Within the past two weeks as we were working on the trial, we were to learn whether or not Martin Luther was guilty and if we were to defend him or work against him. From all of the research that i’ve gathered and the things that I have learned, I believe that the defendant Martin Luther is in fact guilty. I believe this because the definition of heresy proves it so, indulgences are okay to sell, and Charles V labeled him a heretic.
One reason the Martin Luther did commit heresy is that what he did fit in the definition of heresy. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition of heresy is ‘an opinion, doctrine, or practice contrary to the truth or to generally accepted beliefs or standards.’ The catholic church was the generally accepted belief during the 1400s. So by that general definition of heresy, Martin Luther was a heretic. He had a published doctrine to show that he had a contrary belief to the catholic church. Deeming him, a heretic. A second reason that Martin Luther committed heresy is that in the 95 Theses, he said that indulgences weren’t okay to sell. When in fact, they were perfectly fine to sell. You could still confess your sins without paying money, but people still chose to pay money. That means the Luther said a false statement about the church, which falls back into the definition of heresy proving that he in fact was a heretic.
The third and final reason that Luther was a heretic is that Charles V labeled him a heretic and banned his writing. After just reading his writing, Charles banned all of his writings, because he knew that they were wrong. There are already other people saying he is a heretic, which contributes to the definition and him violating the church with his writings.
So think about it, after having his writings read and getting them banned, the definition of heresy proving that he is a heretic, and going against the church in his writings, doesn’t that prove that he in fact is, a heretic? I’ve given you...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document