/lit/ - Literature

>>22683798
Pic related is quite good.

Also, "ad fontes," was the slogan of humanists within the Catholic Church generations before the Reformation began. The greatest embodiment of that sort of humanism was Erasmus, who stayed loyal to the Roman Church. It's a mistake to blend humanism with Protestantism, the "new learning," with the Renaissance. They are different but related phenomena.

Second, Luther is a terrible example of "to the sources." His Bible translation adds words where he needs them for his doctrines or removed passages that would seem to contradict sola fide. He was extremely comfortable with editing the Bible to suit his needs because he increasingly saw himself as a prophet (as others did). Luther himself considered booting our James and Revelations, and his letters show a sort of "canon within the canon," based on which books best support "the core teaching," (according to Luther anyhow). Luther is more the turn towards self motivated pietism and emotional religion. He was fond of paradox in a way the Origen-inspired, noetic humanists like Erasmus couldn't concious.

IMO, Luther has some good points, but the response to the Peasants War and subordination of the church to the princes was a huge misstep for Protestantism.

As for conquering the world, there are 2.4 billion Christians in the world, but 8 billion people. 1.4 billion of those are Roman Catholics. Another 260 million are Eastern Orthodox. There are another 60 million Oriental Christians and 30 million Coptics. Protestantism remains a minority in most of the world, and is the main faith in the places where religion is declining the fastest (Northern Europe and the USA, although Catholic is now a plurality in the US). But "Protestant," is as wide and so useless a label as "Gnostic." What has a Jehovah's Witness, a Mormon, an Anglican, a Unitarian, the Amish, and a Baptist in common that unites them vis-á-vis the rest of Christianity?