How did Luther and foundational Lutheran statements use the term Sola Scriptura?

[rakovsky]

Greetings. I wish to invite you to post quotations and passages from Luther and foundational Lutheran declarations that use phrases such as "Sola Scriptura," "Bible alone," and "The Old and New Testaments alone." This should be able to provide a good idea of the meaning and use of this phrase. I am indenting places where Luther was not using the phrase Sola Scriptura approvingly.

In 1519, in part of a debate with Catholic apologist John Eck, Luther wrote "Proposition Thirteen" on Papal authority, noting, "So that it would not appear that I am discussing Scripture alone". (Luther 1884:227) According to Timothy Wengert in Reading the Bible with Martin Luther: An Introductory Guide, Luther meant that he was using different sources to support the Pope's authority, not just scripture without other sources. This quote might not very much on point, because here Luther said that he was not using "Scripture alone", and Wengert claims that Luther was supporting Papal authority here. Maybe later on Luther changed his view on papal authority and whether to use "Scripture alone."​

​

According to Timothy Wengert in Reading the Bible with Martin Luther: An Introductory Guide, Luther wrote a 1522 tract attacking Henry VIII. Luther separated Biblical teachings from supposedly extraBiblical ones, among which he included the papacy, conciliar decrees, teachers, universities. Luther added that "I was content to expurgate the Scriptures alone for the sake of papal authority" and that his position in the RC Church was "anything but scripture." I have trouble finding the full original quote.​

​

If we are called by the title of teachers [ie. Doctors] of Holy Scripture, then we ought to be compelled, in accordance with our name, to teach the Holy Scriptures and nothing else, although even this title is too proud and boastful and no one ought to be proclaimed and crowned teacher of Holy Scripture. Yet it might be suffered, if the work justified the name; but now, under the despotism of the Sentences, we find among the theologians more of heathen and human opinion than of the holy and certain doctrine of Scripture. What, then, are we to do? I know of no other way than humbly to pray God to give us Doctors of Theology. Pope, emperor and universities may make Doctors of Arts, of Medicine, of Laws, of the Sentences; but be assured that no one will make a Doctor of Holy Scripture, save only the Holy Ghost from heaven, as Christ says in John 6:45: "They must all be taught of God Himself." Now the Holy Ghost does not concern Himself about red or brown birettas[13] or other decorations, nor does He ask whether one is old or young, layman or priest, monk or secular, virgin or married; nay He spake of old by an ass, against the prophet who rode upon it. (Number 22:28). Would God that we were worthy to have such doctors given us, whether they were layman or priests, married or virgin. True, they now try to force the Holy Ghost into pope, bishops and doctors, although there is no sign or indication whatever that He is in them.
...

The number of theological books must also be lessened, and a selection made of the best of them. For it is not many books or much reading that makes men learned; but it is good things, however little of them, often read, that make men learned in the Scriptures, and make them godly, too. Indeed the writings of all the holy fathers should be read only for a time, in order that through them we may be led to the Holy Scriptures. As it is, however, we read them only to be absorbed in them and never come to the Scriptures. We are like men who study the sign-posts and never travel the road. The dear fathers wished, by their writings, to lead us to the Scriptures, but we so use them as to be led away from the Scriptures, though the Scriptures alone are our vineyard in which we ought to work and toil.
Luther 1520, in: Open letter to the Christian nobility (Reform Part 3.25).
SOURCE: http://www.projectwittenberg.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/web/nblty-07.html

"I do not want to throw out all those more learned [than I], but Scripture alone to reign, and not to interpret it by my own spirit or the spirit of any man, but I want to understand it by itself and its spirit." Luther, An Assertion of All the Articles (1520). I found a fuller passage for it in Latin:
I found the full passage in Latin here: https://archive.org/details/werkekritischege07luthuoft/page/98/mode/2up
W.H. Oliver found it in Luther 1897a:98. (Luther, D.M.1897a. D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe: 7. Band. Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger.)

Christ allowed his hands, his feet, his sides to be touched so that the disciples might be sure that it was he, himself [John 20:27]. Why, then, should we not touch and examine the Scriptures— which are in truth the spiritual body of Christ— to make sure whether we believe in them or not? For all other writings are treacherous; they may be spirits in the air [cf. Eph. 2:2] which have no flesh or bone, as Christ had.

This is my answer to those also who accuse me of rejecting all the holy teachers of the church. I do not reject them. But everyone, indeed, knows that at times they have erred, as men will; therefore, I am ready to trust them only when they give me evidence for their opinions from Scripture, which has never erred. This St. Paul bids me to do in I Thess. 5:21, where he says, “Test everything; hold fast what is good." St. Augustine writes to St. Jerome to the same effect, “I have learned to do only those books that are called the holy Scriptures the honor of believing firmly that none of their writers has ever erred. All others I so read as not to hold what they say to be the truth unless they prove it to me by holy Scripture or clear reason." *

Holy Scripture must necessarily be clearer, simpler, and more reliable than any other writings. Especially since all teachers verify their own statements through the Scriptures as clearer and more reliable writings, and desire their own writings to be confirmed and explained by them. But nobody can ever substantiate an obscure saying by one that is more obscure; therefore, necessity forces us to run to the Bible with the writings of all teachers, and to obtain there a verdict and judgment upon them. Scripture alone is the true lord and master of all writings and doctrine on earth. If that is not granted, what is Scripture good for? The more we reject it, the more we become satisfied with men’s books and human teachers.

* Augustine, Letter 82 (to St. Jerome). Migne 33, 286-287.
Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 32: Career of the Reformer II, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 32 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999), 11–12.

