PELAJAR Alkitab (PA)

Hanya oleh karena iman

( Roma 3 : 21 – 26 )

01.   Konteks :

Sejak manusia jatuh dalam dosa (Kej. 3:6) maka pada saat itu juga murka Allah dimulai (Kej. 2:17). Allah yang maha adil dan benar akan melakukan apa yang difirmankan-Nya bahwa manusia harus mati (Rom 6:23a). Mati disini bukanlah mati secara fisik namun mati secara rohani (Ef. 2:1 ; Kol. 2:13). Namun Allah juga maha kasih, ia menjanjikan seorang Juruselamat sejak dari awal peradaban manusia (3:15).

Janji ini terus dinanti manusia. Allah juga tak lupa untuk selalu mengingatkan manusia tentang janji-Nya akan keselamatan manusia itu sendiri (Kej. 12:3 ; 17:19 ; Bil. 24:17 ; Yes. 9:6 ; 53:5 ; Dan. 8:15 ; Zak. 53:11 ; Mal. 3:1). Perwujudan janji ini terus dinanti sampai masa Paulus melayani.

Namun pemahaman ini mengalami pergeseran dikalangan Yahudi (manusia). Mereka mengira bahwa keselamatan hanya berlaku bagi sebagian manusia yaitu sebagian dari keturunan Abraham yaitu orang Yahudi. Tidak hanya itu, mereka juga memahami bahwa oleh perbuatan mereka yang berdasarkan ketaatan akan hukum Taurat (termasuk sunat), membawa mereka kepada pembenaran Allah dimana mereka akan selamat dari murka Allah. tidak sampai disitu saja, ternyata itupun tidak mereka lakukan dengan benar, mereka cenderung munafik bahkan karena kemunafikan mereka “nama Allah dihujat oleh bangsa-bangsa lain” (Rom. 2:17-29).

02.   Ide utama     :   Pemahaman bahwa dalam Kristus, kita dimenangkan dan dibenarkan.

03.   Penjelasan ayat     :

·              Ayat 21

Dalam ayat ini Paulus menekankan bahwa kebenaran Allah telah dinyatakan tanpa melalui hukum Taurat. Maksudnya adalah manusia dibenarkan bukan karena melakukan hukum Taurat. Pemahaman Yahudi bahwa manusia dapat terhindar dari murka Allah dengan usaha mereka sendiri ditolak oleh Paulus (Gal. 2:16). Hukum Taurat hanya sebagai alat untuk orang mengenal dosa (Rom. 3:20), untuk menjadi patokan atau hukum, karena jika tidak ada hukum, maka tidak ada pelanggaran (Rom. 4:15). Bahkan hukum Taurat ditambahkan supaya pelanggaran semakin banyak, semakin banyak dosa maka semakin melimpahlah kasih karunia (Rom. 5:20). Selain Taurat untuk menuntut kita, Taurat juga sebagai penuntun kita. Yang menuntun manusia dalam aturan hidup sampai Kristus datang (Gal. 3:24). Inilah yang menjadi kesaksian dari kitab Taurat (Kejadian sampai Ulangan) dan kitab para nabi yang telah dinyatakan pada zaman Paulus.

·              Ayat 22

Kebenaran Allah atau benar yang sesuai dengan standar Allah adalah jika memiliki iman dalam Yesus Kristus (Rom. 5:1). Hanya keyakinan bahwa Yesus adalah Tuhan (Yoh 10:30 ; 13:13 ; Fil. 2:10-11 ; Kol. 1:16) yang menebus dosa manusia (Ibr. 9:15 ; Yes 53:5), menggantikan kita dalam kematian dan kebangkitan-Nya (Rom. 6:5 ; Kol. 2:12), yang diterima Allah sebagai pembenaran atas kita (2 Kor. 5:21). Tanpa iman tidak mungkin ada orang yang berkenan dihadapan Allah (Ibr. 11:6a) dan segala sesuatu yang tidak berdasarkan iman adalah dosa bagi Allah (Roma 14:23b).

Pembenaran dan menjadikan kita selamat, juga diberikan Allah untuk seluruh umat manusia (Kej. 12:4). Bukan seperti yang dipahami dan diajarkan orang Yahudi saat itu bahwa keselamatan hanya berlaku untuk orang Yahudi saja yang memiliki garis keturunan langsung dengan Abraham (Kej. 12:2). Karena bagi Allah tidak ada perbedaan hak untuk diselamatkan antara manusia satu dengan yang lain, baik itu orang Yahudi ataupun bangsa lain (Yoh 3;16).

·              Ayat 23

Kenapa tidak dibedakan? Paulus menjawab, karena semua manusia sudah jatuh dalam dosa. Semua sudah tercela, hina dan menjijikkan bagi Allah (Maz. 14:1-3 ; 53:2-4). Paulus menjelaskan lagi bahwa manusia telah kehilangan kemuliaan Allah. manusia yang diciptakan menurut gambar dan rupa Allah (Kej. 26) telah rusak (Kej. 5:3). Yang artinya kita pernah memiliki kemuliaan Allah dan hanya yang memiliki sifat semulia Allahlah yang berhak bersama-Nya. Jadi karena semua manusia sama saja dimata Allah (tidak ada yang benar), maka tidak ada yang spesial atau dikhususkan oleh Allah. Sekali lagi, sama saja semuanya bagi Allah, tidak ada yang benar.

·              Ayat 24

kita menjadi benar karena Allah yang membenarkan, bukan usaha kita, itu adalah pemberian dari Allah (Ef. 2:8). Pembenaran kita (kita menjadi benar) itu terjadi jika kita beriman dalam Kristus Yesus Tuhan kita. Hanya iman saja yang membuat kita menjadi benar, namun dalam berimanpun, kita juga tidak bisa mengandalkan kemampuan pemikiran, hati dan kebijaksanaan kita untuk beriman. Untuk berimanpun kita butuh Tuhan, yaitu Roh Kudus yang memberi penginsyafan dan pengertian kepada kita untuk mengenal Yesus dalam kasih, kuasa dan karya penebusan-Nya (Yoh. 8-15). Itulah yang dimaksud Paulus diberi dengan cuma-Cuma (gratis). Tanpa alasan yang membuat kita layak untuk ditolong, atau alasan dari diri kita yang membuat Allah harus menolong. Allah tidak butuh alasan untuk menolong, dan bukan karena “sesuatu” dari diri kita yang membuat Allah menolong. Itu murni insiatif Allah. Itulah kasih karunia Allah.

