He also said that he would love to sit down and have a meal (or a beer) with Luther, but Calvin did not seem to be the type of guy you wanted to visit with.
I would generally agree on both counts. I tend to be a little hard on Luther because I think that he is responsible for opening Pandora's Box of man-made religion (remember his any milkmaid comment?). Calvin on the other hand, was creepy and malignant by all accounts. I see him in a screenplay being portrayed by somebody like Alan Rickman or Christopher Walken, whereas Luther would be more like John Goodman or John Ratzenberger.
The big problem that set the Lutheran Reformation off was that neither side was really interested in what Luther was saying at times. The Pope didn't really care at first what some back woods Augustinian monk said from one of the Germanies, and the Elector Princes just saw a way to tell the Pope to get out of their hair. By the time the split happened, it was more political than theology.
Spot on.
Same with the horror that was the 30 years war. There was a Catholic poster here on FR that mentioned a Lutheran (Protestant) army sacking Rome. I was at first confused, for no army of the Protesting Estates made it that far south. We were both right. The army was a mercenary one under the Catholic king of Spain Charles V, who was fighting with the Pope over who would rule. In the end, most of the fighting over the 30 years was financed by Catholic powers arguing over the Imperial throne. Religion was a side issue.
Correct again.
Catholics and Lutherans have much shared theology. So much that while we are the “original” Protestants, using that term leads to much confusion on both sides.
Yes. I am impressed by WELS and the LCMS in terms of Christian orthodoxy.
Wagglebee is correct that we have much more in common than differences between traditional Anglicanism and orthodox Lutheranism.
Arrghhh.
I meant Luther to be played by George Wendt, not John Ratzenberger. Apologies to all, especially Luther...