W.H. Oliver ascribes the quote above to Luther's 1518 Defense and explanation of all the articles (Pelikan & Lehmann 1955:11). However, R. Scott Clark writes that it was written in response to a Catholic polemic made in 1521.

Luther is citing Augustine's Letter #82 to Jerome:​

For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason.
SOURCE: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102082.htm

​

One issue is whether Luther uses Sola Scriptura to mean the same thing as Augustine giving only "those books that are called the holy scriptures the honor of believing firmly that none of their writers have ever erred." It seems that although Luther endorses Augustine's idea, he uses the succinct term "Sola Scriptura" in other ways. A side issue is that Luther says that he trusts teachers "only when they give me evidence... from Scriptures". He says that Augustine writes to the same effect when Augustine demands that all others prove their statements "by holy Scripture or clear reason." Interestingly, Augustine elsewhere endorsed observances that he said do not come from Scripture:

"But in regard to those observances which we carefully attend and which the whole world keeps, and which derive not from Scripture but from Tradition, we are given to understand that they are recommended and ordained to be kept, either by the apostles themselves or by plenary [ecumenical] councils, the authority of which is quite vital in the Church" (Augustine, Letter to Januarius (54) 1,1).​

 

[rakovsky]

Be it known, then, that Scripture, without any gloss, is the sun and the sole light from which all teachers receive their light, and not the contrary. This is proved by the fact that when the fathers teach anything they do not trust their teaching, but fearing it to be too obscure and uncertain, they go to the Scriptures and take a clear passage out of it to shed light on their teaching, just as we place a light in a lantern, and as we read in Psalm 18:28 “Thou wilt light my lamp, O Lord.” And when they expound a passage of Scripture, they do not rely upon their own words and interpretation (for where they do that, which happens often, they usually err), but they bring another passage of Scripture which is clearer, and thus they interpret and explain Scripture by Scripture. My goats would soon find this to be true if they would read their fathers carefully, but since they simply skim over them and study neither the Scriptures nor the fathers, it is no wonder that they do not know what the Scriptures or the fathers teach.

I lose my patience when they thus revile and blaspheme the Scriptures and the fathers. They accuse the Scriptures of being obscure, while all the fathers deem them the light of lights, even as David says, “Thy word is my light”; and they ascribe to the fathers the light with which Scripture must be illumined, whereas all the fathers concede their own obscurity and illumine Scripture by Scripture alone. And that is the true method of interpretation which puts Scripture alongside of Scripture in a right and proper way; the father who can do this best is the best among them. And all the books of the fathers must be read with discrimination, not taking their word for granted, but looking whether they quote clear texts and explain Scripture by other and clearer Scripture. How should they have overcome the heretics, if they had fought with their own glosses? They would have been regarded as fools and madmen. But when they brought forward clear texts which needed no glosses, so that reason was brought into captivity, the evil spirit himself with all his heresies was completely routed."

Source: Martin Luther, Dr. Martin Luther's Answer to the Superchristian, Superspiritual, and Superlearned Book of Goat Emser of Leipzig, With a Glance at his Comrade Murner 1521, Works of Martin Luther III (Philadlephia: Muhlenberg Press, 1930) pp.332-335.

Longer quotation: https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2008/10/quotable-luther-5-opponents-using-early.html?m=1

Oh, would to God, that my interpretation and that of all teachers perish and that every Christian himself would read only the Scriptures and the pure Word of God. You can see for yourself from your sermons how incomparably better the Word of God is than the word of any man and how no man with all his words is able sufficiently to expound and interpret a single Word of God. It is an infinite Word which must be comprehended and contemplated with a still spirit, as we read in the 84th Psalm: I will hear what God himself says in me. And no one but such a still contemplating spirit is able to comprehend it. For him who could attain this without glasses and interpretations, my glasses and those of other men would be unnecessary, yes, would be but a hindrance. Therefore into the Scriptures, into the Scriptures, dear Christians, and let my interpretation and that of other teachers be but a scaffold for the true structure that we may comprehend and taste the pure unadulterated Word of God and remain there. For there alone God lives in Zion, Amen.”

Luther, Sermon on Epiphany,

SERMONS OF MARTIN LUTHER - FOOTNOTES

www.godrules.net

One issue with the ending is whether he means that God lives in the Logos "Word of God", the Second Person of the Trinity, or if he means that God only lives in the Bible.

You say, “scripture alone must be read without commentaries.” You say this correctly about the commentaries of Origen, Jerome, and Thomas. They wrote commentaries in which they handed down their own ideas rather than Pauline or Christian ones. Let no one call your annotations a commentary [in that sense] but only an index for reading Scripture and knowing Christ, on account that up to this point no one has offered a commentary which surpasses it.

Luther's 1522 Preface on Melanchthon's notes on Romans.

St. Augustine did the same thing, and writes that he would believe no teacher, no matter how godly and learned he might be, unless he proved his teaching with Scripture or clear reason. From this we learn how the fathers should be read, namely, that we should not consider what they say but whether they use clear Scripture or reason. But Emser and the pope’s sects should not be blamed for fearing to do and to suffer such things and for inventing other ruses. For if they really would allow themselves to be pressured into proving their point with clear Scripture—God help them—then the abomination would be discovered and they could no longer deny that their sect is the rule of the Antichrist seducing the whole world in the name of “church” and “priesthood,” as I shall bring to light someday, if God grants it. That is why they are almost forced to blaspheme and to disgrace Scripture, to sweep it under the rug, and to pretend that it is an obscure fog and that one should follow the interpretation of the fathers and seek the light in the darkness. One should not use the fathers’ teachings for anything more than to get into Scripture as they did, and then one should remain with Scripture alone. But Emser thinks that they should have a special function alongside the Scriptures, as if Scripture were not enough for teaching us.