·              Ayat 25

Yesus telah ditetapkan oleh Allah menjadi jalan pendamaian antara kita dengan Allah. Ketika Adam, manusia pertama jatuh ke dalam dosa maka seluruh manusia yang diwakili oleh Adam telah jatuh pula di dalam dosa (Rom 5:12) dan menjadi hamba dosa (Yoh 8:34b).  Oleh sebab itu, hanya melalui Yesuslah wakil kita dalam menebus dosa manusia. Ia menjadi manusia yang sama dengan kita, turut merasakan kelemahan-kelemahan kita bahkan Ia juga dicobai hanya tidak berbuat dosa / tanpa dosa (Yoh 8:46a ; Ibr. 4:15). Allah telah menetapkan Yesus sebagai ganti kita dalam menerima murka Allah (Mat. 26:39). Karena sama seperti semua orang mati dalam persekutuan dengan Adam, demikian pula semua orang akan dihidupkan kembali dalam persekutuan dengan Kristus (1Kor. 15:22).

Kasih karunia Allah yang membuat manusia selamat, dan hal itu hanya dapat diterima oleh iman dalam darah Yesus. Hal ini tentu merujuk bagaimana Yesus sebagai anak domba yang darahnya harus dipercik sebagai penghapus dosa (Im. 5:9 ; Yoh. 1:29b). Kita telah dibeli dan harganya telah lunas dibayar melalui darah Kristus (1 Kor. 6:20) sehingga kita pasti lepas dari murka Allah (Rom. 5:9 ; 1 Tes. 1:10d).

Penghukuman atas manusia harus diterima sebagai wujud keadilan Allah. Setiap orang berdosa harus dihukum dalam kebinasaan / masuk neraka (Wah 11:14 ; 20:10 ; 21:8), sekalipun ia hanya melakukan satu dosa selama hidupnya. Sebab jika ia menuruti (melakukan) seluruh hukum namun mengabaikan 1 bagian saja, ia bersalah terhadap seluruh hukum (Yak. 2:10).

Allah telah bersabar terhadap dosa manusia sejak Adam jatuh dalam dosa. Ia bersabar ketika Ia menjanjikan kedatangan Juruselamat manusia  kepada Iblis (Kej. 3:15) sampai waktu yang telah ditentukannya terjadi, dan Paulus mengatakan waktu itu telah dinyatakan.

·              Ayat 26

Paulus mempertegas kembali bahwa Allah melakukan semua itu untuk menyatakan keadilannya. Menyatakan murka-Nya terhadap dosa sebagai bentuk keadilannya. Ia benar-benar menyatakan janjinya akan kedatangan Juruselamat dimana orang yang percaya kepada Kristus menjadi dibenarkan. Ia telah menepati janjinya kepada manusia. Yang menjadi pertanyaan, apakah kita telah memiliki iman percaya itu, sehingga kita termasuk dalam golongan orang percaya yang dibenarkan atas segala dosa kita, sehingga kita memperoleh keselamatan dan masuk ke dalam Surga ?

04.   Teologi biblikal     :

a.       Selamat bukan karena perbuatan, hukum Taurat dan sunat (21a).

b.       Berita keselamatan hanya yang diajarkan Kitab Suci (Alkitab) (21b)

c.       Selamat oleh karena iman (22a).

d.       Selamat bagi semua manusia, yang percaya (22b).

e.       Semua manusia setelah Adam telah berdosa tanpa terkecuali (23).

f.         Keselamatan adalah anugerah semata (24a).

g.       Keselamatan hanya dilakukan oleh Kristus Yesus (24b-25a).

05.   Aplikasi dan renungan  :

a.       Kadang kita juga seperti orang Yahudi pada masa Paulus hidup. Kita sering terjebak dalam rutinitas kerohanian. Kita merasa hidup benar dengan kita rajin beribadah, rajin berdoa, ikut dalam pelayanan dan kegiatan kerohanian, hidup menurut moral yang benar, rajin menolong sesama dll yang membuat kita berpikir kita layak menerima keselamatan dari Tuhan. Jika itu yang selama ini kita yakini, maka kita sama saja dengan orang Yahudi yang hidup pada saat itu.

Kita harus lebih dahulu percaya dan beriman kepada Kristus dengan cara meminta Roh Kudus untuk menuntun kita kepada pengertian dan pengenalan Yesus sebagai Tuhan dan Juruselamat kita. Menginsyafkan kita dari segala dosa kita dan dimampukan untuk melaukukan apa yang menjadi kehendak Tuhan. Jika kita memiliki iman, kita pasti selamat. Jangan ragu akan keselamatan kita !!! karena kalau kita percaya bahwa Yesus telah menebus segala dosa kita, apa lagi alasannya untuk kita tidak percaya bahwa kita sudah selamat ??? 

b.       Kita tahu persis maut dapat menjemput kapan saja. Ketika saat yang tidak kita ketahui itu terjadi, apakah kita telah memenuhi syarat untuk menerima keselamatan itu? Pada saat itu, tidak ada jawaban saya belum siap atau saya tidak tahu. Tidak bisa juga kita jawab dengan “saya kira...”. Allah tidak mau tahu alasannya. Yang Allah “mau tahu” adalah jawaban kita atas pertanyaan Allah... “Apakah engkau percaya kepada-Ku (Yesus) dengan sungguh-sungguh sebagai Tuhan dan Juruselamat yang menebus segala dosa-dosamu?

c.       Jangan main-main dengan keselamatan, jangan anggap enteng, jangan tunggu besok. trimalah Yesus Kristus sebagai Tuhan dan Juruselamatmu sekarang !!! MAKA Pada saat ini juga engkau sudah selamat.

