Luther And Marsilius example essay topic

As it is mentioned in the overview, Marsilius felt that the pope had no authority over earthly matters. While such a claim may seem obvious to anyone living in the 20th Century, it was not so obvious during Marsilius time. The arguments set up to support his claim are both sound and grounded in religious text. He is correct when he claims that the concept of papal authority is neither self-evident nor comprehended through demonstration. Despite this claim, he still argues that the priestly part has a necessary function within the community. Here Marsilius is somewhat similar to Luther in his thinking.

But he is kind of scared of the existing situation and due to that reason he does not show off all his thinking to the public. His entire tract could then be branded as atheistic and thus ignored. The meat of Marsilius tract comes when he claims that society is form to make possible the living of the sufficient life for as many possible citizens. One entailed duty, therefore, is the settling of conflicts, thus bringing about peace. No real argument is given as to why this is so; it is merely assumed. Marsilius claims flat out that when people gather in numbers, disputes will arise.

Although Marsilius does not have a philosophical ground for such a claim, he does have solid anthropological evidence. It does seem true, and can be fairly assumed, that when people gather and form a society in any substantial number, disputes do arise. If no disputes ever arose, and it obviously seems impossible, while judging history, then the government would still be needed to distribute the wealth of the nation, as was discussed above. In order to judge the credibility of Marsilius tract one may look at the reaction of the Pope to it.

And this was totally negative. The reaction to The Defender of Peace was unambiguously negative. Therefore, it would seem that Marsilius was on to something. Yet even if this argument is dismissed as flat out stupid, the fact remains that Marsilius grounds his thoughts philosophically and in religious texts. Marsilius was radically progressive, and it is probably possible to say that he left the world in a better state than he found it. Concerning Luthers Bondage of the Will we may strike the following issues.

Free will was no academic question to Luther. The whole Gospel of the grace of God, he held, was bound up with it, and stood or fell according to the way one decided it. It is not the part of a true theologian, Luther holds, to be unconcerned, or to pretend to be unconcerned, when the Gospel is in danger. The doctrine of the Bondage of the Will in particular was the corner-stone of the Gospel and the foundation of faith (P 40-41). In particular, the denial of free will was to Luther the foundation of the Biblical doctrine of grace, and a hearty endorsement of that denial was the first step for anyone who would understand the Gospel and come to faith in God. The man who has not yet practically and experimentally learned the bondage of his will in sin has not yet comprehended any part of the Gospel (P 44-45).

Justification by faith only is a truth that needs interpretation. The principle of sola fide (by faith alone) is not rightly understood till it is seen as enclosed in the broader principle of sola gratis (by grace alone); for to rely on ones self for faith is not different in principle from relying on ones self for works (P 59). The Bible teaches that faith itself is and has to be, a gift of God, by grace, and not of self (Ephesians 2: 8). It is safe to deduce that for Luther, any evangelist who advocates free will has not only not yet comprehended any part of the Gospel, but also that he has not yet preached the Gospel at all; his is a counterfeit gospel. Luther was ordered to recant his teachings on threat of excommunication.

Luther thundered, Unless I am convinced by Scriptures and plain reason (for Luther, this meant logic), my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything! Martin Luther shattered the structure of the Medieval Church by demanding that the authority for doctrine and practice be the Scriptures rather than popes or councils, and ignited the famous Protestant Reformation. The Roman Catholic hierarchy could not refute his logic, so they attempted to have him killed.

But Frederic protected him. It has been said that more books have been written about Luther than about any other person except Jesus Christ. In this book, Luther utterly refutes Erasmus's Diatribe on Free Will, which was the key and significant controversy of the moment. We will not know until the Judgment seat of Christ just how many Christians, from that time to the present, have been edified, encouraged, and instructed in sound doctrine by this book. Luther did not think that all those who call themselves Christians were members of the body of Christ, and neither do we. You need to take note that the ongoing campaign to embrace everyone and every group as brethren, just because they favor the name of Christ, is a campaign against the Gospel of Christ.

And dont think for a minute that this campaign will stop with those who make some concession to the name of Christ. These two characters: Luther and Marsilius seem to me to be the people of the common origin. They were supporting similar ideas at different times, and with somewhat different accent. Luther was looking at the issue from more religious prospective, while Marsilius was closer to the everyday living issues that were in sense during their times. While Marsilius was giving more authority to the state government, Luther was stating that overall religious authority belongs to the individual personally.

His ideas made the Pope had to send him his Bull in 1521. Luther burned that thing, showing his disrespect in this case. He was encouraging the secular authority, and this was another step in revolting against Roman Church. M. Luther was considered heretic at that time. Europe was divided into two parts that were battling each other at that time. These were Teutonic Europe and Latin Europe. That entire struggle eventually brought some great changes to religious disciplines installed back than.

The core changes were: the Bible was the only authority, ecclesiology was decentralized, National independent churches arose, people gained freedom of priests. Luthers ideas started one of the four Protestant religious movements during the time- Lutherans. They were supporting the idea of Total Inability or Total Depravity as well as the idea of Unconditional Selection, that meant that Gods choice of certain individuals to salvation before the foundation of the world rested solely in his sovereign will. The idea of secular authority was investigated carefully by the two authors of the doctrines. And their thinking was pretty similar as well. But Luther was highlighting the issue as one of the core ones in his movement.

On the other hand Marsilius was more creative on the side of peoples rights. He did not want to discharge the existing rulers in a very open way, but still his ideas had become known and he suffered horrible punishment for that. I am concluding this essay with the idea that reformation period was a necessity of those ancient times. Both Luther and Marsilius played a great role in reformational activities. Each of them at his specific time frame and from particular vision of the issue.

From the conceptual standpoint we can state that those figures made great changes in Church history. Their views on secular authority were inevitably expressed and gave a strong push to revolutionary changes in the Catholic Church regime. It gave people more spread vision of facts and therefore more freedom to develop their plans.