Since October 31, 1517, Martin Luther has been the object of much scrutiny and controversy. Many have called him the father of Protestantism; others have coined him the destroyer of the Roman Catholic Church. However grave these accusations have been, none have been as extreme as the debate of Martin Luther as a Reformer as opposed to a Revolutionary. Unfortunately, there is no single answer. All conclusive evidence supports that Martin Luther, as far as issues of the 95 Theses are concerned, was both a Reformer and a Revolutionary.
In order to assess the value of the two words, Reformer and Revolutionary, one must accurately understand the meaning of each. A reformer, by all meanings of the word, is one who aims "to reconstruct, make over, or change something for the better; improve; to abandon or give up evil ways" (Webster 232). Similarly, but not identically, a revolutionary is one who incites "a sudden change in a system" (Webster, 235). Basically, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, a reformer would have aimed to change objectionable practices for the better, whereas a revolutionary would have intended to completely change the way the Catholic Church was run. Luther's motives must be carefully examined to determine not only what his intentions were, but what the outcome actually was.
As a young man, Luther had the opportunity to be formally schooled, and even obtained a university degree (Daniel-Rops, 558). Following the sparing of his life after a near death encounter with a lightning bolt, he vowed to become a monk, and he did (Daniel-Rops, 559). Luther had an overwhelming concern with matters of hell and salvation that continually prevented him from delving into his faith (Daniel-Rops, 562). He believed very heavily in salvation and forgiveness, by faith alone, and had many a grouse with the practice of selling indulgences and with the Catholic idea that the Pope had the power to issue forgiveness (Luther, 524).