~ ~ Swardy Friedrich Silalahi ~ ~

06.   Bahan diskusi  :

a.   Jika kita telah selamat, apa perlunya lagi perbuatan baik dilakukan ?

b.   Apakah setelah selamat berarti manusia tidak berbuat dosa lagi ?

c.   Bagaimana orang yang tidak pernah mendengar Injil, apakah dia selamat? Jika tidak, apakah itu adil?

d.   Jika kita sudah selamat, apakah kita bisa menjadi tidak selamat ??? contohnya : murtad.

CHARLES V

Charles V

The establishment of independent Lutheran churches in Germany was only made possible by the political structure of the empire. Had Germany not been fragmented and had the emperor enjoyed the same control over his empire as did the kings of France and England, it would have been impossible for the princes to establish territorial churches.

Yet Charles V, in theory, appeared to be in a position where, despite the nature of the empire, he could enforce Catholic uniformity on the princes. He exercised greater power than any of his medieval predecessors had done. Through a series of astute marriage alliances the Habsburg family had emerged, by the 16th century, as the foremost dynasty in Europe. As a result, Charles ruled not only the Habsburg territories in Austria, but also the kingdom of Spain and the Spanish possessions in the New World. He was ruler of the kingdom of the Two Sicilies, and, as duke of Burgundy, he was the ruler of the Netherlands.

With Spanish, Burgundian and German blood in his veins, it is not surprising that Charles’s interpretation of his role as Holy Roman emperor was more universal than had been that of even his pre-13th century predecessors. He had great self-possession and was convinced that he was God’s instrument to restore imperial greatness and Catholic purity and unity. His Catholicism was the guiding force in his life, but, acutely aware as he was of his duty to God, he was often incapable of distinguishing between the interests of God and those of the Habsburgs.

With vast resources at his disposal, Charles seemed to be in a strong position both to restore the Holy Roman empire to its former greatness and to crush Lutheranism. Yet the very extent of his power ensured his failure. Outside Germany, the papacy and the Catholic king of France should have been obvious allies in an attempt to re-impose orthodoxy on Germany. Both, however, and for similar reasons, were reluctant to intervene. The popes Clement VII and Paul III were alarmed at the extent of Charles’s power and at his territorial strength in Italy, which they felt endangered the independence of the papal states. They also feared that Charles would re-establish the territorial dominance of the empire over the papacy and they were seriously alarmed at Charles’s view of himself as the leader of Catholic Christendom. They believed that if the emperor succeeded in imposing religious uniformity on Germany, it could mean that he would also re-impose imperial theocracy on the empire. They therefore refused to co-operate with Charles and actively undermined his position.

Francis I of France saw Lutheranism as a useful weapon to use against Charles. With his vast territories, Charles had inherited the Franco-Spanish struggle for dominance in northern Italy and the Franco-Burgundian rivalry in north-western Europe. His lands formed a semi-circle around France, and the major aim of French foreign policy was to destroy Habsburg hegemony in Europe. By encouraging religious disunity in Germany, Francis hoped to concentrate Charles’s attention on the empire and thus reduce Habsburg power elsewhere in Europe.

Because of the intrigues and open hostility of his enemies, Charles was out of Germany during the crucial period of 1521–1529 when Lutheranism was being consolidated and territorial churches established. During this period his attention was concentrated on Spain and on the struggle with France for dominance in Italy. As a result, when he had triumphed over his enemies and achieved peace by the Ladies’ Peace of Cambrai in 1529, he returned to Germany to find the situation much more complex than it had been in 1521.

In 1526 a number of Lutheran princes had formed the defensive League of Torgau to protect themselves from Catholic attack. It was now no longer a question of dealing with an isolated man as had been the case in 1520, but with the governments of Lutheran principalities and cities.

editors: van Wijk, Theo ; and Spies, S.B.: Western Europe : From the Decline of Rome to the Reformation. electronic edition. Pretoria : Academica, 1998, c1986, S. 315

EDWARD VI (1547-1553)

Edward VI (1547–1553)

Despite Henry’s attempts to maintain Catholicism, Protestant beliefs continued to be disseminated in the kingdom. Although vehemently opposed to these beliefs, Henry allowed Protestant sympathizers to sit on the royal council and to educate his only son Edward, born of his third wife, the Protestant Jane Seymour, in 1537.

By 1546–1547 the Seymours had become predominant at court and were able to engineer the disgrace of Gardiner and the fall of the Howard family. As a result, when Henry appointed a council to govern England for his minor son after his death, it included no Catholics of sufficient stature to oppose the Seymours. The council was to govern as a body, but, on Henry’s death in 1547, the councillors were persuaded to choose Edward’s elder Seymour uncle, the duke of Somerset, as protector.

Somerset’s coming to power saw a resurgence of Protestantism. Henry’s acts had caused a great deal of uncertainty and confusion throughout the country. The result was an increase in religious unrest. During 1547 unrestrained controversy raged over the nature of the Eucharist, and there was considerable destruction of statues and images. Somerset was anxious to put an end to this unrest and believed the best way to do so was to introduce moderate Protestant changes. The Six Articles and the heresy laws were repealed and numerous ceremonies were abolished. In 1549 the first Book of Common Prayer was established by parliament as the only form of worship permitted in England. It was basically Cranmer’s work, and although it did not specifically deny Catholic doctrine, it reflected a number of Lutheran beliefs. In many respects it was independent of Continental influences and resulted from Cranmer’s deep knowledge of patristic and medieval literature. Wherever possible, Cranmer adapted medieval English liturgies and retained and translated the words of the medieval rites.

