pushes the language of the reformers to me all the time. Apart from the ever-vaunted word" reform "to talk about the still would be, is always to" move "the speech of" breaking up ". The reformers are thinking only of the importance of" the encouragement Achens "," Start walking. "It is also the" breaking " perceived shackles summoned. Again and again, by "the rigid hierarchies," "decrepit structures," "paralyzing stasis," the speech, including that "perhaps the last chance to a departure from paralysis and resignation "playful and so will
The" reformers "see themselves in quite the succession of the Reformers of the 16th century., which now mainly as a" be interpreted liberators ", the concept of freedom is not critical-hermeneutic but purely verbal and is taken up completely naive. Because Luther wrote publications with titles like The Babylonian Captivity of the Church and The Freedom of a Christian man is automatically (and without reflection, and thus naive!) assumed that Luther meant by "imprisonment" and "freedom" is the same as Paul and as we do today. As there was no change in meaning just in abstract terms.
The dramatic rhetoric of "breaking up" but also contains a simple language component, which shows much more clearly where these reforms would - namely, to the same consequences as the Reformation of the 16th Century. a break , who is already contained in the selected term. To break with tradition. To break with Rome. " To break with the apostolic succession. To break with what the New Testament Church According. To Apostase and schism.
of theologians - that scholars in the arts - I would have expected 500 years after the Reformation more critical reflection.
0 comments:
Post a Comment