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

[Tertiumquid]

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).

Here's some more free stuff.

I finally found a minute to look up LW 30:295, a task... I'm compelled to point out... isn't really all that hard in our current time in history. What is more confusing is understanding how Luther's words came to be in the form they're in now. Some are fairly simple: Luther wrote them. In his sermons and lectures though, more often than not, Luther's words were written down by those who heard him say them, and later turned into a written artifact.

When Wengert says, "from the copy of the lecture by Georg Rörer, not used by LW 30:295" he's saying this particular lecture was heard and written down by different people. In this instance, Georg Rörer took down notes and formulated an account of what Luther said, but the editors of LW chose to not use his account for their English translation. The version LW used is "attributed to Luther's associate Jacob Propst in Bremen." The editors of LW point out that some material in Rörer's version is not found in Propst, and also some material found in Propst is not in Rörer's version. Because Propst's version had been published previously (1708), LW chose to use Propst, but does not disparage Rörer's version.

When one visits the context of LW 30:295, there's obvious overlap between Rörer and Propst. Luther is commenting on 1 John 4:11. The article that Satan is trying to take away is that Christ is our complete expiation. The monks, in essence by their emphasis on works, actually deny the work of Christ. If they do not repent, they will be condemned. This is something John Wycliff figured out long ago about the monks (which surprises Luther that Wycliff saw this). Then comes Rörer's account: "it is very rare that there are pure teachers in the church. Only Scripture is pure." When Luther calls Cyprian an "Anabaptist" it's because Cyprian held people baptized by heretics must be rebaptized. Luther's comment about Augustine is that even though Augustine condemned this stance by Cyprian, that he was a martyr forgives him this error. Luther then takes some shots at the Franciscans works righteousness, as well as Gregory and Bernard who founded works righteousness monasteries. All these examples have the common denominator of a denial of justification by faith apart from works. Therefore, as far as I can ascertain what Rörer is getting at is that the "pure" teachers of the church are those who taught justification by faith apart from works, a rare occurrence.

Notice what Wengert says about the context:

Another example of the same skepticism came in Luther’s lectures on 1 John in 1526–27. Again, the context made clear that he was not eliminating other authorities but actually discussing how to appropriate such authorities into the interpretation of Scripture. He began with the remark that “it is very rare that there are pure teachers in the church. Only Scripture is pure.” Luther did not, however, exclude other authorities, as if he were saying that Scripture alone were authoritative. The purity of Scripture had specifically to do with justification by faith as opposed to monastic vows—that is, “Was Christum treibet!”

Wengert's comments are a little confusing to me. I'm not sure the context makes it "clear" that Luther "was not eliminating other authorities," for, other than Wycliff, everyone mentioned is criticized by Luther! This context, as far as I can tell, doesn't discuss the nature of secondary authorities other than Scripture, so again, I'm not entirely sure what point Wengert is trying to make from the context. Not far later Luther quotes Augustine positively (LW 30:298, 299). True though, in this context, I think Wengert is right that Luther links the purity of Scripture to the purity of justification by faith alone apart from works.

 

[rakovsky]

Wengert's comments are a little confusing to me. I'm not sure the context makes it "clear" that Luther "was not eliminating other authorities," for, other than Wycliff, everyone mentioned is criticized by Luther! This context, as far as I can tell, doesn't discuss the nature of secondary authorities other than Scripture, so again, I'm not entirely sure what point Wengert is trying to make from the context. Not far later Luther quotes Augustine positively (LW 30:298, 299). True though, in this context, I think Wengert is right that Luther links the purity of Scripture to the purity of justification by faith alone apart from works.

I sympathize with your comments. By saying that very few teachers are pure, one might take this to mean that some teachers are pure, and that thus, there are authorities besides the Bible, ie. the pure teachers. However, Luther doesn't seem to specifically get into that conclusion, ie. he neither seems to call the pure teachers "other authorities," nor does he seem to specifically eliminate other authorities.

 

[BJ Bear]

Wengert's comments are a little confusing to me. I'm not sure the context makes it "clear" that Luther "was not eliminating other authorities," for, other than Wycliff, everyone mentioned is criticized by Luther! This context, as far as I can tell, doesn't discuss the nature of secondary authorities other than Scripture, so again, I'm not entirely sure what point Wengert is trying to make from the context. Not far later Luther quotes Augustine positively (LW 30:298, 299). True though, in this context, I think Wengert is right that Luther links the purity of Scripture to the purity of justification by faith alone apart from works.

First of all, thanks for the link! (If it appeared earlier in the thread then I missed it or didn't read it.) The Wengert work seems like it would be profitable to recommend or hand out to people, especially non ev.=luth. (My latest shorthand term borrowed from the StL.) folks.

