I simply forgot you were orthodox. I would have known the difference.
I readily admit I know far less about the Orthodox than I do Catholics. That's why I'm asking questions.
Luther's theology changed because of what he saw in Scripture. Luther had no desire initially to break with the church, but the more resistance he met, the more he realized that the break was inevitable. He was also a typical German male of the time and could come off rather brute. Nevertheless, when you go to present your case and have to been hidden away less the church people kill you, chances are, it is time to split from that church.
Luther's theology changed when translating Paul. He realized what the Bible actually said about grace. He also had a nasty trip to Rome where he found brothels just for the churchmen. Please don't believe that church corruption wasn't a large part of what caused him to leave.
His desire was to reform. They wouldn't reform. It would take Loyola later on to address some of these issues. But Rome in 1500 was apostate.
No problem. Maybe my tagline should be in capitals, although Kosta is a Greek name...(from Constantine). :)
I readily admit I know far less about the Orthodox than I do Catholics. That's why I'm asking questions
Fair enough. I appreciate you taking the time to explain the Protestant side, or at least one of its varieties.
Luther's theology changed because of what he saw in Scripture
If it hand't been for +Paul, I guess he would have embraced Islam. He was searching for justification of his impulsive nature, a tailor-made religion for men to be 'comfortable' with: free of guilt, sin, unscertainty or, for that matter, obligation to God, since the Good God paid the bill, so to say.
And, you are right, he and all the Protestants in the world, find that no-strings-attached religion in +Paul. Unfortunately, +Paul is not the Scripture, but part of the Scripture.
Integrating +Paul into the rest of the Apostles doesn't yield as clear and balanced picture as just sticking to +Paul. Yet, the Scripture to be interpreted properly must be integrated and reconciled as one unit.
Looking at Protestant, particuarly Calvinist-leaning Protestant postings, it's almost exclusively +Paul they quote. That is a red flag, my friend, for +Paul is not Christianity, +Paul is an inalianble part of the whole Christian doctrine — not the doctrine itself.
And what's not +Paul is +Augustine, carefully selected passages and statements at least, conveniently ingoring the fact that no matter what he wrote, he always deferred to the Church.
But Rome in 1500 was apostate
Rome in 1500 was not apostate. What Rome taught was the same theology (save for few innovations after 1054) it taught all along, the Apostolic Faith passed on, unchanged for 1,500 years.
But Rome's clergy were manipulating people with indulgences in order to raise money, living in sin, etc. but that does not make them apostate. Luther was an apostate!
The Roman clergy just didn't practice what they preached (we should all be familiar with that!). They believed what they preached, but they also loved what they saw. Luther did not change that. Protestants are not free from the same hypocricy of all mankind.
But what he did do is change the Apostolic Faith into something that allowed him to be rude and lustful and not feel guilty over it or feel the need to reform himself! He blamed Rome for excesses, and yet was not free from them! Rather he sought and found an excuse for them. Diabolical indeed.
It's easier to throw everything into God's hands and say "keep me free of sin, I hate my sin" then to actually have to do something about it, like resist, humble onself and repent. Cozy. A religion any man can handle and still be a "man," imo.