For this reason the prayer book failed to satisfy many Protestants. The presence in England after 1547 of Continental reformers such as Martin Bucer also strengthened the influence of Swiss thought in theological circles. As a result, English Protestants began moving away from Lutheranism to the Swiss movements. Cranmer was strongly influenced by Bucer, and by the early 1550s he was no longer satisfied with his own prayer book. Of particular importance, his view of the Eucharist had changed, from belief in a real presence as reflected in the 1549 book, to belief in the sacrament as a spiritual eating of the body of Christ.

Cranmer’s changing views coincided with a change in government. Somerset fell from power in 1549 and was replaced by John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland. Under his rule, Protestantism was firmly established. The churches were stripped of their altars, Catholic bishops such as Bonner and Gardiner were imprisoned, and the authority of the bishops was so weakened that their traditional role in society was irretrievably changed. A policy of confiscation of episcopal lands saw their financial independence undermined and turned them from powerful landowners into little more than civil servants.

In 1552 Cranmer introduced a new Book of Common Prayer which marked a radical break with Catholic doctrine. Although he was not attempting to write a Zwinglian or Calvinist book, the changes he introduced into the Eucharist brought his book into line with Swiss doctrine. To further stress the symbolic nature of the sacrament, the privy council inserted the Black Rubric into the book, which declared that kneeling at communion did not imply acceptance of a real presence.

In 1553 the doctrines of the church were formulated in the Forty two Articles which gave a decisive Protestant colouring to Anglicanism. Justification by faith alone and predestination were both included.

These changes tended, as in the reformed churches, to transform the priest into a minister whose function was not to mediate between God and man, but to preach and teach. This, and the other changes, were not necessarily welcome to all English-men. Many who had been prepared to accept the Act of Supremacy and the dissolution of the monasteries were alienated by the swing towards Swiss doctrines. The abolition of the Mass and the introduction in quick succession of two English prayer books caused considerable resistance. Despite pockets of Protestantism, the English remained overwhelmingly Catholic.

To these people, the imposition of Protestantism, and in particular, the destruction of church ornaments and the abolition and confiscation of the revenues of chantry chapels in which priests prayed for the souls of the dead, were seen as attempts by Edward’s protectors to enrich themselves. They identified Protestantism not with reform, but with desecration, blasphemy, robbery and anarchy.

editors: van Wijk, Theo ; and Spies, S.B.: Western Europe : From the Decline of Rome to the Reformation. electronic edition. Pretoria : Academica, 1998, c1986, S. 339

JOHN CALVIN (1509-1564)

John Calvin (1509–1564)

Calvin’s role in the Reformation differed from that of either Luther or Zwingli. He neither led a revolt against the church, nor did he precipitate a break with Rome. Instead, he was a second-generation reformer.

Calvin was French by birth. He was born at Noyen in Picardy where his father was a lawyer. When he was twelve years old, his father decided that he should study theology and secured for him a chaplaincy at Noyen cathedral to finance his studies in Paris. At the Collège de Montaign in Paris he came under the influence of the humanist reform movement founded by Standonck. He later studied law in Orléans and Bourges and continued to be influenced by Erasmian humanism.

Humanism made him conscious of the need for reform within the church and by 1529 or early 1530 he appears to have become a Protestant. Although nothing is known of the circumstances surrounding his decision, Calvin seems to have experienced a spiritual crisis which led to his rejection of the Catholic church. It was, however, only as late as 1534 that he surrendered his benefice at Noyen cathedral and openly accepted Protestantism.

Calvin’s decision to break with the church came at a dangerous time, for 1534 was the year in which Francis I began his vigorous persecution of Protestants. Calvin was one of many reformers who had to flee France, and he chose Basle, an important centre of the Swiss Reformation, as his place of refuge.

editors: van Wijk, Theo ; and Spies, S.B.: Western Europe : From the Decline of Rome to the Reformation. electronic edition. Pretoria : Academica, 1998, c1986, S. 330

MARTIN BUCER (1491-1551)

Martin Bucer (1491–1551)

After Zwingli’s death, the most influential force in the Swiss Reformation was the city of Strasbourg under the leadership of Martin Bucer. A former Dominican monk, Bucer was converted by Luther and settled in Strasbourg in 1523. Although Strasbourg was an imperial city and was not in the Swiss confederation, under Bucer it became an important bridge between Zwingli and Calvin.

Bucer’s ideas were closer to Zwingli’s than to Luther’s, but he did not share the former’s belief in the unity of church and state. Under his influence the Swiss reform movement moved in the direction of the complete separation of the two. The church alone was to be responsible for enforcing morality, which made possible a form of reformed religion that could exist without reliance on the state.

This belief had a great influence on Calvin who lived in Strasbourg between 1538 and 1541. In the later stages of the Calvinist Reformation it was to make possible the growth of Calvinist churches in Catholic countries such as France and the Netherlands despite the attempts of the rulers to crush them.

Bucer’s views on the Eucharist also differed from those of Zwingli. He believed that although there is no change in the actual bread and wine at the consecration, Christ is truly present in the sacrament, but only to the believer. This doctrine was to influence both Calvin and the archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer.

Before 1547 Strasbourg was the most tolerant Protestant city in Europe and attracted religious refugees of every persuasion. Without independence or the natural defences of the Swiss cantons it, however, was vulnerable to attack. In 1547 it was conquered by Charles V, and Catholicism was restored. Bucer sought refuge in England in 1549 and was made Regius Professor of divinity at Cambridge by Edward VI. In England he exerted a considerable influence on Cranmer’s second Book of Common Prayer. He died in 1551 and was buried in Cambridge. In 1557, during the rule of Mary I, his body was exhumed and publicly burned.

editors: van Wijk, Theo ; and Spies, S.B.: Western Europe : From the Decline of Rome to the Reformation. electronic edition. Pretoria : Academica, 1998, c1986, S. 329

ULRICH ZWINGLI (1484-1531)

Ulrich Zwingli (1484–1531)

Although Zwingli was affected by what was happening in Wittenberg, the Reformation he led in Zurich was in many respects very different from the one taking place in Saxony.

