WI: Luther was burned at the stake?

The problem with this is the post-Luther assumption that its being biblical or not mattered to many people at the time. The whole "biblical" thing is a Reformation meme (sola scriptura). Both the Eastern and Western churches always have based their creed and institutions ultimately on a direct line of succession from the Apostles, on Tradition, and custom (the papacy, by the way, is based on the historical St Peter's role and presence in Rome as bishop, but was also supported by the passage in the Gospel of St Matthew); until the various Protestant figures came around, the idea of a requirement for every teaching of Christianity to be based on a sort of biblical appeal or footnote would have been entirely foreign. It's simply an ahistorical concern.

Besides, there is some basis for these teachings that you mention (purgatory, vicarious satisfaction, saints, etc.) in the book of Maccabees, which was removed from the standard Protestant biblical canon by... guess who.
While I agree 90 % with you, I would say that it´s not totally ahistorical. Sola scriptura was not exclusively Luther`s fetish. (Melanchthon was the main guy behind this idea, but there would be tons of others.) In the early 16th century, you had a) the printing press and b) humanistic discourse for a century or so. While the latter stressed the relevance of philology, of serious engagement with old texts in general (ad fontes) long before Protestantism applied this to the Bible, the former provided for the first time the technological foundation for spreading ideas and arguing beyond elite circles.
A reformation in the 16th century was not altogether that unlikely to bring forth sola scriptura or at least to be more biblicist than the late medieval theological mainstream. Society had changed by that point. That is the big difference from the situation one or two centuries earlier.
 
While I agree 90 % with you, I would say that it´s not totally ahistorical. Sola scriptura was not exclusively Luther`s fetish. (Melanchthon was the main guy behind this idea, but there would be tons of others.) In the early 16th century, you had a) the printing press and b) humanistic discourse for a century or so. While the latter stressed the relevance of philology, of serious engagement with old texts in general (ad fontes) long before Protestantism applied this to the Bible, the former provided for the first time the technological foundation for spreading ideas and arguing beyond elite circles.
A reformation in the 16th century was not altogether that unlikely to bring forth sola scriptura or at least to be more biblicist than the late medieval theological mainstream. Society had changed by that point. That is the big difference from the situation one or two centuries earlier.

Fair enough. I think turning Renaissance textual criticism from a concern for accuracy into a sine qua non basis for doctrine is not at all an inevitable or logically necessary step, though.
 
(the papacy, by the way, is based on the historical St Peter's role and presence in Rome as bishop and his role among the Apostles, but is also supported by the passage in the Gospel of St Matthew); .

Well, it's a mixture of history and tradition. Peter was a church leader, but to speak of him as a "bishop" is an anachronism, and it's uncertain how long he lived in Rome (Paul's letter to the Romans does not mention him), although it's usually accepted that he died there. (One modern scholar, Otto Zwierlein, claims that he never set foot in the city.)

Peter's role in relation to the other early church leaders is not entirely clear from the historical record; there are some writings suggesting that both Peter and Paul held authority in the region of Rome, while the church in Jerusalem seems to have regarded James the Just as its leader, for example.

The idea of the bishop of Rome being the supreme head of the Church gradually developed over the centuries, and has always been disputed by some; it was never recognized by the church in the East.
 
Last edited:
Well, it's a mixture of history and tradition. Peter was a church leader, but to speak of him as a "bishop" is an anachronism, and it's uncertain how long he lived in Rome (Paul's letter to the Romans does not mention him), although it's usually accepted that he died there. (One modern scholar, Otto Zwierlein, claims that he never set foot in the city.)

Peter's role in relation to the other early church leaders is not entirely clear from the historical record; there are some writings suggesting that both Peter and Paul held authority in the region of Rome, while the church in Jerusalem seems to have regarded James the Just as its leader, for example.

The idea of the bishop of Rome being the supreme head of the Church gradually developed over the centuries, and has always been disputed by some; it was never recognized by the church in the East.

These are all highly disputable and contentious claims. I don't agree with them, but I don't think that this is the proper place to have this discussion, either. Sorry.
 
