Martin Luther

There was an argument between two great scholars, Robert Kolb and Hans Kung on whether Martin Luther’s reform improved the lives of European Christians. Kolb agreed that martin Luther made a positive impact on European Christians and he concluded that Luther was a prophetic hero, teacher and that Luther brought change and hope to the people. Kung on the other hand believes that Luther was a great orchestrator of change in the Christian church but also an indirect instigator of the violence and oppression that erupted among the people. In other words Luther had some positive effects but left more negative consequences on the people. This essay’s main focus is to identify which argument appears to be more convincing and persuasive but for better understanding of the subject of argument, this essay will first begin with a summary of the main points proposed by the scholars.
Kolb a religion and history professor drew his conclusions about the effects that Luther had on European Christian from various sources of the sixteenth century such as biographies of some writers, study texts of historians, Luther’s books and other similar materials. He’s conclusions were founded on what he called the three images of Luther. According to Kolb, the first image perceived of Luther was that of a prophet and that was because at a time when people began to question their beliefs he was the one who stepped forward to challenge the church authorities to rethink their roles in the church. Luther was then perceived as a teacher and that happened due to the continuous influence that his books had on people even after his death. The Third image was that of a hero and that was perceived because Luther brought hope and change to the Christian people in a time of crisis. Using Kolb’s words, “Luther symbolized the divine-Word which brought God's judgment upon the old papal system, and he embodied the hopes of the people and the comfort of the gospel which brought new heavenly blessings upon