AgLiving06 said:
I think when you look back at the Reformation over time, I would say Kruger is right. But the "cause" was truly the first one (imo). Nobody argued for individualism and essentialism was a later heretical view of the anabaptist.
But truly what Luther was against was the manmade traditions of Rome that taught a false gospel and kept the faithful away from the Word of God.
That reform was necessary was never debated. Rome acknowledges that as well. But back then, as is today, the question is what interprets Scripture? Rome says the Pope. Luther said Scripture.
And that divide continues to exist today.
Actual Christ's Church interprets scripture. When Luther said scripture interprets itself, what that essentially meant is that it was open for interpretation for whoever read it because they no longer represented the teaching authority of the Church. Its also why many protestants do not agree with the interpretations Luther still held about scriptures teaching. There lies the problem. Scripture doesn't interpret itself. That's illogical. Either the Holy Spirit or man interprets it.
I don't disagree that the reformation brought reforms in the RCC, but 'man made' traditions that aren't in the bible, like the list of books to be in the bible and not listed, are actually the teachings that came from the Apostles.
