| I mean no offense by posting here, but as a Catholic myself, I find it no suprise that Luther and Calvin reacted the way they did to the actions of the Church of their time.
Taking no issue with their...distinctive theology (I dont want to start a debate), the Catholic Church of their time was corrupt, necessitating the reforms of the Council of Trent (although I take extreme exception to the Council of Trent denying the Faithful posession of Holy Scripture)
Princes with no theological training or zeal for the Gospel were ordained Bishops of entire dioceses in Calvin's time. (such as the Bishop of Geneva, where Calvin taught). Men were BUYING the office of Bishop, clearly against the word of the Apostle in Holy Scripture.
1 Tim 3:1-7 KJV
This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.
A bishop (episkopos) then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)
Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.
Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.
The Church in the time of Luther was, essentially (according to my understanding), teaching a form of Pelagianism incompatible with orthodox Christian doctrine, (not to mention SELLING indulgences) necessitating the reforms of the Council of Trent. Plus, the extents to which Luther drove himself in penance, rejecting the advice of his confessors and inflicting on himself far more brutal methods, probably led to his later mental instability and off-the-rocker writing style.
Just my 0.02. I hope this doesn't tick anyone off too much....
God bless,
Ryan :ktongue: |