Zwingli was of peasant stock, had received a sound education and was ordained priest in 1506. In 1518 he was appointed as a preacher in Zurich cathedral.

At university he had been influenced strongly by the Christian humanists, and to a much greater extent than was the case with Luther, their ideas permeated his protests against clerical abuses. In 1518, on his appointment to Zurich, he began preaching against abuses in the church and, no doubt with Luther’s example in mind, was soon attacking the supremacy of the pope and the doctrine of transubstantiation.

Zwingli’s impact on Zurich was immense. With the support of the city council, his ideas on reform were accepted by the canton. By 1525 the church was independent of papal and episcopal control, Mass had been abolished, and reforms introduced.

Although influenced by Luther, there were marked differences between the Lutheran church and that organized by Zwingli. Unlike Luther, Zwingli had little respect for traditional customs and ceremonies. He encouraged iconoclasm, and the physical appearance of the churches in Zurich was fundamentally changed. His views on the Catholic church were also far more extreme than Luther’s. Whereas Luther believed that the church had become corrupt, Zwingli saw it as essentially anti-Christian. As a result, he did not attempt to work for reconciliation with Rome.

The whole nature of worship within the church in Zurich differed from that in the Lutheran churches. Here, too, Zwinglianism marked a far more radical break with Catholicism than did Lutheranism. Fundamental to the differences between Zwingli and the Lutherans were Zwingli’s views on the Eucharist. Whereas Luther maintained the doctrine that Christ is really present in the Eucharist, Zwingli denied this. He saw Christ’s words “This is my body” to signify “This represents my body”. Zwingli argued that as Christ is in heaven, he cannot be in the sacrament. As a result, it could not convey grace to the partaker. God’s grace is assured to the believer through his faith and not through participation in the sacrament. Zwingli insisted that the sacrament is purely symbolic—no more than a memorial of the Last Supper.

Luther refused to accept Zwingli’s interpretation of the Eucharist. Despite an attempt by Philip of Hesse in 1529 to bring the two reformers together in the Colloquy of Marburg, this disagreement on one of the most fundamental issues of doctrine prevented an alliance between the German and Swiss Reformations.

Zwingli’s belief in the memorial nature of the Eucharist was fundamental to the position of the ministry in his church. A minister exercised no spiritual authority which a layman could not have exercised. The laity were therefore given an important role in the life of the church and contributed to both teaching and discipline.

Under Zwingli, the Reformation in Switzerland saw an even greater unity between the church and the state than the Lutheran in Germany. In Zurich the ecclesiastical authority of the bishop of Constance was transferred to the city council which became responsible not only for the enforcement of ecclesiastical discipline, but also for the oversight of morals.

The Zwinglian concept of the union of ecclesiastical and municipal authority was too radical to be accepted by many of the Swiss cities and cantons. The five Forest Cantons of Lucerne, Zug, Schwyz, Uri and Unterwalden saw the concept as a means whereby Zurich hoped to rise to dominance in Switzerland. In 1531 they attacked Zurich and, on the 11th October, Zwingli was killed at the battle of Kappel.

Although Zwingli’s influence on the Reformation was overshadowed by that of both Luther and Calvin, his importance in laying the foundation for Calvinism must not be underestimated. His work at Zurich was continued by Henry Bullinger (1504–1575), but attempts to impose Zwinglianism on the whole of Switzerland failed. In 1531 the Peace of Kappel established coexistence in the confederation, with each canton free to choose its own religion. In 1536 the First Helvetic Confession was drawn up for Swiss Protestants. Although it was Zwinglian, it did not attract widespread support and, after 1549, it was replaced by a Calvinist Confession.

editors: van Wijk, Theo ; and Spies, S.B.: Western Europe : From the Decline of Rome to the Reformation. electronic edition. Pretoria : Academica, 1998, c1986, S. 328

PENYEBARAN DAN TERBENTUKNYA LUTERANISME

THE SPREAD OF THE LUTHERAN REFORMATION IN GERMANY

The establishment of Lutheranism

Although he was a public outlaw, Luther was concealed by Frederick of Saxony in Wartburg castle until 1522. He was to use this time to begin a translation of the Bible into German, a task which lasted until 1534. During his lifetime this translation went through 300 editions. Both then and later it played an important role in the literary growth of the German language and in the national and religious development of German-speaking people.

During this critical period the strength of the elector of Saxony was fundamental to the successful establishment of Lutheranism as an independent church. With Frederick’s protection it was impossible for imperial action to be taken against Luther or his supporters in Saxony. As a result, Lutheran congregations began to appear throughout the electorate.

Developments taking place within these congregations were not always to Luther’s liking. In Wittenberg itself, under the leadership of Luther’s former colleague, Andrew Carlstadt, radical reforms were introduced. The Mass and clerical celibacy were denounced, and throughout the town churches were desecrated, altars overthrown, and statues and paintings destroyed. Religious fanaticism spread, especially after the appearance of the three “prophets” of Zwickau, anabaptists claiming divine inspiration, who tried to introduce social as well as religious reforms in the town.

There was a very real danger that reform would get out of control, and, at the request of the town council, Luther returned to Wittenberg in 1522. He lived there for the rest of his life, refining his doctrine and creating for his reform movement a church of its own.

In the defining and developing of his beliefs, Luther drew heavily not only on the Bible but also on the writings of Augustine and the other early church fathers. He consciously rejected the decisions of popes and councils and the rulings of canon law. He also dismissed the whole scholastic approach to religion. He saw Aquinas’s theology as providing the basis for developments within the church such as the belief in papal infallibility, and saw Thomism as irreconcilable with the Gospel. Similarly, because of the nominalists’ belief in the importance of good works, he also rejected much of nominalism.

Despite his rejection of so much of medieval Catholicism, however, Luther remained deeply influenced by the traditions of the medieval Catholic world. Realizing that without some form of uniformity, order could not be maintained, he put an end to the religious chaos developing in Wittenberg. The changes he allowed were, on the whole, conservative. Monasteries were closed and clerical marriages were allowed in the town, but in general he tried to replace Catholic institutions and services with Lutheran. The new reformed services were very similar to the old: altars, statues, paintings and vestments were retained.

