Brian :
I am not aware of anything said pertaining to Luther except my inclusion of him into that list of gift ministers. Although, in this reply I will make known where I stand about him.
Where is your definiton of "literalism" except in the example of Origen and his scriptural interpretations ?
If the example of Origen is your definition then the meaning is quite clear.
Origen had an intense desire for young girls which caused him to take what Jesus said about offending body parts literally. He castrated himself believing this would solve his problem. Of course, the only thing this accomplished was to disable his ability to perform, thus leaving him with the same desires but no avenue of release.
Jesus meant what He said about removing offending body parts that will take the whole body to hell. But faced with the horror of performing surgery on oneself, Jesus was intending to make one see the need for the power of the gospel as the only other alternative to plucking out your eye, castration, etc. etc.
As you know, Luther is a giant - the Father of the Reformation. I urge caution IF you intend to lump him with a nut case like Origen.
Personally, I equate literalists to be the worst element of fundementalism, and fundementalism is the worst element in any given good. Fundementalism is also generic representation of the established religious community in any era. It was the Pharisees in Christ's time, the religious right of our time, and the Catholic Church of Luther's time.
Compared to the handling of God's written word by the Roman Catholic Church, Luther was indeed a literalist. God used Luther to PROTEST the voiding of His word by the status quo. Luther simply rediscovered that which was already there and he demanded that the clerical stranglehold upon the "Holy Literary" be released by the Church.
"Origenic literalists" love the book of James. Luther referred to James as an epistle "made of straw....not one word of gospel in it"
Evangelion and charisma (grace) do not appear in the epistle of James.
I conclude Luther is not a literalist in the sense I believe you are intending.
The reportive meaning of "literalist" today has inescapable connection to something Luther clearly was not.
Your topic title associating literalism to gimmick is an insult - I love it. If anything you are too soft. I also think it would benefit understanding if you were to simply stipulate a specific defintion to literalism.
I agree with your observation that literal reading of the Bible has reached new heights in the 20th and 21st centuries. Please expose these heights and pillage their motives.
Then you comment about persons who do their best to embrace Jesus but cannot believe flood stories, 1000 year life spans, etc. etc.
I couldn't agree more with the spirit and intent of your point here.
N.T. personages only believed that God was in Christ. Trinitarian gobbilygook emerged 400 years later.
Brian, as to the posted forth-coming paper excerpts, I find what you write extremely objective and exciting. If rank and file christianity knew half of what you know we would change the world in ten years.
To connect the Reformation to the Renaissance is absolutely accurate as revisionist scholars continually seek to disengage the two.
Let me end by asking you to further clarify your position concerning Luther as is related to the message of your topic. And please respond to my plea for literalism meaning and my placement of fundementalists as literalists.
™ Version 4.2
