In this second hour, we want to consider Luther's response to the problems created in Germany, and especially in Wittenberg, where Luther was ministering, as a result of Johann Tetzel's efforts to sell indulgences and raise money for Rome and Archbishop Mainz. Because, as we noted in our first lesson, Luther faced some serious challenges as a pastor as a result of Tetzel and his labors. In fact, it was not long after Tetzel began selling indulgences in the general vicinity of Wittenberg that Luther began to notice a marked change in the piety and spiritual concerns of some within his own community, and after dealing with a number of these individuals Luther discovered that many of them had actually purchased indulgences from Tetzel, and were living under the impression, no doubt because of Tetzel's preaching, that they no longer needed to be concerned about their sins, since their certificates guaranteed them forgiveness and salvation. In fact, in their minds, they no longer needed to maintain lives characterized by repentance and good works. because they had purchased the equivalent of those things. And I hope you paid careful attention to the words I've just used. They had purchased the equivalent of those things. So, in Roman Catholic theology, repentance and good works are necessary. But Tessal is saying you can have the equivalent of repentance and good works by buying these certificates. And if you own a certificate, therefore, you don't need to have repentance and good works in your own life." Needless to say, Luther was appalled by what he heard, and he immediately began to instruct his parishioners that they needed to cease from doing evil, or there would be no absolution. Of course, Luther, as a faithful son of the Church, is pointing them back to the necessity of the sacraments of the Church. How did Luther's parishioners respond? Well, some, thankfully, heeded the word of their pastor and they obeyed. But others alarmed that Luther so easily dismissed their letters, which they had purchased with their hard-earned money, that they went back to Tetzel and informed him of Luther's actions, at which news Tetzel was said to bellow with anger, and to spew forth the most vicious of threats. In fact, Bainton, in the book Here I Stand, states that shortly after hearing of Luther's refusal to recognize these letters, Tetzel had a roaring fire built in the marketplace at Wittenberg, and from it, from this fire, Tetzel boldly declared that he also had an order from the Pope to burn all heretics who presumed to oppose his most holy indulgences, and Tetzel assured everyone that he was prepared to carry out such an order. But Tetzel's threats did not intimidate Luther, because Luther felt a responsibility as a minister of the gospel to warn the people of Wittenberg, of those who would take advantage of He also felt a responsibility as a shepherd of souls to protect the flock of God under his care against those who would lead them away from the truth and into further fear, superstition, and error. And so Luther began preaching against Tetzel and his activities in hopes that Tetzel's activities might be minimized or stopped altogether, and I wish I had time this afternoon to share with you excerpts of Luther's preaching in reference to Tetzel, but I simply don't have the time. Take my word for it, it was direct and pointed and very critical of everything that Tetzel was teaching. But sadly, Luther's preaching did little to stop Tetzel, or to sway public opinion against him. Luther's pulpit was simply not a big enough platform from which to launch the kind of interaction and debate that would be necessary to settle such a controversy. And so, at that point, Luther decided to address the controversy as a theologian, as a doctor of the Church. And can somebody remind us of what rights Luther had? as a doctor of the Church when it came to theological discussion. Anyone remember? Right, in the minds of the Roman Catholic Church, he is qualified as a doctor of the Church to engage in theological disputation. He has the right to express his own views without fear. of being intimidated or punished in any way, at least so the idea is that he has the academic freedom to do so. And so Luther decides he's going to use his rights as a theologian and as a doctor of the church to address this issue. And Luther wrote a disputation of Dr. Martin Luther on the power and efficacy of indulgences. which is better known today as his Ninety-Five Theses. While this was not Luther's first written disputation—in fact, most people don't know this—but Luther had written another theological disputation earlier in that year, in April of 1517, entitled A Disputation Against Scholastic Theology, and this was mostly directed at the academic world at that time, and the theologians, and that particular disputation consists of ninety-seven theses. But who here has heard of Luther's ninety-seven theses? But we have heard of this other disputation that I'm making reference to here, his disputation on power and efficacy of indulgences. And this disputation would become no doubt Luther's most memorable disputation, and would launch him as the humble author of this disputation into the national and then into the international spotlight. And the way that Luther actually presented his 95 theses to the world has been a matter of debate among some historians. For some historians insist that Luther never publicly presented his Ninety-Five Theses, as most historical accounts of Luther's life would have it. But they insist that he simply enclosed his Ninety-Five Theses in a letter which he wrote to Albert of Mainz, criticizing the practice of indulgences, and that his Ninety-Five somehow got circulated by someone sometime later. However, far