A number of significant changes were introduced: services were in German, instead of in Latin, and preaching and congregational participation were encouraged. In the Eucharist the congregation received both the bread and the wine. The doctrine of transubstantiation was rejected and replaced by that of consubstantiation.

The religion established by Luther was more secular than Catholicism. It emphasized the importance of life on earth and the need for man to fulfill his worldly responsibilities. This was a major reason behind the rejection of monasticism and also lay at the heart of Luther’s decision to marry an ex-nun, Catherine von Bora. The closing of the monasteries and the secularization of religion created problems of providing for the poor and of education. As a result, a new parish organization had to be introduced. Luther rejected the role of the bishop as the seat of authority in a diocese and insisted on the scriptural equality of bishops and priests. With his belief in the priesthood of all believers, there was no place in Lutheranism for a sacerdotal, concept of priesthood, and the medieval priest was thus transformed into a minister: an officeholder to minister to the people and to preach and teach the word of God.

Although Luther believed in the priesthood of all believers, he was wary of placing control of the church in the hands of the congregations. The developments in Wittenberg during 1521 and the growth of anabaptism and sectarianism¹⁶ made him realize the need for some sort of authority over the church. In Wittenberg he placed this authority in the hands of the civic authority and insisted that it was divinely ordained to maintain order and to reform and govern the church. It was also its duty to care for the poor and the sick and to provide education. Thus in Wittenberg a Lutheran church organization was created under the jurisdiction of the civic authorities who performed the functions previously carried out by the bishop and monasteries and who were responsible for the appointment of preachers and ministers.

The church in Wittenberg was firmly controlled by the bourgeoisie as a result of this development. With this example of bourgeois control before them, the patricians and merchants in the imperial free cities hastened to throw off their allegiance to Rome and to establish Lutheran churches within their borders. Lutheranism offered far too many political and economic advantages for it to be ignored.

If Luther believed in the right of civic authorities to govern the church in the cities and towns, he was even more aware of the Augustinian role of the prince as the protector and governor of the church. He saw princely authority as essential to the maintenance of order and the prevention of chaos and anarchy. Although he frequently criticized rulers for their faults, he consistently supported their rule and saw rebellion against them as rebellion against God who had given them their authority.

Although Luther’s acceptance of the authority of the ruler was sincere, it did reflect his bourgeois education. He was always opposed to any form of civil disobedience and would also have realized that if his reformation was to succeed, it would need the support of the governing classes.

This realization saw Luther consciously identifying his movement with the interests of the rulers. Although his main concern was personal salvation, and although the Reformation remained primarily a religious revival, he made it clear that there were political advantages to be gained from following his lead. By adopting reform, a prince could stop the flow of money to Rome, strip the church of its wealth and, by bringing the church under his direct control, increase his hold over his subjects.

¹⁶ For a discussion of anabaptism,

editors: van Wijk, Theo ; and Spies, S.B.: Western Europe : From the Decline of Rome to the Reformation. electronic edition. Pretoria : Academica, 1998, c1986, S. 311

MARTIN LUTHER "MENYERANG" OTORITAS GEREJA

Luther attacks church authority

Instead of going to Rome, Luther met a papal legate, Cardinal Cajetan, at Augsburg. At this meeting he refused to accept the church’s teachings on penance and indulgences. When Cajetan pointed out that indulgences were validated by papal decrees, Luther denied that these decrees were valid if they were contrary to Scripture. He demanded the calling of a general council to settle the issue.

In the uncertain situation surrounding the question of the imperial succession, Leo was reluctant to intervene. In 1519, however, Luther forced his hand. In that year a public debate took place at Leipzig between Luther’s colleague, Andrew Carlstadt, an extreme exponent of the Augustinian doctrine of the impotence of man, and the theologian John Eck. Luther intervened in the debate and was forced by Eck into a position where, in order to defend his attack on indulgences, he not only denied papal supremacy, but also admitted that general councils could err -the Scriptures alone were authoritative.

Luther’s denunciation of the two highest authorities in the church placed him in the same relationship to Catholicism as the heretics. Despite this, Frederick of Saxony continued to protect him. This gave Luther the opportunity to develop his beliefs and to circulate his writings within the empire. In 1520 he published three pamphlets which finalized his break with Rome.

In his Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation Luther called on the emperor and princes to undertake the reform of the church. As they exercised authority in the empire, it was their duty to do what the church seemed incapable of doing. To a large extent he was reviving the interpretation which the theocratic monarchs of the Early Middle Ages had given to Augustine’s concept of the just ruler. It was the duty of the ruler, as appointed by God, to maintain and restore order in the church. Luther was, however, taking this concept a step further by proclaiming what became a central doctrine of Protestantism: the priesthood of all believers. Luther argued that all Christians have an equal priestly calling in the church and have responsibilities towards God. The responsibilities of the princes included the material and spiritual welfare of their people.

In continuation of this, the pamphlet The Babylonian Captivity of the Church accused the papacy and the clergy of keeping the church in captivity by monopolizing privileges to which all Christians, as equal members of the church, had a right. He denounced the sacerdotal aspect of priesthood and denied the scriptural validity, not only of penance, but also of four other sacraments: confirmation, marriage, holy orders and extreme unction. He recognized the validity of only two sacraments: baptism and the Eucharist. In accepting the Eucharist, he denied the doctrine of transubstantiation and replaced it with that of consubstantiation. He believed Christ’s real presence was in the Eucharist after the consecration, not because the bread and wine were physically transformed into Christ’s body and blood, but because they coexisted with his body and blood. Luther also denounced the Catholic view of the Mass as a sacrifice offered by the priest. He saw it as an act signifying the New Testament between Christ and man; a sign of God’s forgiveness of sin.

