"Lutherans" Why the name?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dronald
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
po18guy said:
This is utterly confusing to atheists.
Click to expand...
Perhaps but it does make sense historically. In the sixteenth century, the Protestant Reformers were coming at things from the viewpoint that the Roman Church had for years distorted the simplicity of the Gospel in various ways through its teachings and practices. In their view, the Reformation was aimed at once again allowing the Gospel to be preached and taught in its fullness. Therefore, the fact that they considered their reform program “evangelical” (i.e. “of the Gospel”) is not all that surprising.
 
ltwin said:
Perhaps but it does make sense historically. In the sixteenth century, the Protestant Reformers were coming at things from the viewpoint that the Roman Church had for years distorted the simplicity of the Gospel in various ways through its teachings and practices. In their view, the Reformation was aimed at once again allowing the Gospel to be preached and taught in its fullness. Therefore, the fact that they considered their reform program “evangelical” (i.e. “of the Gospel”) is not all that surprising.
Click to expand...
From a “re-inventionist” aspect, this makes sense. However, they were each self-appointed and simply wrong to discard so much of the core of Christianity that had been practiced from day one. The true “reformers” stayed in the Church, fought quietly and suffered profoundly. No Churches or theologies are named after them.
 
“What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.” - WS
 
House_Harkonnen said:
We are a continuation of it because we confess the creeds. All those extra developed doctrines are not mentioned in the creeds.
Click to expand...
But the creeds are also a development of the progression in understanding…🤷

So you are saying, the 7 sacraments, the authority of bishops…are not part of the sacred traditions of the Church?

So you then say…ditching some of the sacraments as practiced prior to the Reformation…would you call this a progression or a regression?
 
EvangelCatholic said:
Any thoughts why Lutherans did not do as Luther instructed and reject the Roman Catholic label? Early Lutherans did not want to leave the Church of Rome. This is where the Holy Roman Empire comes in, right?
Click to expand...
I do not think the Roman Empire was in existence at this point in history…???
 
po18guy said:
From a “re-inventionist” aspect, this makes sense. However, they were each self-appointed and simply wrong to discard so much of the core of Christianity that had been practiced from day one. The true “reformers” stayed in the Church, fought quietly and suffered profoundly. No Churches or theologies are named after them.
Click to expand...
👍:clapping::clapping::clapping::clapping:
 
pablope said:
I do not think the Roman Empire was in existence at this point in history…???
Click to expand...
Not the Roman Empire of antiquity.

The Holy Roman Empire, which was basically Germany and Austria. At the time of the Reformation, Germany was not a unified nation but a collection of small states each ruled by a sovereign (sometimes a king, most of the time by dukes, etc.). Technically, the most important German rulers elected one of their own to be the “Holy Roman Emperor.”

Austria was ruled by an archduke who was a member of the Habsburg dynasty. By the time of the Reformation, the Habsburg archduke was always elected to be Holy Roman Emperor.

Don’t be confused. The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. 😃

The political structure of the Empire was an important part of the story of the Reformation on the continent. Below is a map to give you the general idea.

http://cobalt.rocky.edu/~jordan.baker/map1.jpg
 
ltwin said:
Not the Roman Empire of antiquity.

The Holy Roman Empire, which was basically Germany and Austria. At the time of the Reformation, Germany was not a unified nation but a collection of small states each ruled by a sovereign (sometimes a king, most of the time by dukes, etc.). Technically, the most important German rulers elected one of their own to be the “Holy Roman Emperor.”

Austria was ruled by an archduke who was a member of the Habsburg dynasty. By the time of the Reformation, the Habsburg archduke was always elected to be Holy Roman Emperor.

Don’t be confused. The Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire. 😃

The political structure of the Empire was an important part of the story of the Reformation on the continent. Below is a map to give you the general idea.

http://cobalt.rocky.edu/~jordan.baker/map1.jpg
Click to expand...
I think this map gives an excellent perspective and visual to the real reason for the reformation.

(Not Luther’s initial goal, but the inevitable outcome )

POLITICS , LAND, POWER AND GOVERNMENT
 
Jon_S said:
I think this map gives an excellent perspective and visual to the real reason for the reformation.

(Not Luther’s initial goal, but the inevitable outcome )

POLITICS , LAND, POWER AND GOVERNMENT
Click to expand...
Well, that’s an oversimplification. There were real theological reasons for the Reformation. Church and state had been feeding off of each other for hundreds of years under the watchful eye of the Pope. Why would you think it would suddenly stop during the Reformation? 🤷
 
ltwin said:
Well, that’s an oversimplification. There were real theological reasons for the Reformation. Church and state had been feeding off of each other for hundreds of years under the watchful eye of the Pope. Why would you think it would suddenly stop during the Reformation? 🤷
Click to expand...
Frankly the way Protestants rail against church and state and how freeing the reformation was and how it was about the gospel not politics, etc etc ad nauseum. It is refreshing to have one putting up a map, showing quite the contrary.

Yes there were theological questions, but the momentum was carried for purposes of politics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top