Feel free to disagree with them, but stop ranting like that. Using derogatives does not exactly make you look all that intelligent, and it does not do anything for the point you want to make (other than maybe causing intelligent people to ignore you.)
Listen my friends, I’m really sorry if my comments sounded a little harsh, and I hope you’ll forgive me. But calling the reformers ignoramuses (theologically) is not ranting, nor is it derogatory –
if it actually happens to be true. And I believe it is true.
I mean, how else describe those who, for example, taught that the gospel had been “lost” for centuries, only to have been “rediscovered” by themselves?!! Such a statement is absurd on the face of it! And quite frankly, I don’t know how else to describe such a statement other than to say that it really is the
clear mark of an ignoramus! It’s on the level of comments by another well known ignoramus –
Joseph Smith!
Honestly, I don’t see how any thinking person with even a
modicum of Scriptural and historical knowledge could buy into such nonsense.
As for ranting, well, what do you call one who speaks of *burning *Franciscan monks for heaven’s sake??!!
“If I had all the Franciscan monks together in one house, I would set the house on fire. For the kernel is gone from the monks, only the chaff is still at hand. So into the fire with them!”
Isn’t it rather
Luther who’s doing the ranting here? And how does this make
him look intelligent? And there are countless other instances of this kind violent talk sprinkled throughout his writings.
I don’t know about Calvin, I honestly can’t remember, but Luther was a Doctor in Theology at the University at Wittenberg. Therefore, the RC church didn’t seem to agree with you in your assesment that he was a “theological ignoramus”. And at no part of the…mayhem that ensued was Luthers status as a skilled theologian thrown into doubt. He was considered a heretic, yes, but not a “theological ignoramus”.
That Luther may have been some sort of “Doctor” is completely beside the point. Many heretics started out educated enough, and orthodox enough, but then, sadly, for various reasons, fell away from the truth. Simply having a doctorate therefore is hardly a guarantee of orthodoxy. Nor is high intelligence!
The tragedy is that many (perhaps most?) heretics have been
well educated individuals with ample intellectual abilities, just as Augustine tells us:
“A sharp mind is a great good, but still the sort that the good can use well and the bad badly; it’s not yet a good by which you can become good. All the perversities of all errors, all sects, preaching deviant morals and ungodliness, have had as their authors* men of great brilliance*. They weren’t the brain-children of any sort of men, they were started by
men of the sharpest intelligence.”
Sermon 374:5:2,
Part III - Sermons. Volume 11: Newly Discovered Sermons, ISBN 1565481038, pp. 394-395.
books.google.com/books?id=6TswAAAAYAAJ&q=%22had+as+their+authors+men+of+great+brilliance%22&dq=%22had+as+their+authors+men+of+great+brilliance%22&lr=&pgis=1
So even if we grant the reformers were reasonably well educated and perhaps even highly intelligent, their pride and
sensuality led them, in theological matters, to
become ignoramuses (“Professing themselves to be wise, they *became *fools.” Rom. 1:22). Again, to cite but one proof of this, they held to this inane notion that the gospel had been “lost” for centuries!
Hmmmmm…does that behavior remind you of another organization?
And you are implying that there is some analog between the
wanton murder of priests, and the rape and murder of nuns by bands of Calvinist’s and Lutherans, and the Church’s defense against these same unspeakable fiends?
Your continued use of the discredited (even by Catholics) Denifle, and Table Talk, which as you know is not a verifiable source, makes it appear that all you wish to do is spread division and hostility. Even if everything you say were true, and were - perish the thought
- displayed in the context of the time, it does not elevate dialogue or foster Christian charity and love. I’d like to think that this fact had, somehow, escaped you when you posted.
Jon
No, Denifle has not been “discredited;” if anything, it is the
reformers who have been discredited. But granted, some things in Denifle may need more qualification, and certainly his tone was pretty harsh at times, nevertheless, there are still many things which he brought to light which are as true and valid now as they were when his book first appeared.
As for Luther’s *Table Talk *not being a reliable source, well, perhaps it’s true that there may be some passages which are questionable, but the passage I cited above is perfectly in keeping with many the many other violent statements of Luther towards Catholics.
Perhaps you should read the editor’s introduction to Luther’s Table Talk (vol. 54, Luther’s Works). You’ll see that there’s nothing in it anywhere which suggests that the Table Talk has been discredited.
studylutherstabletalk.blogspot.com/
Finally, I have absolutely no desire to “spread division and hostility.” My only desire is for the
truth to be made known.
Peace now, and may God bless.