I think Wengerts wording is clear that Luther didn't exclude other authorities because even with regard to Scripture there is a hierarchy, for example, Wengert's translation "Which are the correct and purest books of the New Testament." LW AE translated it as, "Which are the true and noblest books of the New Testament." And then Luther continues by listing those purest/noblest books.

Fwiw, because of Luther's use within his translation both English translations are reasonable.


What interests me is Dau's translation of open as ajar. I'm sure he had something in mind when he took that liberty.

 

[Tertiumquid]

First of all, thanks for the link! (If it appeared earlier in the thread then I missed it or didn't read it.) The Wengert work seems like it would be profitable to recommend or hand out to people, especially non ev.=luth. (My latest shorthand term borrowed from the StL.) folks.

You're welcome. I don't recall the Wengert link being mentioned previously, I found the link quite haphazardly. I've been desperately trying to avoid buying books, as my personal library is approaching the category of ridiculous. Wengert is a good scholar, I have some of his stuff, but not this one. The "run and find this secondary source" game is a true nuisance, particularly now that I'm older. I simply don't want to buy any more books of "Luther said this" when Luther's actual written corpus is readily available.

I think Wengerts wording is clear that Luther didn't exclude other authorities because even with regard to Scripture there is a hierarchy, for example, Wengert's translation "Which are the correct and purest books of the New Testament." LW AE translated it as, "Which are the true and noblest books of the New Testament." And then Luther continues by listing those purest/noblest books.

Ah, ok, what I meant was that in regard to the Luther quote Wengert used from WA 20:745 (Rörer), Wengert says the context of Luther's comments makes it "clear" Luther "was not eliminating other authorities." Contrary to Wengert, I don't think the context of WA 20:745 makes that clear. Certainly Wengert's book is clear and Luther elsewhere is clear, but WA 20:745 (Rörer) doesn't appear clear to me that Luther "was not eliminating other authorities" since the "authorities" being mentioned fall under Luther's sharp criticism. Frankly, I think the point of the nature of authority is foisting something on the context that's not discussed in that context (the value of "other authorities"). That's not the discussion Luther was having here.

What interests me is Dau's translation of open as ajar. I'm sure he had something in mind when he took that liberty.

I'll take a look.

 

[rakovsky]

Wengert says the context of Luther's comments makes it "clear" Luther "was not eliminating other authorities." Contrary to Wengert, I don't think the context of WA 20:745 makes that clear. Certainly Wengert's book is clear and Luther elsewhere is clear, but WA 20:745 (Rörer) doesn't appear clear to me that Luther "was not eliminating other authorities" since the "authorities" being mentioned fall under Luther's sharp criticism. Frankly, I think the point of the nature of authority is foisting something on the context that's not discussed in that context (the value of "other authorities").

Wengert's key sentence is,
"Again, the context made clear that he was not eliminating other authorities but actually discussing how to appropriate such authorities into the interpretation of Scripture."
In Luther's passage, Luther does not seem to neither directly accept nor eliminate "other authorities", so that part of Wengert's statement is OK. By analogy, non-denominational "Solo Scriptura" advocates could make a statement, like "Scripture is pure" that simply does not itself eliminate or advocate other authorities, because such a statement is not on point.

However, Wengert's statement that Luther was "discussing how to appropriate such authorities into the interpretation of Scripture" seems a misreading because as you pointed out, Tertium, Luther was listing different Fathers like Augustine and giving them negative descriptions and wasn't explaining how to use them to interpret scripture. For example, Luther's critical statement that Cyprian was an Anabaptist does not explain how to use Cyprian to interpret Scripture.

When he says that few teachers are pure, it's not immediately clear to me which teachers exactly he means because in this paragraph he rules out Augustine, who he otherwise usually spoke favorably of. A pure teacher would conceivably be one who gives a pure reading of scripture, like when he said in his 1520 letter to the Nobility:

"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."

I think that by calling some teachers "pure" in this sentence, one can imply that the "pure" teachers should be relied on as "authorities". Thus, Wengert might be theorizing that in using the term "pure" teachers, Luther considered those pure teachers to be "authorities" because it is normal to consider a teacher to be an "authority."

However Luther himself does not get that specific in his conclusions. One problem for me with concluding that Luther considers Pure teachers to be "authorities" is that when I scan his writings on the topic, Luther seems to me want to avoid openly declaring the natural conclusion that the Bible and something else are both "authorities".

You wrote that

"Not far later Luther quotes Augustine positively (LW 30:298, 299)."

Maybe this could be what Wengert was talking about when he said, "in Luther’s lectures on 1 John in 1526–27. Again, the context made clear that..." In order to check Wengert's statement you would want to look for places in Luther's Sermon where Luther talked about appropriating authorities into interpreting Scripture.