more evidence seems to suggest that the popular account of Luther's presentation of his 95 Theses is the correct one. That account simply states that on All Saints' Day, October 31, 1517, A day when many people had gathered in Wittenberg to celebrate the Festival of All Saints, and the Festival of All Saints would actually be held the next day. Martin Luther, at the hour of noon, walked to the door of Castle Church and nailed his 95 Theses to it, and in nailing his 95 Theses to this door, Martin Luther was, in one respect, doing nothing revolutionary, because simply posting a notice on the church door of one's willingness to debate, which is really what Luther desired in posting his 95 Theses in the first place, was not uncommon. And yet, in another respect, as we look back on the event today and see how God, in his wise and holy providence used it. What Luther did that day was truly revolutionary in the Christian sense of the term, because his action was literally the equivalent of a trumpet blast that would be the rallying call for reformation in his day and in the days to come. And certainly, you and I would be poorer spiritually if Luther had not acted. Yes? Questioner 2 What was the meaning of, I missed that part, and not in another day to want to engage in certain... Answer Right. So what I was saying, in one sense, what Luther was doing was not revolutionary. He was simply following the typical procedure that one would follow if he wanted to engage in theological debate and dispute. But there is another sense, as we look back in the Providence of God, we see that it was not just a mere incident, a coincidental incident, an incident of insignificance. But in the province of God, it was a revolutionary event. Yes, Rob. Yeah, there's considerable debate. Again, you know, we only have a limited amount of information on some of this, and, you know, we have to be careful about second-guessing regarding people's motives in the past and what they wanted. I think it is clear that Luther felt that his pastoral efforts had been ineffective in the sense that it would not elevate the issue to the level it needed to be elevated to, to bring about any kind of reform. So Luther then acts as a theologian or a doctor of the church, and he goes to the door, and he does post it, which, again, is a procedure that's used, and you're absolutely right, it is written in Latin. And so that does give us a sense of who the audience was. It's not written to the common people. The common people are not literate, and so many of them couldn't understand Latin. And you're also right that it was probably taken down, immediately translated into German, and then other languages, and distributed. So what we do know is that Luther did want to engage people in debate about this issue, and this was an invitation to participate, and we'll look at the preface to the 95 Theses in a few moments, and I'll flush some of this out in greater detail. Yes, Gordon, did you have a comment? What is indisputable is the fact that it was taken, it was translated, and then it had a wide distribution. That is indisputable. Really put this in the context in which Luther had intended. What Luther is basically doing is announcing his willingness to debate. And what this document is, is the 95 theses, or the 95 propositions or arguments that he's prepared to debate on. in reference to this issue of the power and efficacy of indulgences. So in Luther's mind, you know, he probably wasn't writing this for wide distribution. Yes, Mike. Right. Yes. Yeah, I think you're right. I think his primary concern I mean, that's how I understand Luther's response to the indulgence controversy. It's a pastoral response. He is concerned about his own flock, but then he doesn't realize that it has much larger implications. And so, he does feel compelled to act for the sake of his own flock, but then for the sake of the good of the Church. And no doubt, he does need to set the example for his own flock that this is an issue that needs to be discussed and escalated. And this is an area where reform is desperately needed. Yeah, that's a good comment, Mike. Thank you. Yes, Steve. I mean, you know, no matter how you cut it, all that it's come to symbolize is so powerful. I mean, this is basically, in our mind today, I don't think even wrongly so, even though we could nitpick about details. Basically, it is the Reformation. Yes, in all that the Reformation comes to be, with the pounding of the nails into the door. And while that is far too simplistic, it does give us a handle on things to think about. In fact, one of the popular magazines has a list of the top 100 events in history. Yeah, it was very high up there in the top five, I think under the printing press. Yeah. The printing press was number one. Right. Well, again, this is indisputable. It received wide distribution. What's also indisputable is it caused a great deal of discussion. Just to repeat what we've discussed in some of the earlier sessions. You know, Luther is not introducing a lot of his criticisms as the first person who's ever introduced them. Again, we need to remember the contributions of those who've gone on before Luther. But in God's providence, and in God's timing, Luther is the man that God has chosen to bring this to the forefront. And I think that this particular act, and Steve, I think you make a good point, I think this particular act symbolizes, in a sense, Luther's willingness now to engage in controversy and ratchet it up, to use the term Mike used a few moments ago, to whatever level it needs to be brought to. I think Luther, in a sense, is determined that he's not going to let go of this issue. that the problems created as a result of Tetzel are too big, that the sacraments of