The whole "biblical" thing is a Reformation meme (sola scriptura)

I disagree. There are numerous verses throughout the Bible that enshrine Scripture as the final authoritative word on how Christians should act, superseding any traditions or customs that had grown up (Matthew 5:18; Psalm 19:7-8; 119:160; Proverbs 30:5; John 17:17; 2 Peter 1:19-21). On what else are Christians to reliably base their beliefs?

the papacy, by the way, is based on the historical St Peter's role and presence in Rome as bishop and his role among the Apostles, but is also supported by the passage in the Gospel of St Matthew

Nowhere in Matthew 16 is Peter given the power associated with today's Papacy, or indeed the Papacy at the time of the Reformation. He is not granted authority over the rest of the Apostles or the Church. The idea of 'apostolic succession' has no basis in Scripture. Nor are the apostles called infallible, but instead Scripture is adamant that the Word of God is the only reliable means of guiding the Church (2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.)

the idea of a requirement for every teaching of Christianity to be based on a sort of biblical appeal or footnote would have been entirely foreign

The fact that it was a foreign concept (until then, at any rate) was one of the reasons for the Reformation, because literate people were beginning to challenge what the Catholic Church told them about how to be a Christian. This reason will not go away if Luther is removed from the picture, and will only get stronger with the passage of time as local-language Bibles are produced more cheaply and education spreads.

Besides, there is some support for these teachings that you mention (purgatory, vicarious satisfaction, saints, etc.) in the book of Maccabees, which was removed from the standard Protestant biblical canon by... guess who.

The Book of Maccabees is, to my knowledge, not regarded as part of Biblical canon by most Protestant denominations because:
  1. It was not written in Hebrew or Aramaic, as the other Old Testament Books were.
  2. It was not regarded as part of Scripture by the Jews
  3. Some of its verses contradict universally acknowledged Scripture (e.g. 2 Maccabees 12:43-45: 2.000 pieces of silver were sent to Jerusalem for a sin-offering...Whereupon he made reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin. - contradicts numerous examples in the canon of death being the final end of opportunity to effect one's eternal state (e.g. Luke 16:19-31; Luke 23:43).).
  4. Like the other Apocryphal Books, it is never referenced in the New Testament.
Considering all of this, I think that the Protestants were justified in that Book's exclusion.

I don't think that this is the proper place to have this discussion, either. Sorry.

I concur.
 
It seems that this is quickly turning into a theological and apologetical exercise. I'm going to go ahead and bow out of the discussion before the thread gets locked.
 
In otl Luther was deeply anti semitic and hostile to peasants risings. Had he been killed earlier might his name have been used by peasants, maybe changing lots
 
Luther was the spark, but I think if he were instead the human candle, it wouldn't directly cause the Reformation to be crushed. Instead, I think you would see Martin Bucer and Melanchthon as the key figures in the German Reformation. This would mean a lower church and no Calvinist/Lutheran split over the meaning of the Lord's Supper.

Honestly, the better POD is Luther's famous trip through the thunderstorm ends up with him dead rather than converted. THEN, what you might well see is an Erasmian Reformation that targets the institutional corruption and decadence. From there, it's conceivable that Bucer, Melanchthon, and Calvin would play major roles building on Hus and Wycliffe.
 
The problem with this is the post-Luther assumption that its being biblical or not mattered to many people at the time. The whole "biblical" thing is a Reformation meme (sola scriptura). Both the Eastern and Western churches always have based their creed and institutions ultimately on a direct line of succession from the Apostles, on Tradition, and custom (the papacy, by the way, is based on the historical St Peter's role and presence in Rome as bishop and his role among the Apostles, but is also supported by the passage in the Gospel of St Matthew); until the various Protestant figures came around, the idea of a requirement for every teaching of Christianity to be based on a sort of biblical appeal or footnote would have been entirely foreign. It's simply an ahistorical concern.
I note that downthread you've tried to avoid this turning into a theological debate, and I agree that such a debate is off-topic for this thread.

However, I'd like to focus on the more specific, on-topic question of whether sola scriptural was dependent on Luther, or whether it would have developed without him.

The historical record of other reformist / heretical movements in Western and Central Europe makes it clear that lots of other people had this concern before Luther. "We teach only what is found in the bible" was a common refrain from movements such as the Waldenses and the Hussites (and to a lesser degree the Lollards) long before Luther came on the scene. Sola scriptura may not have mattered to everyone, but it mattered to enough people to make it part (explicitly or implicitly) of the creed of multiple reformist movements.

So even if Luther starts a serious smoking campaign, any subsequent reformist movement in Germany (or nearby countries) is highly likely to come up with the sola scripture idea again.
 
So even if Luther starts a serious smoking campaign, any subsequent reformist movement in Germany (or nearby countries) is highly likely to come up with the sola scripture idea again.

Fair enough. I concede that a like reformist movement would probably also have sola scriptura. I just don't think that it's inevitable that there would be a breakaway movement that would necessarily be sola scriptura. A sort of German regalist Gallicanism could easily succeed in lieu of Lutheranism and not have sola scriptura as one of its principles. It's just the inevitability of there being a widespread religious movement that is basically similar to Protestantism IOTL that I dispute. There are many different ways for princes to respond to the issues of that time.
 
Top