canon law, they should have paid in this life. If remission of all penalties whatsoever could be granted to anyone at all, certainly it would be granted only to the most perfect, that is, to very few. For this reason, most people are necessarily deceived by that indiscriminate and high-sounding promise of release from penalty." So he's saying, like, people could just buy these indulgences and live however they want, because they hear the promise that the Pope is giving of forgiveness of all sin, and yet their guilt remains. But they don't see it that way. 25. The power which the Pope has in general over purgatory corresponds to that power which any bishop or curate has in a particular way in his own diocese and parish. The Pope does very well when he grants remission to souls in purgatory, not by the power of the keys, which he does not have, but by way of intercession for them. So the Pope should be praying for these people in purgatory. Remember, purgatory doesn't exist, in case you think that. Just as a reminder. But he's saying, like, he's not able to just release them from purgatory. He should just be praying for them. They preach only human doctrines who say that as soon as the money clinks into the money chest, the soul flies out of purgatory. 28, it is certain that when money clinks in the money chest, greed and avarice can be increased. But when the church intercedes, the result is in the hands of God alone. Who knows whether all souls in purgatory wish to be redeemed, since we have exceptions in St. Severus and St. Paschal as related in a legend. 30, no one is sure of the integrity of his own contrition, much less having received plenary remission. 31, the man who actually buys indulgences is as rare as he who is really penitent. Indeed, he is exceedingly rare. Those who believe that they can be certain of their salvation because they have indulgence letters will be eternally damned together with their teachers. So the irony here is like, they don't profess that you can be assured of salvation by the merits of Christ, but they say, he's saying, if you have assurance of salvation because of a paper you bought from the Pope, you're destined to be damned along with those who teach that. 33, men must especially be on guard against those who say that the Pope's pardons are that inestimable gift of God by which man is reconciled to him. So I don't know who's saying that, but that's kind of crazy to hear. But Christ is obviously that gift by which we may be reconciled to him, not the Pope's indulgences. Sorry if we're flying a bit fast here, I'm gonna try and finish all of these before our time runs out. 34, for the graces of indulgences are concerned only with the penalties of sacramental satisfaction established by men. They who teach that contrition is not necessary on the part of those who intend to buy souls out of purgatory or to buy confessional privileges preach unchristian doctrine. Any truly repentant Christian has right to full remission of penalty and guilt without indulgence letters. So if someone believes in Christ, right, they don't need an indulgence to be set free from the guilt and penalty of their sin. Christ has paid for it in full. They don't need an indulgence if they are truly repentant. Any true Christian, whether living or dead, participates in all the blessings of Christ and the Church, and this is granted him by God, even without indulgence letters. Nevertheless, papal remission and blessing are by no means to be disregarded, for they are, as I have said, Theses 6, the proclamation of divine remission. I think he's saying by that, that the Pope confirms that God has forgiven them, but I'm not... Right. Yeah, and that's something we would also disagree with, obviously, because the Pope is a made-up anti-Christ office. What's that? Right, I mean it's true. 39. It is very difficult even for the most learned theologians at one and same time to command to the people the bounty of indulgences and the need of true contrition. 40, a Christian who is truly contrite seeks and loves to pay penalties for his sins. The bounty of indulgences, however, relaxes penalty and causes men to hate them. At least it furnishes occasion for hating them. Again, going back to if you believe that this paper saves you, why do you need to repent of your sins truly? I can go living how I want. I have this stamp here that tells me I'm forgiven. When if you're truly repentant, you will hate your sin and love turning to righteousness. 41. Papal indulgences must be preached with caution, lest people erroneously think that they are preferable to other good works of love. Christians are to be taught that the Pope does not intend that the buying of indulgences should in any way be compared with works of mercy. Christians are to be taught that he who gives to the poor and lends to the needy does a better deed than he who buys indulgences. The problem with that is it doesn't make Rome money, so that's why the Pope doesn't teach that. Because love grows by works of love, man thereby becomes better. Man does not, however, become better by means of indulgences, but is merely freed from penalties. Christians are to be taught that he who sees a needy man and passes him by, yet gives his money for indulgences, does not buy papal indulgences, but God's wrath. That one stinks. So someone who passes by a needy man but gives his money to buy the Pope's little paper just buys God's wrath is what he's saying. And he's right. There's scripture to support that. Christians are to be taught that unless they have more than they need, they must reserve enough for their family needs and by no means squander it on indulgences. Again, should