This is largely a straw man argument. Because it is filled with partial inaccuracies, it would take too long to go through each point. Surely those on the Reformation side can do better scholarship - I’ve seen better. Perhaps you could post something better to discuss?
Hmm, another thing we agree on.
I have to seriously question the motives and accuracy of someone that does not sign his/ her name to an article like this.
Further you start from a false premise and expect to end up with a true conclusion:The exegesis and interpretation of the bible was the one great means by which the war against Roman corruption was waged; which is almost the same thing as saying that the battle was basically a hermeneutical struggle. In light of these observations, one could say that the key event marking the beginning of the Reformation occurred, not in 1517, when Martin Luther nailed his theses to the church door in Wittenberg; but two years prior to that, when he rejected Origin's four-layered hermeneutic in favor of what he called the grammatical-historical sense. This one interpretive decision was the seed-idea from which would soon spring up all the fruits of the most massive recovery of doctrinal purity in the history of the Church.
Some have argued that Luther was more about eisegesis than exegesis.
Article summation: Every scripture verse in some way points to Christ. Veer from that perspective will lead one into err.
I'm puzzled and curious at why you believe that is an inaccurate statement.