Throughout the past two lectures, our class has attempted to define what it means to be a Christian according to Martin Luther. After reading Luther's short essay entitled, "On Christian Liberty," I finally realized why Catholics and Protestants differ in beliefs in so many different areas. Don't get me wrong, I knew that Martin Luther was responsible for the Protestant Reformation, and from the reformation came many different religions with their own creeds. I always just left it at that, with no research as to how or why Protestants believe what they believe, and I realize now that that was very close minded of me. However, after reading this essay, there are several issues and topics in which I disagree with Martin Luther. For instance, Luther believes that if you have faith, you will do good work. I believe it is possible to have faith without doing good work. First we must define "good work." If a monk has taken on an oath of silence, and he is left in complete solitude to pray for the duration of his life, is that considered "good work?" To me, I interpret Luther's definition "good work" as outward and public signs of good will, such as community service, or collecting money for the poor. I believe that Luther made a hasty generalization here. I believe that part of having faith is having the outward desire to do good works, but the two don't go hand in hand. Just because you have faith doesn't mean you will automatically begin performing good works, but you should have the inclination to because it is the Christian example. When thinking about this conundrum, I found myself asking myself what the true message of the Bible is. In the Hebrew Bible the message strongly suggests that faith in God will lead you to success. When looking at many of the characters of the Old Testament, are they really remembered as doing good work? King David definitely had faith in God, yet he is remembered for having committed adultery with Bathsheba. The message of the New Testament deals a great deal with redemption and forgiveness, which would imply that one has sinned to begin with. I understand that Luther never said that if you have faith you won't do bad work, but I feel as if it is implied.
My second major problem that I had with Luther's writing is that he treats all sins equally. Is stealing a candy bar from a convenience store the same as robbing a bank at gunpoint? Obviously not because there are different levels of sin. There is a difference between murder and gossip, and it is the very difference between venial and mortal sins. According to the Catholic belief, having faith isn't enough. Just because someone is "saved" doesn't mean they are given a free pass to paradise. In my own personal opinion, the quest to gain entrance into heaven is lifelong. Don't be mistaken, faith is a very big part of any Christian's life, but the attempts that one makes to try and live a moral life is just as important. It is impossible to judge the content of another's soul. That is why I think it is impossible to determine who is saved and who isn't, and who who is going to heaven, and who isn't.
With that being said, I completely understand where Luther was coming from when he posted his ninety-five theses. The Catholic Church was becoming incredibly corrupt, and the selling of indulgences is an immoral act far beyond what can be forgiven. As Luther says in this essay, "It does not help the soul if the body is adorned with sacred robes of priests or dwells in sacred places or is occupied with sacred duties or prays, fasts, abstains from certain foods... Such works produce nothing but hypocrites. (pg.4-5)." I believe in this statement. I believe that power corrupts, and the best way live a moral life and have faith is to humble yourself. Part of being a Christian is acknowledging that you have sinned. This acknowledgement of fault is a step in the process to becoming a better Christian, as well as becoming a better person. . I apologize in advance if this comes across as preachy, but when commenting upon an essay like this, it is very difficult to remain objective.
For the most part, I agree with this post. I believe that one can be a Christian without outwardly doing good works, but with an inward inclination to do so. Some people, such as the monk that you mentioned in the post, have special circumstances which confine them to solely an inward commitment to God. However, I slightly disagree with your statement that there are different levels of sin. I believe that the severities of sins can differ, but I believe that these differences come from human perception. How can we, as mere humans define what God, fully divine and impossible for us to understand, sees in our sins? He did not present the Ten Commandments with the idea that some commandments are more important than others. The moment that we try to interpret how God judges our sins is when we enter into error.
ReplyDelete