In his third pamphlet, On Christian Liberty, Luther defined his doctrine of justification by faith alone and elaborated his teaching on the priestly office of all believers. Although salvation was only secured through faith, this did not mean that man was free to behave as he chose. A good man would do good works in order to show his love for God.

As only the Babylonian Captivity of the Church was written in Latin, the pamphlets were aimed at a wide audience. Luther recognized the advantages offered by the printing press which enabled him to reach a wider audience than the earlier heretics had been able to. Within three weeks, 4 000 copies of the Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation were sold. Between 1518 and 1525 no fewer than one-third of the books sold in Germany were written by Luther.

Luther was fortunate in that his opponents failed to realize the opportunities the press offered as a means of propaganda until after he had disseminated his ideas. By 1520 the widespread support which Luther’s pamphlets were receiving forced Leo to take action. In June he condemned forty one Lutheran errors in the bull Exsurge Domine, ordered his writings to be publicly burned, and gave him sixty days in which to recant. In reply, in December Luther publicly burned the papal bull and several volumes of canon law in Wittenberg. By doing so he not only symbolically denied papal authority, but also that of the Catholic church as a whole.

As a result, on 3rd January 1521 Leo, in the bull Decet Romanum Pontificem, formally excommunicated Luther and requested the new emperor, Charles V,¹⁴ to put the excommunication into effect.

Despite strong Catholic convictions, Charles was very aware of the need for church reform. He also saw his position as emperor in medieval terms, as heir to the theocratic western emperors and secular head of a united Christendom. He saw his empire as both the evidence of a divine intention to restore Christendom, and the means to carry out that intention. In Augustinian terms, he saw himself as the just ruler ordained to protect and reform Christendom.

Charles was therefore the exemplar of the Christian prince advocated by Luther in his Address to the Christian Nobility of the German Nation. His conviction of the truth of Catholicism, however, and of the need for church unity meant that there could be no hope of agreement between the two men. As far as Charles was concerned, Luther’s teaching would lead to division, rebellion, war and the collapse of Christendom. He accepted the need for Luther’s destruction.

Despite this, he was not prepared to act hastily against Luther. He was reluctant to offend Germans before he had had time to consolidate his position in the empire. By acting against Luther he could have done so. Instead, he agreed, despite papal protests, to invite Luther to attend an imperial diet at Worms under safe conduct. The diet met in April 1521. When questioned, Luther refused to recant:

Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason—I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other—my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me, Amen.¹⁵

Luther then received the ban of the empire. This made him a public outlaw and made anyone who supported him liable to imprisonment.

¹⁴ In 1519 Maximilian died and Charles was elected. He was crowned king at Aachen in 1520. His coronation as king of Lombardy and emperor by the pope at Bologna was as late as 1530. This was the last time a pope crowned a Holy Roman emperor.

¹⁵ Bainton, R. H. Here Istand: a life of Martin Luther (New York, 1955), p. 144

editors: van Wijk, Theo ; and Spies, S.B.: Western Europe : From the Decline of Rome to the Reformation. electronic edition. Pretoria : Academica, 1998, c1986, S. 309

95 DALIL MARTIN LUTHER

The ninety five theses

If justification by faith alone made the sacrament of penance no longer central to salvation, it is obvious that Luther would become even more critical of the abuses involved in indulgences than he had been in the past. In 1517 when John Tetzel began selling his indulgence in the neighbourhood of Wittenberg, Luther felt bound to act. In his ninety five theses he condemned indulgences as the corrupt result of false teaching on the forgiveness of sins.

The theses were written in Latin and were meant for discussion within the church. Their consequences must have gone far beyond that which Luther intended. A printer translated them into German and distributed them throughout the empire. They attracted widespread attention in humanist, ecclesiastical and bourgeois circles.

Albert of Brandenburg was alarmed at the possible consequences the theses might have for the sale of the indulgence, and appealed to Leo X for support. At the same time, the Dominican order saw Luther’s attack on Tetzel as an attack on their order and reported Luther to Rome as a heretic. Leo was inclined to see the affair as a dispute between the Augustinian and Dominican orders and instructed the former to hold an enquiry. An interview between the order and Luther took place in Heidelberg in 1518, during which Luther refused to retract his theses. He had the backing of his university, and support for his views was growing throughout Germany. The sale of indulgences was drying up. Leo could not ignore the implications of this and summoned Luther to appear before him in Rome.

Probably with the fate of John Huss in mind, Luther appealed to his elector, Frederick of Saxony. Frederick’s decision to support Luther was made on pragmatic grounds. He was not particularly religious or moral, and, although he was to support Luther consistently, he never abandoned the Catholic church, possibly because of the advantages it offered him. He was a most unlikely ally for Luther. For example, although he had forbidden the sale of papal indulgences in Saxony before 1517, this had not been because he disapproved of them, but because they would have interfered with his own lucrative sales. He had collected over 17 000 relics in Wittenberg castle and boasted the possession of, amongst others, over 200 portions of the children massacred by Herod as well as a crumb from the Last Supper. Indulgences were granted to sightseers.

Frederick, however, valued the fame which Luther was bringing to the University of Wittenberg and was shrewd enough to realize the financial benefits Saxony could gain should Luther’s criticism of ecclesiastical abuses bear fruit. He was therefore prepared to protect Luther.

Frederick’s support was crucial if Luther was not to suffer the fate of Huss. Frederick was strong enough in his electorate to ensure the safety of Luther, and, at the same time, as an imperial elector he was in a strong position within the empire. In 1518 Emperor Maximilian was finalizing arrangements for the election of his grandson, Charles, as king of the Romans. He needed the support of the electors and, in order not to alienate Frederick, opposed Leo’s summons of Luther to Rome.

editors: van Wijk, Theo ; and Spies, S.B.: Western Europe : From the Decline of Rome to the Reformation. electronic edition. Pretoria : Academica, 1998, c1986, S. 308

REFORMASI MARTIN LUTHER

Martin Luther (1483–1546)

Attempts to understand Luther have gone on continuously since the Reformation. Each age has attempted to understand and interpret his life and work and the picture that emerges is of an exceptionally complex man. He has been seen through the centuries as a heretic, a reformer, part of the history of salvation, a prophet, the apostle of freedom of the conscience, a nationalist, and as both the representative of the class revolution and its betrayer.

