I somehow managed to inadvertently get myself into a debate I’m not equipped to, well, debate.
My “antagonist” brought up how the Church considers Martin Luther a heretic, and I more or less said yes, that is the case.I blathered something about sola fide and sola scriptura, which he seemed to ignore, then he came back with this:
"Luther was against the practices of the Catholic Church of this time like the selling of indulgences just to finance the building of a St.Peter Dome in Rome, plus the general decadence of the Pope …] Luther demanded the Church to get back to the teachings of Catholicism. Furthermore he translated the Bible into German so that everyone could read it, could read what the Church preached [which]*at that time was hollow and heretic. He even went farther, called them harbingers of the Devil to come, when he had to defend his faith at the Diet of Worms he refused to step back from his beliefs, knowing what happened to Jan Hus. When people later started to raid churches of icons he scolded them, he didn’t want to split up the church and he also scolded at the free riders of his times, like Zwingli whom he very *[much] disagreed with. Later when one former close friend, Thomas Müntzer, called for an uprising of the peasantry to fight the battle of the Judgement Day (he interpreted it as Rich vs. Poor) then Luther even encouraged the nobility to strike hard because he saw the order as God-given. In fact Luther didn’t want to split up the Church, just to get it back to the teachings of the Bible and to fulfil their supposed role. Mind you, he was a monk, not some lord or cardinal."
“He neither welcomed the raids, neither welcomed the uprising, neither welcomed the split, he didn’t lead anything like a rebellion, he was a monk.”
Help! I just don’t know where to start.