the Church are at stake, like you said, Rob. The good of the flock of God is at stake. This speaks to the heart of Roman Catholic piety, and there is no way that he can remain silent. And if he can't bring about reform from his small pulpit there, within the confines of his own congregation, then he will take it to the level of the academicians and theologians and to whoever else will debate the issue. So it is a significant event in that sense. And in our next study, in a few weeks, Lord willing, I want us to consider the reaction to Luther's 95 Theses and his defense of his views up through the Diet of Worms in 1521, Because by that time, the Reformation is well underway, and that would be an appropriate place for us to end our church history studies for this summer. In fact, I stated that these lessons would be about Martin Luther and the birth of the Reformation, so we will get through the birth, but we're probably not going to get much further than that, simply because of the amount of material. that we have to discuss, all of which is very good. In fact, when I prepare these lessons, I am grieved many times at what I leave on the desk and don't bring here for discussion, but there's just too much material for us to discover in these brief periods. But for the remainder of our time this afternoon, I'd like for us to take a look at Luther's disputation on the power and efficacy of indulgences. Because in all probability, few of us have ever read this document. In fact, just with an honest show of hands, there's no consequences associated with your response. How many of you have read or seriously perused this disputation before? Okay, a few of you. But most of us have not. And that's not a criticism, but I think for the most part we simply take it for granted important document, and that it was certainly an important historical document. But in its day, we could say it was a bestseller, and it had a powerful influence on the thinking of many. And I would be bold enough to suggest today that we as Reformed Christians should take a particular interest. in this particular disputation. And I provided you with a copy of Luther's 95 Theses with your outlines this afternoon, and I'd like you to refer to it at this time. If you would please, it's toward the back of your package. This copy before you is an English translation of Luther's work, because as Rob shared with us a little bit earlier, it was originally written in Latin. and then translated into German and other languages. This particular version was published in the works of Martin Luther, Volume 1, by A. J. Holman and Company in the year 1915, and I obtained this copy that you have before you from a website associated with a project called Project Wittenberg and Concordia University. And this website address is www.iclnet.org. That's www.iclnet.org. And I'm mentioning this website, brethren, so that those who hear this lecture on tape can access this same document and study it for themselves. Now, I want us to begin our very brief examination of this work, which again is entitled, Disputation of Dr. Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences, by calling your attention to the preface, which is located at the middle of the page. For here in this preface, Luther states his motives for writing this disputation. as well as stating what he hoped to accomplish in the first place. And what were Luther's motives? He states here in the beginning of this preface that he was writing this disputation out of love for the truth and the desire to bring it to light. And so, Martin Luther did not write his 95 Theses simply because he wanted to be a rebel, or simply because he was a malcontent. Unfortunately, some have suggested that he was either one or both. But he wrote his 95 Theses because Luther loved the truth, and he wanted the truth, and especially the truth about indulgences, to come out into the light of day. And then Luther reveals his purpose in writing, and that was to notify everyone. that 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 this, by the way, is his title, it's not a reference to his degree, and Lecturer in Ordinary, on the same at that time, wherefore he requests that those who are unable to be present and debate orally with us may do so by letter." So Luther is basically saying here, if you're not able to attend in person and to debate orally, then we will take your submissions in writing. And so what Luther had wanted was a debate on the matter of indulgences, and his disputation here simply set forth the arguments or the propositions that he intended to argue. Now, as we'll see in our next lesson, Lord willingly, the debate that Luther was proposing or announcing here on this occasion never took place. But the arguments that Luther would have used and defended and furthered on that occasion, had it taken place, are here in this document. And it's a shame that we don't have time to discuss. all the individual theses that are on this disputation. But let me just point out this afternoon a few of his key arguments, and so I'm going to ask you to turn through the pages with me for the remaining part of our time today, so that we can get an idea of what Luther's concerns were, and how controversial some of his concerns were. So we're going to read some of these, and I do encourage you to raise your hand and ask any questions that you might have, or you may just simply want to make a comment after hearing some of these propositions or arguments, and after you've given this thought. I don't have time to really develop this in detail, but let me just begin by saying that Luther's arguments in this disputation begin with exhortations to a life of repentance. Luther is saying God has called us to a life of