Quote:
Originally Posted by aron
You feign ignorance of my argument to avoid facing it. The LSM tries to legitimize its existence by presenting a Kiplingesque "Just So Story" of church history, conveniently omitting anything that doesn't line up with the narrative thrust of "recovery". I point out that there are more churches than the RCC and the Protestants, some of whom apparently believe in justification by faith.
Then you reply they're too insignificant to note. I point out one significant example, perhaps missed in medieval Germany but hardly so today, and you tell me to go join them.
The LSM version of church history is hardly worth teaching to grade schoolers, much less college graduates at their full time training centres. Its coherence necessitates the omission of the bulk of what actually has and does happen on the ground. Only then can this "Christianity" be a convenient foil for their "recovery".
|
Ok Aron, why don't you list these churches that you say believe in justification by faith. Maybe it is not Luther or Calvin who we should be thanking for sola fide and sola scriptura but these other groups.
But if you really know history as you pretend to, you would know that there is no clear line of development of the doctrines prior to Martin Luther. For that reason, the "LSM version of church history" is in many ways alignment with the evangelical Reformed understanding of church history, as it goes , apostles to Catholics, Reformers, and to today.
You pointed out the EOC, that is a no-brainer. Yet for some reason Luther did not choose to join the EOC, probably because they worship saints.
You have failed to mention that there are very good reasons why the EOC and other groups should not be included in the story of the recovery - the EOC worshipping saints is one reason. They needed reforming as much as the Catholics.