Luther, 1523, Reply to "Emser the Goat"

Hence it was also a stupid undertaking to attempt to learn the meaning of Scripture by reading the expositions of the fathers and their numerous books and glosses. Instead of this, men should have given themselves to the study of languages. For because they were without languages the dear fathers at times belabored a text with many words and yet caught barely an inkling of its meaning; their comment is half guess work, half error. And yet you run after it with much labor, when you could meanwhile by means of the languages find a much better interpretation than the one you are following. For in comparison with the comments of all the fathers, the languages are as sunlight to shadow. Since, then, it becomes Christians to use the Holy Scriptures as their own and only book, and it is a sin and shame not to know our own book nor to understand our God’s speech and words, it is a still greater sin and loss if we do not study the languages, the more that God is now offering and giving us men and books and every aid and inducement to this study, and desires His Bible to be an open book.

Luther, 1524, To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany

Then there is Isaiah’s saying: “Thou hast made us err from thy ways, thou hast hardened our heart, so that we fear thee not” [Isa. 63:17]. Granted that Jerome, following Origen, interprets it thus: “He is said to lead astray when he does not at once recall from error,” but who can assure us that Jerome and Origen interpret it correctly? In any case, we have an agreement that we are willing to fight each other, not by appealing to the authority of any doctor, but by that of Scripture alone.
Luther, 1525, On the Bondage of the Will, Against Erasmus

Another translation:
Luther, 1525, in De Servo Arbitrio SOURCE: https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/pdf/luther_arbitrio.pdf

W.H. Oliver writes that in "1526, he used the term sola lectio Scripturarum (the sole readings of the Scriptures) in an attack on the papists who constructed their doctrines on Scripture alone." (http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1015-87582020000100007) Wengert gives more information on this 1526. Luther was debating his Catholic colleague Erasmus who shared a version of Luther's idea of trying to look for the meaning of the Bible in itself. However, unlike Luther, Erasmus stayed within the Catholic Church. Wengert wrote in his book Reading the Bible with Martin Luther:​

​

In a preface to his lectures on Jonah from 1526, appropriately dedicated to his colleague Justus Jonas, Luther took aim at those who "promise all things for themselves by the sole reading of the Scriptures, and that so presumptuously." The sola lectio Scripturarum was no compliment in Luther's mind because, as he had already warned Jonas, these people (papists and perhaps especially Erasmus) could not separate Scripture's teaching about justification by faith without works from their own distorted views.​

So here, Luther casts aspersion on how some make promises to themselves by the "sole reading of the Scriptures." This implies that a sole reading of the Bible is not necessarily reliable, at least. This passage then is not the same thing as Luther declaring a "Sola Scriptura" doctrine.​

 

[rakovsky]

Timothy Wengert notes in Reading the Bible with Martin Luther that in Luther's lectures on 1 John in 1526-1527, Luther remarked that "it is very rare that there are pure teachers in the church. Only Scripture is pure." I have trouble finding more of the passage.

Wengert notes that

Luther... in a sermon on Matthew 7 for the eighth Sunday after Trinity in 1528... had to deal with the problem of false prophets and the common axiom that Scripture was the book of heretics. Despite such sayings, he insisted that "Scripture alone must remain."

Wengert means that it is the book of heretics in that heretics misuse the Bible.

"[T]o remain in the Scripture alone, nourishes faith". Luther, 1529, Sermon on 1 Cor. 15.
Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341643010_SOLA_SCRIPTURA_AUTHORITY_VERSUS_INTERPRETATION

"For this reason I hate my books, and I often want to bury them because I fear lest the readers stay with them and abandon the reading of Scripture, which alone is the font of all wisdom.” Luther, Commentary on Genesis.

"For it will not do to frame articles of faith from the works or words of the holy Fathers; otherwise their kind of fare, of garments, of house, etc., would have to become an article of faith, as was done with relics. [We have, however, another rule, namely] The rule is: The Word of God shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel." (Martin Luther, 1537, Smalcald Articles II, 15.)

Herein I follow the example of St. Augustine, who was, among other things, the first and almost the only one who determined to be subject to the Holy Scriptures alone, and independent of the books of all the fathers and saints. On account of that he got into a fierce fight with St. Jerome, who reproached him by pointing to the books of his forefathers; but he did not turn to them. And if the example of St. Augustine had been followed, the pope would not have become Antichrist, and that countless mass of books, which is like a crawling swarm of vermin, would not have found its way into the church, and the Bible would have remained on the pulpit.
Luther, 1539, Preface to his German writings
SOURCE: heidelblog.net/2020/03/was-sola-scriptura-a-reformation-slogan-and-doctrine/

I take it that Luther is referring to something like Augustine's Letter #82 that I cited above.

Foundational Lutheran Declarations

“We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments as the pure and clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged” (FC SD, Rule and Norm, 3). “The Word of God is and should remain the sole rule and norm of all doctrine” (FC SD, Rule and Norm, 9).

“Although these answers are contrary to reason and philosophy in all their arrogance, nonetheless, we know that ‘the wisdom of this ‘perverted’ world is only foolishness in God’s sight’ [cf. 1 Cor. 3:19] and that only on the basis of God’s Word can judgments on articles of faith be made” (Formula of Concord, Article II:8).