repentance, and by repentance he is not referring to the confessional, he is not referring to the Roman Catholic concept of satisfaction. He is simply referring to the individual believer's dealings with God and repenting of his or on a regular basis, which, again, he felt was being attacked by the sale of indulgences. You have an indulgence, you don't need a life of repentance. So he begins by stressing the importance of repentance, and then he quickly responds to some of Tetzel's claims about the Pope's power. And this is really the heart of the matter, because Tetzel is going around saying that everything he does is with the Pope's approval. And so, Tetzel is representing the Pope and the Pope's power in a certain way, and Luther is going to challenge some of Tetzel's claims in regards to the Pope and his power. Take a look, if you would please, at Thesis No. 5, and we're just going to look at a scattering of these. Again, we don't have time to look, obviously, at all 95. But if we'll look at some of these, we'll get a real sense of what Luther's theological and practical concerns were. Thesis number five, Luther states this. The Pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit, any penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority or by that of the canons. Does anybody have an idea of what Luther is stating here. The Pope does not intend to remit, and cannot remit, any penalties other than those which he has imposed either by his own authority, or by that of the canons. Yes, brother. Absolutely. Tetzel's argument is that the Pope basically possesses unlimited authority, and can do what he wants. And by this thesis number five, Luther is basically saying the Pope's power is limited It's limited to the scope of his authority. The pope is not God. He cannot do what only God can do. His authority is limited by the authority of his office, and his authority is also limited by canon law. So, he can only forgive sins as prescribed by canon law or canon procedure. He is not above the law of his own church. And again, this strikes at the very heart of some of Tetzel's arguments, that the Pope can do as he wishes and remit sins for who he wishes under any circumstances, regardless of what the authority or the laws of the Church say in that regard. Look at Thesis No. 6. Luther states, the Pope cannot remit any guilt except by declaring that it has been remitted by God." Boy, that's an important statement, isn't it? The Pope cannot remit any guilt except by declaring that it has been remitted by God, and by assenting to God's remission. So, what is he saying there? What is he saying about the Pope's limitations? Well, basically what he's saying here is that it is not the Pope who remits guilt, it is God who remits guilt. Again, the Pope cannot do what only God can do. Only God can remit sins, but the Pope does have a role in that he simply declares an assent to that remission, and then he goes on to say, though to be sure, he may grant remission in cases reserved to his judgment. Or, in other words, if he's operating within his authority, he can remit. If his right to remission in such cases were despised, the guilt would remain entirely unforgiven. So, he's actually defending part of the Pope's limited authority here. He's saying, if he operates within his authority and within his appropriate sphere, he can remit, and if somewhere someone were to despise his act of remitting, then that person's guilt would remain. Then look at thesis number seven. Luther states, God remits guilt to no one whom he does not at the same time humble in all things and bring into subjection to his vigor Now, what problem do you think that Luther is addressing there in thesis number seven? Yes, Jeff? Exactly, the spiritual indifference that he had encountered among many of his own parishioners who had purchased indulgences, who claimed that they had the remission of their guilt guaranteed by these letters and certificates but at the same time exhibited no evidences of true, genuine humility and an unwillingness to subject to the priest. Luther is saying it doesn't work that way, does it? When God remits sins, there will be humility in those who have received remission, and there will be subjection in those who have received remission. You get his arguments here? Again, he's arguing on a very practical level, the level of Christian piety. Then, skip, if you would, please, to Thesis 21. Now we see that Luther is going to turn his guns on the individuals in question now. He says here in Thesis 21, therefore, those preachers of indulgences, and who do you think he has in mind here? absolutely. Those preachers of indulgences are in error, who say that by the Pope's indulgences, a man is free from every penalty—again, remember the Pope's authority and its limitations—and saved. And saved. So, notice what Luther is saying. He's saying that the Pope's indulgences do not save. And were some under the impression that the indulgences that they had purchased guaranteed their salvation? Absolutely. And yet, Luther makes it very clear here that those indulgences do not save. Notice Thesis 26. Luther states, the Pope does well when he grants remission to souls in purgatory. Here's a defense by Luther of some of the Pope's authority. But notice, not by power of the keys, which he does not possess, but by way of intercession. Now, Tetzel had obviously stated that the Pope possessed the keys. The Pope has the keys to Purgatory, and he uses the keys as he wills. But Luther is correcting him here. He's saying, no, that's not the case. The Pope does not have the power of the keys. But, the Pope can grant remission to souls in purgatory through the means of what? Through the means of, or the way of intercession. And again, this is very different than what Tetzel was suggesting, isn't it? Notice, if you would, Thesis 27. Luther writes, they preach man who say that so soon as the penny jingles into the money box, the soul flies out of Ferguswood. Notice the wording there very carefully. He does not say they preach God. He says they preach truth. Man. This is not a God-given message. This is not a God-given truth. It's a man-made truth, or a man-made proposition. It's a man-made jingle, I guess you could say. Notice Thesis 32. Luther states, they will be condemned eternally, together with their teachers. who believe themselves sure of salvation because they have letters of pardon." That's pretty clear, isn't it? They will be condemned eternally, along with their teachers, if they believe that salvation has been purchased. Thesis 36. