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

rakovsky

Well-known member
2. Now about the Latin / German mix. Wengert says one listener reverted to Latin in his notes when the phrase sola scriptura was used. This means Luther didn't write the sermon, rathe multiple people took notes on what he preached (and the Latin / German shorthand formula was used).

3. One of Luther's emphases in this section of this sermon is how a Christian is able to handle death. The context of the sermon at this point is about the resurrection of the human body. The picture Luther paints in this 1529 sermon is that of a person dying and rotting from the plague (an appropriate image for that year). "Reason" doesn't grasp that the stinking rotting dead body is hiding a glorious, resurrected body. It is, according to Luther, the "Scriptures alone" that fosters (or as Wengert says, nourishes) a Christian's faith in this divine promise. Just previous to this quote, Luther commenting on 1 Cor. 15:3 highlights Paul's use of "according to Scripture." In Luther's view, as he explains in context, there is no life in a person unless the living Word of God sticks in their heart. Before you fixate on one or two words, Luther is not ruling out the preached word. The Word of God for Luther is more than simply words on a page in a book. If one wants to look death straight in the eye, it's by being nourished by the Scriptures alone., the very Word of almighty God. When a person is about to die, should they take a book from Augustine, Chrysostom, Luther, Billy Graham or Joel Osteen? No! They must cling to the very words of God... alone.
Did you read that in German or Latin? It's impressive. You are giving helpful background too. It would be better to have the full paragraph in English.

"Das yn feynem stynckenden leybe eyn newes leben sticke wie eyne Bonne, hoc racio non comprehendit, in sola scriptura permanere alit hanc fidem."

The German part here is beyond the power of Google Translate.

Peace.
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
Did you read that in German or Latin? It's impressive. You are giving helpful background too. It would be better to have the full paragraph in English.

"Das yn feynem stynckenden leybe eyn newes leben sticke wie eyne Bonne, hoc racio non comprehendit, in sola scriptura permanere alit hanc fidem."

The German part here is beyond the power of Google Translate.

Peace.
Das in seinem stinkenden Leibe ein neues Leben sticke wie eine Sonne.
 

BJ Bear

Well-known member
This is in the context I described above that "Reason" doesn't grasp that the stinking rotting dead body is hiding a glorious, resurrected body. The resurrected body, though in the dark earth, is like the sun being hidden.
Yes. A man can't reason his way to the gospel. It is revealed to him through revelation, that is, through Scripture alone rather than reason, nature, etc.
 

rakovsky

Well-known member
Out of the quotes that I found and cited, these three could use fuller quotations:

1) 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 cites to
WA 20:745, 2–3 (from the copy of the lecture by Georg Rörer, not used by LW 30:295).​

Hunc nobis articulum Satan auferre conatur, in hoc articulo monachi erraverunt et, nisi egerint poenitentiam, sunt damnati, ut VViclef dixit. Miror, quod hoc suo tempore tentiam, damnati sunt, quia magistri errorum, abominatus maxime hunc articulum, et tamen verus. Rarissimi sunt doctores in ecclesia, qui puri sunt, sola scriptura est pura. Cyprianus fuit Anabaptista, B. Augustinus dicit in martyribus absorptum hoc peccatum in charitate. Regula Fancisci est Euagelium fratrum. Franciscus error. In Minoribus videmus, quoniam 'externa opera', nihil docetur nisi gradus humilitatis, poenitentiae.

Google Translate
Satan is trying to take away from us this article, in this article the monks have erred, and unless they do penance, they are condemned, as VViclef said. I am surprised that they were condemned at this time in their opinion, because the Master of Errors most abhorred this article, and yet it is true. There are very rare teachers in the church who are pure, the Scripture alone is pure. Cyprianus was an Anabaptist, and B. Augustine says that among the martyrs this sin was absorbed in charity. The rule of Fanciscus is that of the brothers Euagelius. Francis' mistake. We see in minors that 'external works' is taught nothing but the degree of humility and penance.

I found this at the top of page 745:
 

rakovsky

Well-known member
How would that be possible in AD 42? [crucial times for a new church]
Arch,
You are asking an important question, but I want to minimize debating in this thread.
I invite you to discuss it in my thread:
Thanks.
 

rakovsky

Well-known member
Here is another:

Augsburg Confession, Article 28:
But where the bishops have civil government and the sword, they do not have these as bishops by divine right, but it has been given by Roman emperors and kings by human, imperial right, for civil administration of their goods, and it has nothing to do with the ministry of the gospel.

Therefore the episcopal office, according to divine right, is preaching the gospel, forgiving sins, judging doctrine and rejecting doctrines that are contrary to the gospel, and excommunicating from Christian fellowship the godless people whose godless conduct is obvious, not with human authority, but only through God’s word. When this is the case, the parishioners and churches are duty-bound to obey the bishops, according to this saying of Christ in Luke 10: “Whoever listens to you, listens to me.”

