The question in the OP was about whether Luther would have done things differently had he been able to foresee the results of his teachings. Given that his teachings had a huge part in breaking off what is now 30% of Christianity from the Mother Church, this is an extremely important question. The fact is that that 30% has now become fractured into tens of thousands of competing doctrinally independent sects. Luther’s doctrine of Sola Scriptura is primarily responsible for this denominalization. While this is evident from having the advantage of hindsight, more than half the people who have voted here believe that, had Luther known what was ‘going to happen’, he would have done things pretty much the same as he did.
It appears that most people here believe that Luther was more interested in furthering his own agenda than he was in protecting the unity commanded by Christ and Scripture. This should cause us to delve deeper into Luther’s concept of his own authority. Lutheran Professor Mark U. Edwards comments on Luther’s early attitude towards ‘other’ Protestants:
**“……Luther could distinguish his position from Karlstadt’s or Zwilling’s, even if he had to distort – unknowlingly or unwittingly – their position to do so, and the more he could impugn their personal character and motives, **the more he could argue with seeming justice that he and his movement and reputation of the reformation were at stake, **Luther may have felt it necessary to make the issue of responsibility clear-cut **and then to disavow those allegedly responsible as unequivocally and convincingly as possible.
**The disavowel took the form of an ad hominem attack. ** The grounds on which he made the attack theologically sound and credible not only to Luther himself but to his followers and contemporaries as well. Drawing on accounts in the Bible and on the history of heresy, **he charged that Satan had once again sent his false prophets to mislead the entire church. **Although they appeared to adhere to the gospel, they were in fact ‘Judases,’ and Luther laid all responsibility on the satanic spirit which he claimed motivated each of them.” Edwards, “Luther and the False Brethern”, pg. 21-22
Here we learn that Luther considered those who opposed his doctrines to be ‘motivated’ by a satanic spirit. **He was also prone to publically questioning their motives and their personal character. ** In what was, at least to Luther, a battle between good and evil, Luther was not of a mind to give any ground.
Edwards continues:
**“In order that the false prophet could be recognized for what he was, Luther had defined the salient characteristics of the true prophet **and apostle in a letter to Melanchthon in early January 1522. Relying on Scripture, he told Melanchthon that a true prophet must be called through men or at least attested to by signs, and must have experienced spiritual distress and the divine birth, death, and hell.” Ibid, pg. 22
Of course, Luther had experienced horrific spiritual distresses. Obviously he had to develop ‘criteria’ which included himself while excluding his Protestant opponents.
In the late 16th century, a Lutheran Professor at the University of Jena wrote that:
**
‘Luther did not need miracles to confirm that he was a special saint of God, for miracles are needed only to confirm new doctrine.**’ In Kolb, “Martin Luther as Prophet, Teacher, and Hero”, pg. 117
This was basically Luther’s approach. Others needed to have visible miracles in order to refute him. He didn’t need them to refute the ‘others’.
Marius speaks of Luther’s lack of ‘signs’.
**
“In a curious paradox, this letter revealed some of Luther’s weaknesses against the storm of Catholic attack rising against him. He himself would be regularly accused of claiming private revelation against the tradition of the church for centuries. Once upon a time, he said, anyone who claimed private revelation, had it certified by someone else. **When the child Samuel heard the voice of God calling him, Eli the priest testified that it was so. **Luther placed himself in this line so that the truly Godly men of his own time would affirm his divine call. But as Catholic were to point out time and again, this attitude begged the question. These ancient prophets of the Hebrew Bible also had their prophetic mission validated by ‘signs’, (signa). ‘Signs’ are used in the biblical text, especially in the fourth Gospel, denotes miracles, and Luther could claim no miracles to confirm his divine mission **Even Erasmus would throw this barb at him. Perhaps the constancy of these attacks moved Luther to the opinion that the word of God came to the church through its appointed ministers, those able to interpret with their own voices the Word for their time. **As Heiko Oberman has observed, Luther never grounded his own authority either in special revelation or in deep mystical experience. He claimed only to be an expositor of Scripture. **Yet his reading of Scripture at this time involved tortured and allegorical interpretations, and his reasoning had a circular quality that foes were quick to point out and ridicule.” **Marius, pg. 324
Returning to Edwards:
“Zwilling had not been called to public preaching in Wittenberg or elsewhere. The Zwickau prophets had the least justification for their preaching of any, for they were laymen who claimed their authority solely from a divine call yet were unable to produce any signs. Luther pointed out, other than those Satan himself could produce, namely, violence and unrest.’ The failure of Karlstadt, Zwilling, and the Zwickau prophets to meet these tests identified them to Luther’s satisfaction as false prophets and Satan’s minions." ** Edwards, “Luther and the False Brethren”, pg. 22-3