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without letters of pardon. So what is he saying there? He's saying, basically, that indulgences are not essential, are they? A Christian can obtain the same things. He can obtain full remission of penalty and guilt without having to buy letters of forgiveness. And is that what Tetzel was saying? Did Tetzel go into town and say, It's completely up to you. These indulgences are non-essential." No, he didn't. He clearly implied that they were essential, weren't they? Essential for the good of their own soul, essential for the good of the souls of their dear departed ones. Luther's saying, no, that is not true. Every truly repentant Christian has a right to full remission of penalty and guilt, even without pardons of sin. Look at Thesis 42. Here Luther writes, Christians are to be taught that the Pope does not intend the buying of pardons to be compared in any way to works of mercy. And again, this strikes at the heart of something that Tetzel was saying, and I implied it That is, that Tetzel claimed that buying indulgences are as good as works of mercy. And Luther's making it clear that is not the case. In fact, he says the Pope does not intend that. So clearly, Luther's under the impression that the Pope would agree with him, isn't he? He's defending the Pope. He's saying, no, you're misrepresenting the Pope. The Pope does not intend to say that, and Christians should be taught that that is not what he intended to say. Look at Thesis 49. Luther writes, Christians are to be taught that the Pope's pardons are useful. So we can't deny, as much as we might like to, that Luther believed that the Pope had the power to pardon. But he goes on to say, if they do not put their trust in them, but altogether harmful if through they lose their fear of God. So again, as we were discussing earlier with the comment that was made, Luther wasn't so much opposed to indulgences as a concept. He believed that the Pope had the right to pardon, but he was concerned about the misuse or abuse of that power, and that's basically what he's saying here in that particular thesis. Luther states here, the true treasure of the Church is the most holy gospel of the glory and the grace of God. Now, why do you think that Luther would have to make this clarification about where the true treasure of the Church was? Do you think that someone has suggested that the true treasure of the Church might lie somewhere else? Sure. and that indulgences were part of that treasure, and yet Luther is saying here, no, the treasure is the most holy gospel. I think that is a reference to the treasury of merit, and I think that indulgences are tied to the concept of the treasury of merit. Yes, yes, yes. Well, the Treasury of Merit is simply a concept that says that there is a treasury of surplus merit and grace. Yes, from the saints. It is dispensed by the Pope, to whom he wills, and can be dispensed through indulgences, and it's based on the faulty theology that people would actually get to heaven in possession of more grace and merit than would be necessary to be received. So that's kind of the concept, yes. Does somebody else have a comment or question? Yes. I have another question. I was thinking about the peace creator. The key thing to come to mind also are the Pope, who is supposed to have been the person who received all of this. Right. And then, I don't know, but Mary had said that she's also another creator. Yeah, there is a sense in which some Catholics, at this time and even today, would use the word treasure in reference to Mary, but the word treasure here is being used, I think, in reference to what Steve said, in reference to this idea that there is a heavenly treasury, that there is this surplus grace and merit, and you know, Tetzel's whole premise is that The Pope is the administrator of that treasury, and that he has a right to dispense the goods of that treasury as he sees fit. Yeah, what Luther is really saying is, you know, true spiritual riches is found in the Gospel. That is what is most valuable. Not this so-called treasury in heaven that is freely dispensed by an earthly pontiff, who can distribute it again at will. The idea of indulgences clearly takes people's eyes off of Christ and the Gospel, doesn't it? In fact, if you buy an indulgence and you have a guarantee, you don't even really need the Gospel anymore, do you? You really don't even need to look to Jesus Christ at all. And so, Luther is basically saying, you know, that the true treasure of the Church is its possession of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. It's Christ-centered. It's in the person of Christ, and the message of Christ. It's not in... supposed treasure chest of surplus and excess merit. There is no such thing. In fact, the saints are not in heaven because of their own merit or because of surplus merit. The only people who are in heaven are there because of the righteousness of Jesus Christ, which is a free gift of God. So this is an important clarification. Look at Thesis 71. Luther writes, ìHe who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be anathema and accursed.