[OBW]

While the beginning may be similar, there is a difference between Rome and the "protected" state of Luther's new movement. At least from what I read in the snippets provided.

What eventually became the RCC began as something brought to power by the government (specifically Constantine). At that point, you can draw a parallel to Luther. Luther did not seek to become leader of a new nation/religion. Rather, the nation sought to remove the chains of the Roman nation which was ruled by the religion of the RCC. Luther did not direct any armies. But we see that the pope did at that time. References to Rome were not to a civil government, but to the RCC. And to the pope.

But Germany was never ruled by the Lutherans, no matter how linked you may say they were. As far as I can see, the head of the Lutheran church was never the leader of the civil authorities. I could be wrong, but I don't see it.

As for Erasmus' writings on the spirit, and the three parts of man, I find his comments about as foundational as wet sand. He said a lot. But I don't see anything that makes his thoughts more than a self-spun yarn.

And whether Lee should or should not have given credit to earlier writers for his teachings is really not the important point. The real point is whether it is supported by the scripture. The age of the teaching is really unimportant. Same for the original teacher. Sure, we may give more serious thought to things taught by certain ones, but if we simply take it because it was [whoever], and not someone else, then we are failing to diligently consider what they say against the record we find in scripture.