The Holy Roman empire in the early 16th century

The man who was to give rise to such diverse judgements was born in 1483 in Eisleben in Thuringia. His father, Hans Luther, was of peasant stock but became a copper miner and, in time, rose to be a member of the city council of Mansfeld and a lessee of mines and furnaces. Luther’s childhood was comfortable, he had a good education and studied law at the University of Erfurt.

His background was very much that of a peasant. The superstitions of the peasantry, its beliefs in demons and in the forces of good and evil actively intervening in human affairs did much to shape his beliefs. Luther was always to see life as part of the great struggle between God and the devil. He was a very human man, earthy, often coarse and frequently unscrupulous. He was capable of great love and great hatred and in return attracted both in equal measure.

In 1505, despite parental disapproval, Luther entered a priory of Augustinian friars, a reformed house, at Erfurt. He took this step in fulfilment of a vow made during a thunderstorm. In 1506 he was ordained and rapidly gained a reputation for piety. In 1508 he was sent to the Augustinian house at Wittenberg where he taught at the new university founded by Elector Frederick of Saxony. In 1512 he became a doctor of theology and professor of biblical theology.

Despite his reputation for piety and his rapid success at Wittenberg, Luther later claimed that during this period he found little satisfaction in his work. He was to sum up his purpose in becoming a monk as “I want to escape hell by being a monk”. ¹⁰ He was almost fanatically concerned about the salvation of his soul. Yet, despite a rigorous submission to the discipline of his order and to the observances of the church, he could not quieten his fears that he was damned. Ebeling believes that these fears rose out of the very progress he was making in the monastery.¹¹ The holier his way of life, the more he despaired of finding salvation. His life was dominated by a fear of God’s judgement, and neither observances nor penance were able to assure him of forgiveness. As he later said, “The more I tried these remedies, the more troubled and uneasy my conscience grew”.¹²

He was also increasingly worried about the state of the church and of what he realized was the commercialization of the sacrament of penance through indulgences and the buying of Masses for the salvation of the soul. In 1510 he was sent by his order on a mission to Rome. His experience of the secularism and religious indifference of the Renaissance papacy increased his critical awareness of the abuses practised in the church.

Luther’s training at Erfurt had been dominated by the nominalist teachings of William of Ockham. The stress that the nominalists laid on the sovereignty of God and on his freedom to save or reject men as he wishes must have played a major role in Luther’s belief in man’s inability to earn salvation and must have contributed towards his feelings of personal despair.

In his attempts to settle his doubts and fears, Luther turned to the writings of the German mystics. Part of his education had been in a school run by the Brothers of the Common Life and his inner spirituality and piety had much in common with the devotio rnoderna. He was deeply impressed by the writings of a 14th century mystic, Johann Tauler, and particularly by his contention that “life does not consist in repose but in progress from good to better”. ¹³ This contention increased Luther’s doubts about the efficacy of doing penance in order to gain salvation. His dilemma was further increased by Erasmus’s translation of the New Testament, in which the Vulgate’s reading of Matthew 4:17 as “Do penance” was rendered as “Be penitent”.

To Luther, this indicated that the sacrament of penance, so central to the teaching of the church and so abused since the 13th century, was unscriptural. How then was man to find salvation? As an Augustinian friar, Luther had an intimate knowledge of the works of St Augustine. Like the later nominalists, Augustine had also stressed the sovereignty of God and man’s inability to find salvation without the grace of God. He saw man as being justified by his faith in God, and saw this justification as a slow process of renewal on the part of the individual until he was acceptable to God. Luther’s own personal feeling of unworthiness made it difficult for him to accept this belief, and, in order to ascertain whether Augustine’s viewpoint had validity, he turned to the source of the latter’s theology, the epistles of St Paul.

In 1515 Luther found his answer in Romans I:17 where Paul wrote: “He shall gain life who is justified by faith.” Luther believed that Augustine had misinterpreted Paul and that the latter saw justification as an act, not of man, but of God. He was convinced that Paul meant that it was only through faith that a man was justified, and he therefore evolved the doctrine of justification by faith alone. He argued that because of the sinful nature of man, man is incapable of saving himself, and that religious observances, penance and prayers are inadequate for salvation. Salvation can only come through faith in God and through the acceptance that, by his grace, God will save the sinner. Forgiveness is therefore a gift given by God to those who believe in him, and cannot be achieved by man’s individual effort.

There was nothing revolutionary in Luther’s interpretation. Despite the rise of scholasticism, Augustine’s writings had retained much support in the Late Middle Ages and Augustinian theologians such as the 14th century Thomas Bradwardine of Canterbury and Gregory of Rimini had stressed both justification by faith and the impossibility of gaining salvation by good works. The church, however, although it accepted justification, saw it as involving not only the faith of the individual but also participation in the sacraments and the performance of good works. Luther’s interpretation was different in that it negated human freedom. This had revolutionary implications, for it made the role of the priest as an intermediary between God and man redundant. If faith in God was sufficient to secure forgiveness, religious observances and participation in the sacraments lost their central role in salvation.

The doctrine of justification by faith alone also made Luther’s position radically different to that of both the mystics and the Christian humanists. Both groups believed in man’s inherent capability of saving himself through good works, particularly those which were involved in imitating the life of Christ. Luther’s obsession with man’s sinfulness and impotence in the face of God caused him to reject both mysticism and Christian humanism.

¹⁰ Ibid., p. 35

¹¹ Ibid., p. 38

¹² Cowie, L. W. Sixteenth-century Europe (London, 1977), p. 154

¹³ Ibid., p. 155

editors: van Wijk, Theo ; and Spies, S.B.: Western Europe : From the Decline of Rome to the Reformation. electronic edition. Pretoria : Academica, 1998, c1986, S. 305