Posted on 11/28/2011 3:27:18 PM PST by rzman21
I mean the general sense which is widely known and from whence the term “Reformation” which defines the era comes.
I mean the general sense which is widely known and from whence the term “Reformation” which defines the era comes.Heresy, oath breaking, rape, and murder?
Oh, well, that was helpful. Thanks.
Alright, let’s try this again. You said, “Luther moved reform forward in a significant way.”
True reformations don’t move forward, reformations return to an original form. You seem to indicate that there is an ever evolving church with, presumably, ever evolving doctrine. The reformation was a two part affair, a conservative one that was followed by a radical one, which in some important respects was more of a revolt. The purpose of Martin Luther was to return to apostolic/scriptural doctrine and practice, rejecting the corruption that had entered into the church in late antiquity and the medieval era, but retaining that which was not corrupt (of which there was a great deal!). The ideals and principles of the radical reformation were quite different.
“Heresy, oath breaking, rape, and murder?”
Mirror, mirror on the wall, who’s the naivest one of all?
Or....
What makes Luther a better exegete than CynicalBear?
My point exactly. Being Biblical or Scriptural is in the eyes of the beholder.
So by my interpretation of scripture I pronounce you guilty of violating the following verse of scripture.
Galatians 1:8 “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”
Conservatives want to conserve traditional values...however, we can move forward in our goals.
You're splitting hairs.
Siena Dreaming wrote:
“You’re splitting hairs.”
No, I’m not splitting hairs. I think rather that you don’t know your history very well, or the theology of the conservative Reformation.
Also, what is this with “traditional values”? That is the language of politics and the social sciences, not of theology and the Scriptures. Finally, what are our “goals”? Who defines them? Again, this is the talk of politics.
Only used to illustrate a point, not to discuss politics.
A point which, it seems, you are unable to comprehend.
That’s not an answer to the question.
That’s a deflection.
Every Protestant is un-Biblical in my judgment, so I really don’t care what you think.
That's exactly what I would expect Satan to say too.
“A point which, it seems, you are unable to comprehend.”
Or, more probably, you to explicate.
And we all know Satan had bad judgement.
Bad AND evil.
Agreed, but in the context of this thread and the comparisons made bad is the characteristic that shines forth.
Not necessary to muddy the waters.
“Not necessary to muddy the waters.”
No, I guess not. You are, evidently, quite comfortable with the guiding principles of the Radical Reformation.
“Carlstadt, Zwingli, Calvin, the Reformed, and sectarian Protestants.”
And it’s VERY typical of conservative Lutherans to lump all other Protestants together as if they had single views, radically different than Luther—and Lutheranism.
Carlstadt: Wacky professor, from Wittenberg, closely associated with Luther originally—who went off the rails, radically, and ejected from Wittenberg—becoming associated with radical early pentacostals....
Zwingli: Swiss-German scholar, contemporary of Luther, who agreed with everything in Luther’s theology, except the Real Presence of Jesus in holy communion...he was a memorialist, who thought the Eucharist was only symbolic.
John Calvin: French, and 2nd generation of the Reformation—25 years younger than Luther or Zwingli. A serious scholar who came to the Protestant-evangelical faith early on (while in graduate school). Lived in Geneva the other side of Switzerland from Zwingli—after being called TWICE there to reform the place. Never met Zwingli—and, was not heavily influenced by him—had read Luther—and built upon Luther’s insights, especially sola gracia, and sola fide (by grace alone, through faith alone) and solus Christus (by Christ alone). Accepted the idea of Jesus’ Real Presence in the Eucharist—but, by the mode of the Holy Spirit. Definitely closer to Luther in his understanding of holy Communion than to Zwingli—according any scholar who’s looked at Calvin’s work in earnest (although Lutherans are taught he’s just like Zwingli). Became good friends—with a long correspondance—with Luther’s friend and designated successor, Philip Melanchthon. (Although Luther loved him, and saw Melanchthon as his right hand man—Lutherans, especially conservative ones, have always pretty well despised Melanchthon—probably because he was suspected of being a “crypto-Calvinist.” (the HORROR!!!))
“The Reformed”: Non-German/non-Scandinavian Protestants who followed the 2nd Generation Reformer John Calvin and his associates. Some had started with Zwingli or Luther, and moved to Calvin after Zwingli was killed by Catholics...and, Luther had totally rejected Zwingli and the Swiss Reformation (thereby splitting Protestantism) at large.
“Sectarian Protestants”: Also called the “Radical Reformation.” Groups and leaders more radical than Zwingli—Anabaptists, Baptists and others who rejected everything that came before...and were often seen as political traitors, to be despised and persecuted. Some early Anabaptists were violent cultists—who took over the German city of Muenster by force—proclaiming their leaders to be Messianic....and who were subsequently killed by both Protestant and Catholic rulers. Ex-monk Menno Simons came preaching pacifism (founder of the Mennonites) which allowed them to be tolerated...(especially as they fled to America in the 17th and 18th Century). No connection to Calvin or the Reformed—or even to Zwingli (he persecuted the Radicals—even as had the Lutherans and the Catholics).
Calvin’s principle for reform was to eliminate anything in Roman Catholicism that distracted persons from Jesus Christ. That’s a middle position between Luther—and the Radicals—that did NOT demand that everything from the past be abandoned.
The Reformed’s iconoclasm though, did mark a break—in that religious art, for the most part—was abandoned—and any images of Christ or God (or Mary or the Saints) were rejected and often destroyed. It was this iconoclastic impulse that most sharply contrasted with Lutheranism—not the rest of the Calvinists/Reformed’s theology.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.