"We believe, teach, and confess that the only rule and guiding principle according to which all teachings and teachers are to be evaluated and judged are the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New Testaments alone…" (Book of Concord)

 

[rakovsky]

WORDS FOR THE HALTING-PLACES.​

1. THE VISIBLE CREATION.​

GOD writes the Gospel, not in the Bible alone, but on trees, and flowers, and clouds, and stars.
​

Creation the Veil of God.​

​

ALL creatures are merely shells, masks (Larven), behind which God hides Himself, and deals with us. GOD dealeth not with us in this life face to face, but veiled in shadows from us. “Now, through a glass darkly; but then, face to face.”
​

Luther, Words for the Halting Places
SOURCE: http://www.godrules.net/library/luther/NEWluther_d5.htm​

Here he is not using his Sola Scriptura Doctrine.

Before that there was scarcely a word in all the Scriptures more bitter to me than “penitence,” though I was busy making pretences to God and trying to produce a forced, feigned love; but now there is no word which has for me a sweeter or more pleasing sound than “penitence.” For God’s commands are sweet, when we find that they are to be read not in books alone, but: in the wounds of our sweet Savior.

Luther to Fr. Staupitz​

This is not the Sola Scriptura Doctrine either. One issue is what books he is referring to. If he means the Bible, then it could mean that God's commands are not just to be read in the Bible, but in Christ's wounds.

The Spirit is nowhere more present and alive than in His own sacred writings... We must let Scripture have the chief place and be its own truest, simplest and clearest interpreter... I want Scripture alone to rule, and not to be interpreted according to my spirit or that of any other man, but to be understood in its own light (per seipsam) and according to its own Spirit.

Luther, 1519, quoted in Philip Watson's Editor's Preface

A COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS - EDITOR’S PREFACE

This seems to be from the same text that I quoted in my OP.

HOW THE WISE MEN CONTINUE THEIR JOURNEY, FIND CHRIST AND WORSHIP HIM.

86. It was said above that the saints often err and give offense by human doctrines and works. It is God’s will, therefore, that we shall not be guided by their examples, but by his Word. For this reason he permits the saints often to deliver human doctrine and works. Again, he disposes that the impious sometimes teach the clear and plain Scriptures, in order to guard us against offenses, on the one hand, and from the wicked life of the ungodly, on the other hand from the shining deeds of the saints. For, if you do not follow the Scriptures alone, the lives of the saints are ten times more dangerous and offensive than those of the ungodly. These commit gross sins, which are easily recognized and avoided, but the saints exhibit a subtle, pleasing appearance in human doctrines, which might deceive the very elect, as Christ says, Matthew 24:24.

127. Luke says in his preface, Luke 1:1, that he was influenced to write his Gospel by the fact that some had undertaken to write the history of Christ in whose reliableness he did not have full confidence. It was the object of all the epistles of Paul to guard and foster what he had taught before, doubting not that he had preached much more abundantly than he wrote. If wishing did any good, one could wish nothing better than that all books were simply destroyed and that nothing remained in the world except that which Christians formerly had, namely, the pure Scriptures alone or the Bible. It contains more than is necessary of all kinds of art and doctrine which man ought to know, but wishing is now to no purpose; would to God there were only good books besides the Bible.

Luther, 1522, Epiphany Sermon

SERMONS OF MARTIN LUTHER - EPIPHANY.

www.godrules.net

14. But the consolation of which I have spoken is that Christ is only found in the temple, that is to say in the house of God. But what is the house of God? Is it not the whole creation? It is indeed true that God is everywhere, but he is especially present in the Holy Scriptures, in his Word, more than anywhere else. We learn therefore here that nobody can presume to derive any comfort from anything but the Word of God; you will find the Son only in the temple. Now look at the mother of Jesus who does not yet understand this and does not know that she must seek for him in the temple. When she sought for him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance, and not at the right place, she did not find him.
...
But here they except the teachings of some of the holy fathers, who have interpreted the Scriptures, and whom they have exalted so highly that they place them on the same level with the pope of Rome, or a little above him, asserting even that they could not err, and clamoring: How could it be possible for the holy fathers not to understand the Scriptures? But let these fools say what they wish, always remind them of the words of Christ: “Knew ye not that I must be in my Father’s house?” We must above all things have the Word of God and cling to it, for Christ will be there and in no where else. Therefore it is in vain that you seek him elsewhere. For how can you convince me that Christ must be found in the writings of the holy fathers?


"A Sermon on the Gospel of Luke, 2 chapter. On the Sunday after the day of the Three Holy Kings; in which is set forth how they fare who are true Christians; also how we are to seek Christ only in the Temple, that is, in the divine Scriptures. Doctor Martin Luther." 1523.

In the first paragraph above, he seems to identify the Bible as the "Word of God" with the Second Person of the Trinity and then says that you can only derive comfort from the Word of God, referring to the Bible and to Christ. This is because in the subsequent passage he differentiates the "Word of God" from Christ by saying that Christ is "in" it.

In a 1525 Sermon, Luther cited the verse "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders; so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect." and commented:

Now if all the saints should come and bid me believe in the Pope, I would not do it, but say: Even though you are of the elect, Christ nevertheless has said that there should be abominable and dangerous times: that you also must err. Therefore we must cling alone to the Scriptures and to the Word of God, which say he is not here nor there. Where he is, there I shall be. He will not be there where my work or calling is. Now whoever teaches me otherwise deceives me; therefore I still insist that nothing avails that they propose, as for example:

The holy fathers and teachers thought so, lived so, hence we also must think and live in like manner; but this avails: Christ taught and thought so, therefore we must also think the same, for he is authority, above all the saints. “Behold, I have told you beforehand. If therefore they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in the wilderness; go not forth: Behold, he is in the inner chambers; believe it not.”

SOURCE: http://www.godrules.net/library/luther/129luther_e23.htm

But what it is to find Christ in such poverty, and what his swaddling clothes and manger signify, are explained in the previous Gospel; that his poverty teaches how we should find him in our neighbors, the lowliest and the most needy; and his swaddling clothes are the holy Scriptures; that in actual life we should incline to the needy; and in our studies and contemplative life only to the Scriptures; in order that Christ alone may become the man of both lives and that he may everywhere stand before us.

