Quote:
We alone were "recovered" to the proper ground, a recovery which began with the Protestant Reformation. Many gifted men of God were instrumental in those days like Wycliffe, Tyndale, Huss, Luther, Farel, Calvin, Erasmus, Zwingli, etc.
Why did Nee and Lee choose Luther?
|
(Not challenging Ohio here. Just thinking out loud.)
I have been wondering whether the whole course of Christianity would have been different if Luther had allowed the then-normal course of discussion on issues to continue as it had. What if, rather than simply jumping ship when everything didn't go as wanted, the discussion had remained within the system that was at the time?
One answer is that changes would have been slower. But is that entirely bad or wrong? When we look at the little council in Jerusalem, was the decree that they came up with perfect? What if, rather than allowing for the ban on things strangled (is wringing a chicken's neck a form of strangling?) some of them had simply decided to part company with the rest and moved on because of it?
That is what Protestants have been doing for 500 years now. When the existing group within which someone finds themselves does not simply listen to "my" new thinking and change, "I" simply disassociate and start a new group.
Despite my current questions and thinking, I would not see that as a reason to simply return to the RCC (a historical return, not that I have ever been part of it). But maybe it gives us a reason to see the history of "recovery" in a different light. Maybe each of those persons in the list brought something that had been ignored to the table. But was the fact that they almost all tended to see those things as worthy of separating from others evidence that maybe the value of those things was not to the extreme that they made them out to be? Were any of them truly worth separating from others over?
I mean, what did Calvin really give us besides doctrines? Did the actual truth change? Did a lack of understanding things his way actually result in fewer Christians? Or just fewer that held to his doctrines? Are those that believe in Christ without having as typical Evangelical crisis event complete with a sinner's prayer unsaved? Are those who simply come to believe in Christ and follow deficient Christians? Are their simple prayers deficient because they are not full of grandiose clichéd quotes of scripture or sayings popular with "my" particular version of Christianity?
I realize that this is probably not directly about a deification doctrine. But at the same time, maybe having a more sober assessment of ourselves and our present groups would help us see such a "doctrine" as even more ridiculous than we already do. Maybe a more simple understanding of the Christian faith and life would put such a construct where it belongs — in the garbage heap.