tinythinker wrote:That' why I suggested that I am in favor of what contemporary authors have described as an aspect of Luther's proposal yet criticized other elements from what Luther wrote. What I wrote about may in fact not be rhetorically and historically connected to Luther's own vision.met wrote:hmmm . . . in some ways, what he says integrates Paul's, Michahs, the writer of Hebrews, and the Psalms passages quite well. Seems like a Biblicly-defensible view. To me.
TT, hmm, nice counterarticle on your blog. There's definetly something compelling in Luther's Theologia Crucia to be sure and those comments get closer to it. But Luther's vision has problems of its own too .. .
(I'll now post something from one of my favorite religion-online articles ever, for like the umpteenth time . .. )
http://www.religion-online.org/showarti ... title=1678
The Christian Century published a W. H. Auden sonnet called "Luther." Its last four lines focused on the central problem which haunts celebrators of Martin Luther on his 500th birthday:
"All Works and all Societies are bad;
The Just shall live by Faith," he cried in dread.
And men and women of the world were glad
Who never trembled in their useful lives.
Yeah, it may not be.
Luther's somewhat out-of-fash in some circles nowadays, like the 'New Perspective' Prot scholars who say he got Romans.... well, basically all wrong. His reading of it they say is eisogetical, reads the 15th sitch between the RCC and himself into the ancient texts. But lots of people have found something in Luther compelling. I remember that Dietrich Bonhoeffer, for one, remained a big fan of Luther's, even at the end whne he found himself in a Gestapo holding-centre. . .