We should shun the books of Aristotle, of the pope, and of all men, or read them in a way that we do not seek the edification of the soul in them; but with them make use of the time and this life, as one teaches a trade or civil law. However it is not in vain that St. Luke places Mary before Joseph, and both of them before the child and says: “And they found both Mary and Joseph, and the babe lying in the manger.”

Luther, Sermon on Second Christmas Day

SERMONS OF MARTIN LUTHER - SECOND CHRISTMAS DAY.

www.godrules.net

 

[BJ Bear]

Greetings. I wish to invite you to post quotations and passages from Luther and foundational Lutheran declarations that use phrases such as "Sola Scriptura," "Bible alone," and "The Old and New Testaments alone." This should be able to provide a good idea of the meaning and use of this phrase. I am indenting places where Luther was not using the phrase Sola Scriptura approvingly.

Interesting topic but the ones that will matter to most Evangelicals will be those found in the Formula Of Concord because it is a confessional church. The term Lutheran is a pejorative term cooked up by Roman Catholics, like they did Arian, etc. The name came to be added to our churches in America to protect the flock because there were non Evangelicals going around claiming to be Evangelical pastors.

I like to quote the one from the Defense And Explanation Of All Articles because it easy to remember and it was the assertion that caused all the hubbub. The Formula was written and adopted almost sixty years later.

In 1519, in part of a debate with Catholic apologist John Eck, Luther wrote "Proposition Thirteen" on Papal authority, noting, "So that it would not appear that I am discussing Scripture alone". (Luther 1884:227) According to Timothy Wengert in Reading the Bible with Martin Luther: An Introductory Guide, Luther meant that he was using different sources to support the Pope's authority, not just scripture without other sources. This quote might not very much on point, because here Luther said that he was not using "Scripture alone", and Wengert claims that Luther was supporting Papal authority here. Maybe later on Luther changed his view on papal authority and whether to use "Scripture alone."​

As Luther once put it, he was drowning in papal doctrine (rough paraphrase).

​

According to Timothy Wengert in Reading the Bible with Martin Luther: An Introductory Guide, Luther wrote a 1522 tract attacking Henry VIII. Luther separated Biblical teachings from supposedly extraBiblical ones, among which he included the papacy, conciliar decrees, teachers, universities. Luther added that "I was content to expurgate the Scriptures alone for the sake of papal authority" and that his position in the RC Church was "anything but scripture." I have trouble finding the full original quote.​

Those are definitely extra Biblical doctrines. Which reference did Wengert give?

​

"I do not want to throw out all those more learned [than I], but Scripture alone to reign, and not to interpret it by my own spirit or the spirit of any man, but I want to understand it by itself and its spirit." Luther, An Assertion of All the Articles (1520). I found a fuller passage for it in Latin:
I found the full passage in Latin here: https://archive.org/details/werkekritischege07luthuoft/page/98/mode/2up
W.H. Oliver found it in Luther 1897a:98. (Luther, D.M.1897a. D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe: 7. Band. Weimar: Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger.)

The link and Oliver refer to the same work. Oliver primarily used author, date of publication, and page in his references. There is a legend at the end of the PDF.

W.H. Oliver ascribes the quote above to Luther's 1518 Defense and explanation of all the articles (Pelikan & Lehmann 1955:11). However, R. Scott Clark writes that it was written in response to a Catholic polemic made in 1521.

A swing and a miss for Oliver and if what you write is accurate then maybe one for Clark. The Defense And Explanation was a response to the Papal Bull so it wouldn't be written before 1520. It is a maybe for Clark because although Luther did write some ideas multiple times, and he did write a response in 1521, it isn't identified in your post as a response to the Bull.

Since you threw a few quotes together without citing them individually after each quote it seems likely that you didn't find what you think you did. The page you cite is part of a response to the papal Bull but it is not the Defense And Explanation Of All Articles.

 

[Tertiumquid]

​

According to Timothy Wengert in Reading the Bible with Martin Luther: An Introductory Guide, Luther wrote a 1522 tract attacking Henry VIII. Luther separated Biblical teachings from supposedly extraBiblical ones, among which he included the papacy, conciliar decrees, teachers, universities. Luther added that "I was content to expurgate the Scriptures alone for the sake of papal authority" and that his position in the RC Church was "anything but scripture." I have trouble finding the full original quote.​

Simple enough. Here is the primary source to put an end to your trouble. Enjoy.

For the list of "extra Biblical ones." This is available in WA 10/2 186. As to your "expurgate the Scriptures alone" comment, this is on the bottom of page 186 (line 40) to the top of 187. "Contentus autem eram solas scripturas expurgare, Paatum..." etc.

 

[BJ Bear]

Simple enough. Here is the primary source to put an end to your trouble. Enjoy.

For the list of "extra Biblical ones." This is available in WA 10/2 186. As to your "expurgate the Scriptures alone" comment, this is on the bottom of page 186 (line 40) to the top of 187. "Contentus autem eram solas scripturas expurgare, Paatum..." etc.

Thanks. Is that Wengert reference the result of internet wizardry or a massive library or ___?

 

[Tertiumquid]

Thanks. Is that Wengert reference the result of internet wizardry or a massive library or ___?

I don’t have that Wengart book,and the limited preview on Google doesn’t provide references, so, it is wizardry… also helps that Concordia recently published it!

 

[rakovsky]

A swing and a miss for Oliver and if what you write is accurate then maybe one for Clark. The Defense And Explanation was a response to the Papal Bull so it wouldn't be written before 1520. It is a maybe for Clark because although Luther did write some ideas multiple times, and he did write a response in 1521, it isn't identified in your post as a response to the Bull.

