With all the talk about how a divisive man should be avoided, I have begun to wonder what the Reformation would have been like without the Reformers – indeed if there would have even been a Reformation at all.

Clearly these men were “divisive”, after all they were eventually calling for dividing from the predominant representation of “Church” on the face of the planet.  If in our own day when men simply question the motivations, the character, & yes the theological conclusions of men, suddenly the personal papal bulls of “everyone avoid this man” comes spewing forth from all corners.

This kind of theological wimpiness would not have made the Reformation possible.  Instead, the would-be Reformers would have been cowering in corners at the slightest rebuke.  Could you imagine if they would have simply shut up the first time someone called them “divisive”, “mean-spirited”, or even worse (& as has been leveled lately) “attackers against God’s people”?

Have these people ever read anything about the Reformation & by the Reformers? (I think a lot of the criticism is coming from the “Church of Christ” CoC types which by nature of their denomination are anti-Reformed anyhow, so their knowledge of the Reformation is limited)

What the Reformers did was speak with holy passion backed up with solid biblical knowledge, but nowadays many people are speaking with self-righteous inflamed raw emotionalism that is stung at the slightest mention of their obvious motivation by ego & arrogance. (Since it seems those stung always have some vested interest at stake: a “ministry”, a “book audience”, a “conference audience”)