[I don't know if this was talked about before or not.]
As I was reading my lesson in the Humanities course I'm taking, I read a paragraph that made me think back to my wanna-be dub days. It was about Martin Luther and John Calvin....humanist vs. reformists.
The part that struck me was:
A second difference between the humanists and reformers begins with the humanist notion that can be detected by careful study of religious texts. Pico della Mirandola, for example, believed that the essential truth of Christianity could be detected in Talmudic, Platonic, Greek and Latin authors. He felt that a sort of universal religion could be constructed from a close application of humanist scholarship to all areas of religion. The reformers, on the other hand, held to a simple yet unshakable dictum: Scriptura sola (“the Bible alone”). While the reformers were ready to use humanist methods to investigate the sacred text, they were adamant in their conviction that only the Bible held God’s revelation to humanity.
As a result of the translation of the Bible into the vernacular language of millions of Northern Europeans, Reformation theologians were able to stress the scriptures as foundation of their teachings. Luther and Calvin further encouraged lay education, urging their followers to read the Bible themselves and find there- and only there- Christian truth. In interpreting what they read, individuals were to be guided by no official religious authority but were to make their own judgment following their own consciences. This doctrine is known as “universal priesthood,” because it denies a special authority to the clergy (or governing body).
Last parentheses statement mine.
So, based of the jw reasoning of "no other religion uses the Bible as the foundation for their teachings" (what I was told), how would this paragraph be answered, WITHOUT going off on a tangent about another subject?
Wouldn't this mean that Lutherans have the one true religion?