Since you threw a few quotes together without citing them individually after each quote it seems likely that you didn't find what you think you did. The page you cite is part of a response to the papal Bull but it is not the Defense And Explanation Of All Articles.

When you said that I threw some quotes together without citing them individually, I think that you are talking about the quote in Luther's Works, Vol. 32.

I cited it as:

Christ allowed his hands, his feet, his sides to be touched so that the disciples might be sure that it was he, himself [John 20:27]. Why, then, should we not touch and examine the Scriptures— which are in truth the spiritual body of Christ— to make sure whether we believe in them or not? ...
(I snipped the rest of the quote here for brevity)...
Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 32: Career of the Reformer II, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 32 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999), 11–12.

So the quote above, starting with "Christ allowed his hands..." is in LW. Vol. 32. I was looking for the date and title for the passage's text. W.H. Oliver ascribes this quote to Luther's 1518 Defense and explanation of all the articles (Pelikan & Lehmann 1955:11). But you are saying that this is wrong. R. Scott Clark writes that this same quote was instead written in response to a Catholic polemic made in 1521. On his "Heidelblog," Clark writes:

In March, 1521, a month before he he stood before God and the powers of this world at Worms, he had written to the Holy Father in Rome, in his response to the papal condemnation Execrabilis:

Thereupon Clark quotes the passage found in Luther's Works, Volume 32.

 

[BJ Bear]

When you said that I threw some quotes together without citing them individually, I think that you are talking about the quote in Luther's Works, Vol. 32.

I cited it as:

So the quote above, starting with "Christ allowed his hands..." is in LW. Vol. 32. I was looking for the date and title for the passage's text. W.H. Oliver ascribes this quote to Luther's 1518 Defense and explanation of all the articles (Pelikan & Lehmann 1955:11). But you are saying that this is wrong. R. Scott Clark writes that this same quote was instead written in response to a Catholic polemic made in 1521. On his "Heidelblog," Clark writes:

Thereupon Clark quotes the passage found in Luther's Works, Volume 32.

Clark's date is correct for the DEAA, Oliver's is not. It is not possible for Luther to respond to a document that won't be written until 1520.

Site unseen, here is a paper by someone else took a similar look at Luther. https://www.academia.edu/7846932/_N...t_of_the_Western_Christian_Tradition_SUMMARY_

 

[BJ Bear]

I don’t have that Wengart book,and the limited preview on Google doesn’t provide references, so, it is wizardry… also helps that Concordia recently published it!

Thanks. This discussion made me realize that some time ago I downloaded a misidentified file. When I brought up the reference you cited offline on a really big screen it was to a church postil. Turns out it was a later publication, 1925, of the first section rather than the second.

Fwiw, the table of contents in the earlier publication is much more detailed.

 

[Tertiumquid]

Thanks. This discussion made me realize that some time ago I downloaded a misidentified file. When I brought up the reference you cited offline on a really big screen it was to a church postil. Turns out it was a later publication, 1925, of the first section rather than the second.

Fwiw, the table of contents in the earlier publication is much more detailed.

I have all sorts of Luther-related files… not sure what I have! For Luther’s response to Henry, I have at least 2 English translations. One is online I found via my blog, didn’t even realize I had found it many years ago. Recently, LW did a fresh translation which synchs their pages to WA, which is really helpful!

 

[BJ Bear]

Here is the ticket quoted in your post: "Hence it was also a stupid undertaking to attempt to learn the meaning of Scripture by reading the expositions of the fathers and their numerous books and glosses. Instead of this, men should have given themselves to the study of languages. For because they were without languages the dear fathers at times belabored a text with many words and yet caught barely an inkling of its meaning; their comment is half guess work, half error. And yet you run after it with much labor, when you could meanwhile by means of the languages find a much better interpretation than the one you are following. For in comparison with the comments of all the fathers, the languages are as sunlight to shadow."
Luther, 1524, To the Councilmen of All Cities in Germany

So here, Luther casts aspersion on how some make promises to themselves by the "sole reading of the Scriptures." This implies that a sole reading of the Bible is not necessarily reliable, at least.​

One of Luther's things, and probably that of his fellow Wittenbergers, was the education of the children in the Biblical languages. Without a knowledge of those languages he thought a right understanding of the Gospel would be easily lost.

That knowledge isn't a guarantee in all instances but the times where no one knows for sure what a sentence or pasage is intended to convey is greatly reduced.

This passage then is not the same thing as Luther declaring a "Sola Scriptura" doctrine.​

It's a practice.

 

[BJ Bear]

I have all sorts of Luther-related files… not sure what I have! For Luther’s response to Henry, I have at least 2 English translations. One is online I found via my blog, didn’t even realize I had found it many years ago. Recently, LW did a fresh translation which synchs their pages to WA, which is really helpful!

I gave your post a like because that is helpful but the mechanics of synching pages like that seems like a big task that would leave a lot of white space. I guess there isn't yet a shortage of electronic "paper."

 

[Tertiumquid]

I gave your post a like because that is helpful but the mechanics of synching pages like that seems like a big task that would leave a lot of white space. I guess there isn't yet a shortage of electronic "paper."

The new volumes of LW have done a tremendous job of synching every page to WA. It’s so easy now. I think now I have an additional 15 volumes of LW? They send me the volumes automatically. Some of them are also offered digitally, but actually having the book in my hand is so much more… readable. Plus, I’m not yet to the point of buying the same book twice!

