Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in
Question 7
Bercot highlights Luther’s borrowing of Augustine’s “holy war” thinking and includes Luther’s exhortations to rulers to “stab, smite, slay”; what theological assumptions allow violence to be framed as service to God (even martyrdom), and how does that compare with the early Christian stance implied by Bercot’s “primitive Christianity” standard?
Another way to ask: What beliefs make it possible to call violence “service to God,” even “martyrdom,” like Luther’s “stab, smite, slay” language? How does that compare to the early Christian approach Bercot points to in “primitive Christianity”?

Direct Answer The theological assumption is that rulers are divinely appointed to wield the sword, and killing in support of that divinely authorized order can be done with “a good conscience,” even earning heavenly reward. Bercot’s “primitive Christianity” standard implies this is a move away from early Christian faith, since he treats “holy war” as an Augustinian import rather than an early-Christian norm.

Support from Transcript:

  • Bercot says Luther “borrowed… the Augustinian doctrine of holy war.”
  • Luther tells rulers they can say to God, “you have appointed me prince… you have committed to me the sword… Therefore I will punish and smite.”
  • Luther claims, “Any peasant who is killed is lost in body and soul,” while rulers “have a good conscience and a just cause.”
  • He goes further: “Stab, smite, slay… If you die in doing it… A more blessed death can never be yours,” framing violence as blessed and even martyr-like.
  • Bercot concludes the Reformation was “no return to the spirit and teachings of early Christianity,” implying such violence contradicts “primitive Christianity.”
Discussion Follow-ups What has to happen in a Christian’s thinking for killing to become “worship”? Where do Christians today still baptize violence with spiritual language?