Luther doesn't need to be "disproven" because he is not the source of truth to begin with. When deconstructing, an existing "leader" may point to an interesting topic, but their arguments are not load bearing. It's more important to find a new foundation and build up. Not just find a new person you find convincing.
What is important to have is a real tool to examine things. For me, it's "how does this compare to the Old Testament, New Testament, and Jesus' own words?"
Yes, but also, we need to figure out the role of church history as well. Luther has blind spots. The pope has his blind spots. But we do as well. Thus, there is value in reading those who shed light on our own blind spots. I don’t mean to suggest that there is no value to Luther. There is tremendous value, but that is precisely why we test him. You do not actually trust and value something that you secretly believe is fragile. Thanks for reading and commenting!
Luther doesn't need to be "disproven" because he is not the source of truth to begin with. When deconstructing, an existing "leader" may point to an interesting topic, but their arguments are not load bearing. It's more important to find a new foundation and build up. Not just find a new person you find convincing.
What is important to have is a real tool to examine things. For me, it's "how does this compare to the Old Testament, New Testament, and Jesus' own words?"
Yes, but also, we need to figure out the role of church history as well. Luther has blind spots. The pope has his blind spots. But we do as well. Thus, there is value in reading those who shed light on our own blind spots. I don’t mean to suggest that there is no value to Luther. There is tremendous value, but that is precisely why we test him. You do not actually trust and value something that you secretly believe is fragile. Thanks for reading and commenting!