 

[Tertiumquid]

Greetings. I wish to invite you to post quotations and passages from Luther and foundational Lutheran declarations that use phrases such as "Sola Scriptura," "Bible alone," and "The Old and New Testaments alone." This should be able to provide a good idea of the meaning and use of this phrase. I am indenting places where Luther was not using the phrase Sola Scriptura approvingly.

Fundamentally, I do not trust posts like this one you've created. What your end? What's the goal of this discussion thread? Are you attempting to further understand Lutheranism, or are you attempting to set up something to knock down? I suspect the later and not the former.

The declarations from official Lutheran doctrinal statements would be those that (for lack of a better word) "bind" a confessional Lutheran. While Luther is held in high regard, he's not a proto-Joseph Smith or the infallible pope of the Lutheran church. Luther was not a systematizer. This does not mean that Luther was haphazard. He wrote treatises for specific situations. When you yank Luther out of his historical context and disregard systematic developments within Lutheranism (or any theological system), distortion may occur. keep in mind as well Luther's thought developed and progressed.

In 1519, in part of a debate with Catholic apologist John Eck, Luther wrote "Proposition Thirteen" on Papal authority, noting, "So that it would not appear that I am discussing Scripture alone". (Luther 1884:227) According to Timothy Wengert in Reading the Bible with Martin Luther: An Introductory Guide, Luther meant that he was using different sources to support the Pope's authority, not just scripture without other sources. This quote might not very much on point, because here Luther said that he was not using "Scripture alone", and Wengert claims that Luther was supporting Papal authority here. Maybe later on Luther changed his view on papal authority and whether to use "Scripture alone."

First, some nitpicking: "(Luther 1884:227)" is not a meaningful reference. If you want to understand something you've read in a secondary source, cross-check it with the primary context. It didn't take me long to find the secondary source for "(Luther 1884:227)." That can be found here. Now this means I've got to wade through this link to find what "(Luther 1884:227)" actually refers to. In this case, it is said to refer to D. Martin Luthers Werke: Kritische Gesamtausgabe: 2 page 227. Then there's the rabbit trail over to Wengert, but you provide no reference in Wengert to check. Now I've got to wade through Wengert's book to figure out what he said. This is too time consuming!

Second, a simple question: why would Luther use Scripture to support the Pope's authority against Eck? Sounds kinda fishy doesn't it? When I tracked down the Wengert text, that author isn't saying Luther supported Rome's version of papal authority with Scripture! Luther was debating Eck that the Scriptures had authority over the pope, even if he was the head of the church. Wengert points out Luther first presented a "lengthy defense" of his position with a "thorough discussion of biblical texts." Then Luther went on to cite secondary sources. Even in this early stage in Luther's battle against the papacy, there nothing necessarily against sola scriptura in this methodology of using secondary authorities.

 

[rakovsky]

Simple enough. Here is the primary source to put an end to your trouble.

Thanks for the link, Tertiumquid.

Here is a broader passage:

Furentibus autem his portentis abominationum rapuit me Dominus imprudentem in medias has turbas, et occasione fallcium indulgentiarum dedit mihi aliquot Scripturae locos Satanae extorquere, ceu clavam de manu Herculi, et germano sensui spiritus restituere. Hic, Deum vivum, quanto aestu spumare coepit furor eorum, paratus coelum terrae et ignem mari miscere, scilicet ferre non potens, corniculae suae detrahi alienas plumas, quibus illam egregie in Vicarium Christi adornaverat.

Ego vero corniculam istam primum satus modeste et reverenter tractabam, hoc ipsum maxime agens, ut Papatus nonnihil esset, ignarus ipsum ex diametro pugnare toti Scripturae, contentus autem eram solas Scripturas expurgare, Papatum tale aliquid ducens , qualia sunt regna et principatus hominum. At illi longae tyrrannidis usu indurati et hactenus successessu fraudis (iuxta Danielem) elati contemnebant modestiam et reverentiam meam, in locum Dei suum idolum statuere praesumentes et mediis Scripturis miscere.

GOOGLE TRANSLATE

But while these monstrous abominations were raging, the Lord snatched me in the midst of these imprudent crowds, and, on occasion of deceitful indulgences, gave me to extort some passages of Scripture from Satan, like a club from the hand of Hercules, and to restore to the true sense of the spirit. Here, the living God, with what heat their fury began to foam out, prepared to mix the heaven of the earth and the fire with the sea, namely, not able to bear it, to pull down the feathers of his own crows, with which he had adorned it brilliantly for Christ's Vicar.

But I began to treat this little crow modestly and respectfully, especially thanks to the fact that the Papacy was somewhat ignorant that it was diametrically opposed to the whole of Scripture, and I was content to purge the Scriptures only, leading the Papacy to do something like that, such as the kingdoms and principalities of men. But they, hardened by the use of long tyranny, and elated by the success of treachery up to now (according to Daniel), despised my modesty and reverence, presuming to establish their idol in God's place and mix it with the Scriptures.

From Luther's 1522 tract criticizing King Henry VIII

I trying to see what he means about "expurgating/purging the Scriptures alone." It looks like he could be contrasting his work with how Rome mixed their idol (the Papacy) with the Scriptures. And he is comparing taking the Scriptural passages from Satan with taking a club from Hercules' hand a restoring the true sense of spirit to the Scriptures. So by purging the Scripture, I think that he is referring to the interpretations that he was giving the Scripture, ie. that he was disproving Rome's interpretations of Scripture and showing the true meaning of the Scripture. And he was only doing this to the "Scripture alone", instead of going on to "purging" other writings like Augustine's from Rome's usages and interpretations.