SOURCE: https://redbrickparsonage.wordpress...rg-confession-article-28-episcopal-authority/

According to divine right, therefore, it is the office of the bishop to preach the Gospel, forgive sins, judge doctrine and condemn doctrine that is contrary to the Gospel, and exclude from the Christian community the ungodly whose wicked conduct is manifest. All this is to be done not by human power but by God’s Word alone.1 (Augsburg Confession, Art 28)


And another quote:
They wrong the fathers and say of them what is not true. It is not the task of the fathers to throw light on the Scriptures with their own glosses, but rather to set forth the clear Scriptures and so to prove Scripture with Scripture alone, without adding any of their own thoughts. It is true they claim, that heretics are produced by the Scriptures. From where else should they come? For there is no book which teaches faith except the Scriptures. Therefore just as no Christian is born except by the Scriptures, so too no one can become a heretic except by the Scriptures. For if Christ is a sign of rejection over which men stumble, some falling, others getting up again, should we therefore reject him or set up another Christ alongside of him? If you abuse wine and bread, should fields and vineyards therefore go untended or others be cultivated instead? The evil spirit is an enemy of the Scripture and he has given it an evil reputation and made it suspect in this matter because of those blasphemous mouths which shout these things everywhere.

Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 52: Sermons II. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 52, p. 176). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.
 

rakovsky

Well-known member
He uses the phrase "on earth" here too in the statement about "all teachers on earth," and seems to work parallel to what Luther said about Scripture being the only master of "all writings.":
"If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." Gal 1:9. Here you have the clearest of texts-a very thunderbolt from heaven - which shows that Paul in a comprehensive statement puts himself, an angel from heaven, the teachers on earth, and whatever other masters there may be, absolutely under the Holy Scriptures. Scripture must be the reigning queen; all must obey her and be subject to her. They must not be her masters, judges, or jurors, but only her witnesses, pupils, and confessors, no matter who they are, whether the pope, or Luther, or Augustine, or Paul, or an angel from heaven. Nor must any other doctrine be proclaimed or listened to in the Church than the pure word of God - that is, the Holy Scriptures. 9, 87.

He refers above expansively to "the teachers on earth, and whatever other masters there may be", ie. not just Catholic writings, but literally teachers on earth and every other master- "all must obey her." That is, everyone must obey the Bible, not just church teachers. Science teachers must obey her too.

The last statement in the quote above reiterates the kind of exclusive statements that he makes about the Bible in other quotes.
 

Tertiumquid

Well-known member
raised, yes.... answered, not so much -- important topic though ;)
Hmm... well, that's a fairly easy one to answer.

You must be interacting with people that are "cradle protestants" that don't understand the basics on sola scriptura. Please accept my apology for their ignorance (or frankly, stupidity). It's not a difficult question to engage.
 

Tertiumquid

Well-known member
Ok, so let's try not to violate the Rakovsky rule, "I want to minimize debating in this thread." Let's get around that by not debating. Rather, I'll simply lay out the problem and provide you one standard simple answer. Consider it Tertiumquid-apedia.

1. Recap:
BJ Bear said: "A man can't reason his way to the gospel. It is revealed to him through revelation, that is, through Scripture alone rather than reason, nature, etc."

Arch Stanton said: "How would that be possible in AD 42? [crucial times for a new church]"

2. Summation of problem: How would it be possible to have the gospel revealed through Scripture in AD 42? The New Testament canon was not written yet.

3. Solution: I offer the following as merely one simply solution to the above conundrum: Sola Scriptura is not a denial that at times in history the "Word of God" was oral. It refers to the completed written state of the "Word of God" after the giving of divine revelation ceased and was inscripturated.
 

Arch Stanton

Well-known member
Ok, so let's try not to violate the Rakovsky rule, "I want to minimize debating in this thread." Let's get around that by not debating. Rather, I'll simply lay out the problem and provide you one standard simple answer. Consider it Tertiumquid-apedia.

1. Recap:
BJ Bear said: "A man can't reason his way to the gospel. It is revealed to him through revelation, that is, through Scripture alone rather than reason, nature, etc."

Arch Stanton said: "How would that be possible in AD 42? [crucial times for a new church]"

2. Summation of problem: How would it be possible to have the gospel revealed through Scripture in AD 42? The New Testament canon was not written yet.

3. Solution: I offer the following as merely one simply solution to the above conundrum: Sola Scriptura is not a denial that at times in history the "Word of God" was oral. It refers to the completed written state of the "Word of God" after the giving of divine revelation ceased and was inscripturated.
I must say, as a history teacher for over thirty years, I truly enjoy your succinct, direct, posts!!!! :) ... I would have a follow up, but I am not sure this is the thread for it. [Rakovsky's thread]
 

rakovsky

Well-known member
I would have a follow up, but I am not sure this is the thread for it. [Rakovsky's thread]
Thanks.
I welcome you to continue your discussion on my thread:
 
Top