not go into debt for indulgence or buy them at all. He's saying you should put your family above buying these things even. Christians are to be taught, 47, that they, I think that means, should be the buying of indulgences is a matter of free choice, not commanded. So the whole doctrine of indulgences actually originated in, like, not a bad way, even though it turned out to be, like, this crazy heretical thing. But, like, way back, centuries and centuries before this, it was just kind of like an act of mercy kind of thing, not like a way for the church to print money that it turned into. So, yeah. So that's why he's still open to indulgences in that sense, but he later obviously will say, no, these aren't biblical at all. 48. Christians are to be taught that the Pope, in granting indulgences, needs and thus desires their devout prayer more than money. Christians are to be taught that papal indulgences are useful only if they do not put their trust in them but very harmful if they lose their fear of God because of them. 50. Christians are to be taught that if the Pope knew the exactions of the indulgence preachers, he would rather that the Basilica of St. Peter were burned to ashes than built up with the skim flesh and bones of his sheep. Again, that's kind of a Like, maybe a bit of naivety here is that he thinks the Pope will be on his side with some of this stuff, that it's just these preachers, but the Pope commissioned these things, and he later excommunicates Luther because of these things. Christians are to be taught that the Pope would and should wish to give all of his own money, even though he had to sell the Basilica of Peter to many of those from whom certain hawkers of indulgences conjole money. 52 it is vain to trust in salvation by indulgence letters Even though the indulgence commissary or even the Pope were to offer his soul as security They are the enemies of Christ and the Pope who forbid altogether the preaching of the Word of God in some churches in order that Indulgences may be preached in others. He's saying the Word of God should take priority over these indulgence preachers. I 54. Injury is done to the Word of God when, in the same sermon, an equal or larger amount of time is devoted to indulgences than to the Word. It is certainly the Pope's sentiment that if indulgences, which are a very insignificant thing, are celebrated with one bell, one procession, and one ceremony, then the gospel, which is the very greatest thing, should be preached with a hundred bells, a hundred processions, and a hundred ceremonies. The true treasures of the Church, out of which the Pope distributes indulgences, are not sufficiently discussed or known among the people of Christ. That indulgences are not temporal treasures is certainly clear, for many indulgence sellers do not distribute them freely, but only gather them. Nor are they the merits of Christ and the saints, for even without the Pope, the latter always work grace for the inner man, and the cross, death, and hell for the outer man. St. Lawrence said that the poor of the church were the treasures of the church, but he spoke according to the usage of the word in his own time. 60, without want of consideration, we say that the keys of the church given by the merits of Christ are that treasure. For it's clear that the Pope's power in itself is sufficient for the remission of penalties and cases reserved by himself. The true treasure of the church is the most holy gospel of the glory and grace of God. That should be indisputable. But this treasure is naturally most odious for it makes the first to be last. On the other hand, the treasure of indulgences is naturally most acceptable, for it makes the last to be first. Therefore, the treasures of the gospel are nets with which one formerly fished for men of wealth. The treasures of indulgences are nets with which one now fishes for the wealth of men. The indulgences which the Demagogues acclaim that as the greatest graces are actually understood to be such only insofar as they promote gain. They are nevertheless in truth the most insignificant graces when compared with the grace of God and the piety of the cross. Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of papal indulgences with all reverence. 70, only 15 to go. We can do this. But they are much more bound to strain their eyes and ears, lest these men preach their own dreams instead of what the Pope has commissioned. Let him who speaks against the truth concerning papal indulgences be anathema and incursed. Again, we would disagree with that. But let him who guards against the lust and license of the indulgence preachers be blessed. Just as the Pope justly thunders against those who by any means, whatever, contrive harm for the sale of indulgences, much more does he intend to thunder against those who use indulgences as a pretext to contrive harm to holy love and truth. To consider papal indulgences so great that they could absolve a man, even if he had done the impossible and had violated the mother of God is madness. We say, on the contrary, that papal indulgences cannot remove the very least of venial sins as far as guilt is concerned. To say that even St. Peter, if he were now Pope, could not grant graces is blasphemy against St. Peter and the Pope. We say, on the contrary, that even the present Pope, or any Pope whatsoever, has greater graces at his disposal, that is, the gospel, spiritual powers, gifts of healing, etc., as it is written. Again, the Pope is Antichrist. To say that the cross emblazoned on the papal coat of arms and set up by indulgence preachers is equal in worth to the cross of Christ is blasphemy. That's true. Oh, now