 

[rakovsky]

Second, a simple question: why would Luther use Scripture to support the Pope's authority against Eck? Sounds kinda fishy doesn't it? When I tracked down the Wengert text, that author isn't saying Luther supported Rome's version of papal authority with Scripture! Luther was debating Eck that the Scriptures had authority over the pope, even if he was the head of the church. Wengert points out Luther first presented a "lengthy defense" of his position with a "thorough discussion of biblical texts." Then Luther went on to cite secondary sources. Even in this early stage in Luther's battle against the papacy, there nothing necessarily against sola scriptura in this methodology of using secondary authorities.

Timothy Wengert writes in Reading the Bible with Martin Luther:

When in 1519 John Eck proposed twelve theses for his debate in Leipzig with Luther (he had composed others for his debate with Karlstadt), Luther countered by publishing a thirteenth proposition on papal authority, to which he offered a lengthy defense. After a thorough discussion of biblical texts, he stated, “So that it would not appear that I am discussing Scripture alone,” and went on to recount other authorities that supported his position. [WA 2:227, 30–31.] Here Luther actually refused to approach the question of papal authority de iure divino (by divine right), which was the theme of his proposition, with Scripture alone!

I took this sentence in bold to mean that Luther was offering "a lengthy defense" to papal authority, as if Luther hadn't yet been in opposition to it per se, but now I see that it could mean that Wengert meant that Luther was offering a defense to Luther's "13th proposition on papal authority." Thanks for pointing that out. The full quote in the 13th Proposition would still be nice. In any case, it doesn't sound like he is referring to his "Sola Scriptura" doctrine in this passage.

 

[Tertiumquid]

Timothy Wengert writes in Reading the Bible with Martin Luther:

I took this sentence in bold to mean that Luther was offering "a lengthy defense" to papal authority, as if Luther hadn't yet been in opposition to it per se, but now I see that it could mean that Wengert meant that Luther was offering a defense to Luther's "13th proposition on papal authority." Thanks for pointing that out. The full quote in the 13th Proposition would still be nice. In any case, it doesn't sound like he is referring to his "Sola Scriptura" doctrine in this passage.

1. It is true Luther considered himself a defender of the papacy early in his life, however by 1519, this was unraveling quickly. Simply search out "Luther's Explanation of Proposition Thirteen Concerning the Power of the Pope," to see that Luther was not using Scripture or secondary sources to defend the papacy, it was the opposite. In fairness to you, Wengert's paragraph isn't clear.... but....tThere's a lesson here for "seekers"- do the hard work of looking stuff up in context... especially Luther. If you're going to quote Luther, don't quote someone quoting Luther. Get the primary source, read it, and then quote Luther. Then, apply this methodology to.... everything! Use your citation of Wengert citing Luther as... a learning experience. Learn to value primary sources over secondary sources... in fact, this is simply an aspect of what Luther is trying to teach you: a primary source is more beneficial than a secondary source. You assumed Wengert was clearer than what Luther was actually saying. He wasn't. Secondary sources are not necessarily clearer than a primary source.

2. Presuppositionally, I do not see such a thing as "his sola scriptura doctrine," if by such a comment you're implying Luther invented sola scriptura. Above I asked you about goals in presenting posts like the one you started. Why not start out saying: "Here's what I believe. Here's what Luther believes. I think Luther is wrong because of _____." In my 20+ years at CARM, I witnessed quite a number of people who show up on Lutheran board, start fires, but often do not say, "I started this fire because of _______."

 

[rakovsky]

I found the full passage for Luther's quote in his Commentary in Genesis. It actually uses Scripture Alone phraseology twice.

​

Our fathers generally passed it [the story of Lot and his daughters in Gen. 19:30] over, either because they were hindered by other endeavors or because God so directed it, lest the church be burdened with a multitude of books. For this reason I myself hate my books and often wish that they would perish, because I fear that they may detail the readers and lead them away from reading Scripture itself, which alone is the fount of all wisdom. Besides, I am frightened by the example of the former age [77] After those who ad devoted themselves to sacred studies had come upon commentaries of human beings, they not only spent most of their time reading the ancient theologians, but eventually they also busied themselves with Aristotle, Averroes, and others, who later on gave rise to the Thomases, the Scotuses, and similar monstrosities.

For this reason books should be limited in number, and among these books only those thich lead the reader into a correct understanding of the Scripture should be given approval. And in the books of the fathers themselves we should value nothing that is not in agreement with Scripture; it alone should remain the judge and teacher of all books. To be sure, it is profitable to hear the confessors, whether they are dead and teach in their writings or are living and teach by word of mouth. Nevertheless, there should be a limit. And one should always observe this rule: that we read those who expound Scripture. Since we have no opinion of the fathers on this passage, we shall expound it as best we can.

Footnote 77:
Luther had repeatedly expressed himself this way about his books, but the problem had become acute during the 1530's. In 1533 there appeared a catalog of his existing works, to which he wrote a rather diffident foreword (W, XXXVIII, 133-134). Then, on June 113, 1536, Wolfgang Capito of Strassburg had asked Luther for permission to reprint his Postil and other works. TO this Luther replied on July 9, 1537: "As for the disposition of my books in volumes, I am rather cool and disinterested; for I am aroused by a Saturnine hunger and would rather see them all devoured. I do not acknowledge any as my legitimate book except the book On the Bondage of the Will [1525] and the Catechism [1529]." W, Briefe, Viii, p. 99.

Luther, Commentary on Genesis. c. 1546, LW 3:305–6

The passage above is commenting on Genesis 19:30. Wengert cited it from: WA 43:93, 40–94, 3 (=LW 3:305–6).

Wengert gave a bit different translation for the first sentence in question: "For this reason I hate my books, and I often want to bury them because I fear lest the readers stay with them and abandon the reading of Scripture, which alone is the font of all wisdom.”