î Now, this might seem like a surprising proposition. ìHe who speaks against the truth of apostolic pardons, let him be anathema and accursed.î In fact, this statement might make us as Protestants feel a little uncomfortable, right? But again, Luther is the son of the Church, he does believe in apostolic pardons. He's willing to fight anyone, so to speak, who would deny that such pardons do exist and can be useful. So we do see that he's very much... in line with the theology of Roman Catholicism in his own day, in this respect. Yes, Jim? He's the same thing as the Baroness John the Pope, but he said it's really through God that it's accessible. Yes, to answer your question, there is reference to the Pope here, because the Pope is the apostolic seed. The Pope is in the apostolic succession, isn't he? So, yeah, he does have the right to distribute, not as he will, but according to his own authority and Church canon's apostolic pardons. Yeah, that's clearly what Luther believes. But notice Thesis 72. This is a flip side. It balances it out. But he who guards against the lust and the license of the pardoned preachers, let him be blessed. So again, he's not attacking indulgences per se, is he? But he's attacking the way that they're being misused and abused. He is attacking those pardon preachers, he calls them, who are motivated by lust and by license. And again, I think it's interesting to note here that he is not accusing the Pope of being guilty of lust and license, is he? He's accusing the pardon preachers. of being guilty of those vices. Then look at Thesis 90. I just picked this one to summarize Luther's concerns. He's listed, obviously, a lot of propositions here. He's concerned on many levels—theological, pastoral, practical. He writes here in Thesis 90, To repress these arguments and scruples of the laity by force alone—and that's what the Church is trying to do—by force suppress these arguments and scruples of the laity, and not to resolve them by giving reasons, is to expose the Church and the Pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christians what? Unhappy. And so it's as if Luther is simply saying, by refusing to address these issues, and to resolve these issues, and to reform these issues, you are making the Church and the Pope the laughingstock among all men. You are subjecting them to ridicule, and we should defend the Church's honor with more jealousy than that. Questioner 2 He says, through requesting arguments and scruples in order by force alone. Is that basically what the Church is saying, or what Luther is saying, except this for us? Answer Yeah, what Luther is basically saying is, thus far in the process, there has not been a willingness to discuss these arguments, and a willingness to be concerned about the scruples and the concerns of the laity. Rather, the response has been to try to force the silence that the Church wants about this issue. And what Luther is saying is, if we continue with that method, we simply subject the Church to ridicule. Yes, Mike? He's saying that the methods used thus far have been emotional and repressive. Yes, in the very real sense he is saying that. Yeah, that the methods used thus far by the Church in response to these concerns have been emotional and repressive. And he's saying, you know, it's time to elevate this to a level of discussion and rationality. Because only by doing so can we restore the reputation of the Church and the Pope, in the eyes of many who are literally laughing and ridiculing both the Church and the Pope as a result of the Church's unwillingness to address these abuses. So here we see some of the arguments that Luther set forth against the misuse of indulgences, and it's interesting to note, again, how much respect Luther had for the Pope. and for indulgences properly used at this time. But as we'll see, Luther soon found out that his calls for reform would not be received warmly by the Pope or by the Church. He would be forced to take a stand. We'll see how Luther made his stand in our next lesson, Lord willing. questions or comments this afternoon. Yes, Brother Gordon. PRABHUPĀDA He's got an opiate of his energy, if you would, to do this whole thing. He never had a deal with his fellow, especially himself, that he's struggling with and living with. When he came, right from the moment, that's his soon-opened-the-bucket of truth. When he came with his own sin, how can a sinful person be just before our holy God? And, coming to that point, Luther himself first, as you know, opened it up for boldness and... Yeah, I think you're right. I think that Luther coming to grips with the truth of the righteousness of God certainly transformed his life and thinking. And we do see a boldness about Luther after that, as he truly understands the nature and the preciousness of the gospel, and he understands the implications of the gospel. He does understand on a practical level that while a person can be saved and have the assurance of acceptance with God, for example, that doesn't mean that they're not called to be pious. doesn't mean that they're not called to a life of discipline and repentance. And I think it's from that angle primarily that he's concerned about some of the problems associated with the pardon preachers and indulgences, what that really does to Christian piety, to Christian responsibility, to Christian spirituality. Yeah. Any other comments or questions? Well, thank you very much for your time and consideration, and let's continue to pray that God will use our lessons in the future. Thank you.