it's 15. My math was wrong. The bishops, curates, and theologians who permit such talk to be spread among the people will have to answer for this. This unbridled preaching of indulgences makes it difficult even for learned men to rescue the reverence which is due the Pope from slander or from the shrewd questions of laity, such as, I love these next ones, because it's like, you know, the people are saying this. I'm not saying this, but you know, they're bringing up these accusations. So how do we answer these? Such as, why does not the Pope empty purgatory for the sake of holy love and the dire need of the souls that are there if he redeems an infinite number of souls for the sake of miserable money with which to build a church? The former reason would be more just and the latter most trivial. Wasn't he just empty purgatory out of love if he can do that? Again, why are funeral and anniversary masses for the dead continued, and why does he not return or permit the withdrawal of the endowments founded for them, since it is wrong to pray for the redeemed? Again, what is this new piety of God and the Pope that for consideration of money they permit a man who is impious and their enemy to buy out of purgatory the pious soul of a friend of God, and do not rather, because of the need of that pious and beloved soul, free it for pure love's sake. Again, why are the penitential canons long since abrogated and dead in actual fact and through disuse now satisfied by the granting of indulgences as though they were still alive and in force? Again, why does not the Pope, whose wealth is today greater than the wealth of the richest Crassus, build this one basilica of St. Peter with his own money rather than with the money of poor believers? He didn't know that they were bankrupt because it was kind of secret at that point. Again, what does the Pope remit or grant to those who by perfect contrition already have a right to full remission and blessings? Again, what greater blessing could come to the Church if the Pope were to bestow these remissions and blessings on every believer a hundred times a day as he now does but once? Since the Pope seeks the salvation of souls rather than money by his indulgences, why does he suspend the indulgences and pardons previously granted when they have equal efficacy? 90, to regress these very sharp arguments of the laity by force alone and not to resolve them by giving reasons is to expose the church and the Pope to ridicule of their enemies and to make Christians unhappy. If therefore indulgences were preached according to the spirit and intention of the Pope, all these doubts would be readily resolved. Indeed, they would not exist. Away then with all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, peace, peace, and there is no peace. Blessed be all those prophets who say to the people of Christ, cross, cross, and there is no cross. Christians should be exhorted to be diligent in following Christ their head through penalties, death, and hell, and thus be confident of entering into heaven through many tribulations than through false security of peace. That was a lot. I'm sorry. I wish we could go into a lot of the history here. There's so much to say about all of these. But now you've actually read through them. Now you've actually read through the 95 thesis. So if someone asks you if you did, you can say that. So a few concluding thoughts with the last few minutes we have here. God works through unexpected means many times. So you read through that and you're like, they have no reason to be mad at Luther for being a bad Catholic or being divisive or controversial. He pays far too much homage to the Pope and to Purgatory. Exactly. Like, you read that, and you're like, there's no way, like, a Catholic could have a problem with this, but it was because he was, like, assuming, oh, the Pope is definitely on my side here with these arguments, but turns out he wasn't, because the Popes were very evil at that time, and still, like, it's a very anti-Christian idea to have an intercessor other than Christ between us and God, who can forgive sins like that, right? And we also need to take history in context. We revere Martin Luther not because he was always right. He isn't. Even in his later life, he still held on to things like infant baptism, consubstantiation, and a few other things that we'd be like, I don't agree with that. And we can still appreciate that he was reforming in his personal life. This led to a great reformation in the church from which we are still benefiting and celebrating. today. And the last point is just that God preserves his truth and his church. So we can get, you know, disheartened, you know, and look at church history and be like, how can so many people be so wrong about, like, baptism, for instance? But we know, like, even through small things like him, just like, hey, here's some things to debate, and just putting that out there that God sparked this huge reformation that spread from Germany to France to England to Scotland to all around the world that reformed a church and brought them back to the scriptures as their rule and authority rather than the traditions of men. And so God and his spirit is building his church and he will preserve his church through whatever trials lay ahead in the future. So yeah, I guess any quick questions or comments? Made it. I think the timing of it was Yeah. Yeah, that was pretty new at that time. And God in his providence brought this about when that happened. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Yeah. I don't believe in coincidences. So, Jacob, would you like to close us in prayer? And we'll be we'll be done.