Among Luther’s 95 theses, which are a typology of this site, are a few conclusive topics that are a bit vague:
90. These questions are serious matters of conscience to the laity. To suppress them by force alone, and not to refute them by giving reasons, is to expose the church and the pope to the ridicule of their enemies, and to make Christian people unhappy.
91. If therefore, indulgences were preached in accordance with the spirit and mind of the pope, all these difficulties would be easily overcome, and indeed, cease to exist.
92. Away, then, with those prophets who say to Christ’s people, “Peace, peace,” where in there is no peace.
93. Hail, hail to all those prophets who say to Christ’s people, “The cross, the cross,” where there is no cross.”
The catch with Luther is he was not only sometimes satirical but often blatantly sarcastic and even outright offensive. As is demonstrated later in his life with his commissioning of the “Origin of the Pope” cartoons. So his theses may not be correctly interpreted literally. However, I believe we get some very strong hints from the progression of the above.
Paraphrased:
90: Just because you don’t have good answers for these issues doesn’t mean the solution is to suppress this conversation. All that will do is prove the weakness of your case.
91: If these topics are easily settled, then you should have no trouble explaining them publicly.
92: So I rebuke anyone that would try to make peace without settling these difficulties.
93. I welcome anyone who recognizes that we should be willing to face these challenges, even when others refuse to.
That’s how I read those points. However, if we take a literal view of them and consider something like 1 Corinthians 9:
“I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.”
While I’m at liberty in Christ to contend that Paul may be overstating this case, I respect the role Paul plays in the foundation of our doctrines. However one reads this, as the very word of God (as some would say) or a less bibliolatrous view that Paul was another Francis Chan or Rob Bell. Whatever the view we have to reconcile the scope of the claim. Clearly Paul would not prostitute himself to the people of Sodom “for the sake of the gospel” would he? So where do we draw the line? I contend that even a literal reading of this still requires that we draw the line well beyond questioning unfounded tenets of our doctrine. Especially questioning them among other believers. At some point a believer must “man up” and face these topics rather than tear their robes and claim success merely by the default: “this is how it has always been.”
Anyway… more to come on specifics of the theses both the 95 & the 96.