Quote:
Originally Posted by NeitherFirstnorLast
What was it Erasmus did to "effectively" oppose the Catholic church? He skewered it with satire, yes - but what was "effective" about his oppostion?
|
Nobody died from Erasmus' writings; contrast this to the mayhem that followed Luther. I call that effective. Remember that our standard is Christ. "Let everything be done decently and in order", said Paul, and I agree. I see more Christ in Erasmus' life and letters than in Luther's.
Quote:
How Does This Relate to Local Church Discussions?
1) If we really believe that Erasmus was an effective "opposer" or reformer of the Catholic church, then we all ought to return to the Catholic church ourselves, so that we can emulate his effective reform to effect more.
2) Taken to the next logical conclusion - if we really believe that effective opposition can be made from within a corrupt religious system, then we should never have left the LRC either. We could have accepted the status quo, perhaps anonymously "lambasted" a few higher up muckety-mucks, and otherwise let matters lie.
|
How Does This Relate to Local Church Discussions?
1) It is to ask a question, which I have not seen anyone answer yet, despite my repetitions: if it is okay for Luther to leave Catholicism, why not also for Nee to leave Luther's Protestantism? And why not for Dong Yu Lan (et al) to leave LSM's movement? All I ever see is the subjective "It was okay for Luther, and Nee, but not for Dong Yu Lan." In other words, I can do it but you can't. Why? Because.
2) The thread of Erasmus vs. Luther grew out of my point to
ZNP in "Was Lee a False Prophet" that history isn't so black-and-white as we wish. I grew up in Protestantism, hearing encomiums to the heroes of the faith, who happened to be Protestants. People like Erasmus, who just might have something to say to us about Jesus Christ, get ignored. History is messier, and more complicated. Jesus clearly has a white robe, but we should be hesitant to elevate or denigrate any others before we all reach the Judgment Seat.
I as a life-long Protestant have grown to prefer Erasmus over Luther, but that is a subjective preference because a) I am a liberal intellectual and b) the violence that followed Luther bothers my conscience. If it doesn't bother yours, that's fine. And ten years from now I might have much less esteem for Erasmus.
3)I dated Erasmus' "three parts of man" essay at 1501 to show that the history timelines provided by various restoration movements should be taken with skepticism. These groups give us bowdlerized versions of history which fit their self-interested narrative, and don't reflect actual events. The Resoration History usually runs thus: "Mankind dwelt in darkness, then God raised up (Watchman Nee, Ellen White, Mary Baker Eddy) to bring us the recovered truth in these last days". The LSM version of this has, for example, Luther "recovering" justification by faith in the 16th century, then Brethren Assemblies with their OT types, then Mary MacDonough recovering the three parts of man in 1922, then Nee recovering the ground of the church. My point was that Origen covered types and anti-types with arguably greater depth and sophistication than Govett and Panton ever did, and Erasmus wrote on the Paul's "three parts of man" four centuries before MacDonough did. And the book I cited was quite well-known in Europe in the first decades of the 16th century.