In any case, Wengert is taking Luther's "context" to mean a conclusion that Luther might not have reached himself, ie. with the "context" of Luther using teachers like Augustine, Wengert presents it as if Luther would be openly talking about incorporating "authorities" into interpretations of scripture.

To give an analogy, if an advocate of "Solo Scriptura" was actually using different modern teachers like Pastor John Haggee to interpret Scriptures, then would we conclude that the Solo Scriptura advocate was not eliminating other "authorities"? It seems not.

 

[rakovsky]

To give an analogy, if an advocate of "Solo Scriptura" was actually using different modern teachers like Pastor John Haggee to interpret Scriptures, then would we conclude that the Solo Scriptura advocate was not eliminating other "authorities"? It seems not.

One might say that the Solo Scriptura advocate's practice was not consistent with his Solo Scriptura theory, and that in practice the Solo Scriptura advocate was using other "authorities" (Haggee). But this would not mean that his Solo theory did not eliminate other authorities.

 

[BJ Bear]

Maybe this could be what Wengert was talking about when he said, "in Luther’s lectures on 1 John in 1526–27. Again, the context made clear that..." In order to check Wengert's statement you would want to look for places in Luther's Sermon where Luther talked about appropriating authorities into interpreting Scripture.

In any case, Wengert is taking Luther's "context" to mean a conclusion that Luther might not have reached himself, ie. with the "context" of Luther using teachers like Augustine, Wengert presents it as if Luther would be openly talking about incorporating "authorities" into interpretations of scripture.

??? That's an illogical assertion that that can only be reached by ignoring reality. For example, one would have to overlook or deny the examples which already exist in this thread of Luther incorporating, "authorities."

 

[rakovsky]

??? That's an illogical assertion that that can only be reached by ignoring reality. For example, one would have to overlook or deny the examples which already exist in this thread of Luther incorporating, "authorities."

BJ,
Tertium said "Certainly... Luther elsewhere is clear" on this.
I am saying that Tertium could be correct in his reading of Luther's particular Sermon and of Wengert's interpretation of it.
I found this part of the Sermon at the top of page 745:

D. Martin Luther's Werke

books.google.com

I welcome you to say specifically where in this particular Sermon Luther was "actually discussing how to appropriate such authorities into the interpretation of Scripture" as Wengert claims. ie.:

Where does Luther explain in this Sermon how to incorporate nonBiblical authorities into interpreting Scripture?

 

[rakovsky]

Here is another:

Augsburg Confession, Article 28:
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)

An Apology for Article 28 goes into a little more detail.
It seems that God's Word in this Article refers to the Bible, because paragraphs 13-14, 18 in the Apology seem to explain the Article 28 that way:

13. And we are pleased with the ancient division of power into power of the order and power of jurisdiction [that is, the administration of the Sacraments and the exercise of spiritual jurisdiction]. Therefore the bishop has the power of the order, i.e., the ministry of the Word and Sacraments; he has also the power of jurisdiction, i.e., the authority to excommunicate those guilty of open crimes, and again to absolve them if they are converted and

14. seek absolution. But their power is not to be tyrannical, i.e., without a fixed law; nor regal, i.e., above law; but they have a fixed command and a fixed Word of God, according to which they ought to teach, and according to which they ought to exercise their jurisdiction. Therefore, even though they should have some jurisdiction, it does not follow that they are able to institute new services. For services pertain in no way to jurisdiction. And they have the Word, they have the command, how far they ought to exercise jurisdiction, namely, if any one would do anything contrary to that Word which they have received from Christ.

18. And thus many learned and great men in the Church have held. Nor do we see what can be said against this. For it is certain that the expression Luke 10:16: He that heareth you heareth Me, does not speak of traditions, but is chiefly directed against traditions. For it is not a mandatum cum libera (a bestowal of unlimited authority), as they call it, but it is a cautio de rato (a caution concerning something prescribed), namely, concerning the special command [not a free, unlimited order and power, but a limited order namely, not to preach their own word, but God’s Word and the Gospel], i.e., the testimony given to the apostles, that we believe them with respect to the word of another, not their own. For Christ wishes to assure us, as was necessary, that we should know that the Word delivered by men is efficacious, and that no other word from heaven ought to be sought.

SOURCE: https://bookofconcord.org/apology-of-the-augsburg-confession/article-xxviii/

 

[rakovsky]

The Smalcald articles seem to me one of Luther's most formal statements on Sola Scriptura.

"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.)

What does "Articles of Faith" mean here? For example, is it specifically something "Credal" like the "Nicene Creed," or does it refer to any formal religious teaching?

Luther seems to consider the Catholic Church to consider relics to be an "article of faith" in Catholicism. I am not sure exactly what he is referring to, like whether the Catholic Church has some formal decision approving veneration of relics. I don't know if there is a Catholic canon specifying that relics can work miracles either, or just if that's a common belief. Later in the same article, he writes:

22. The relics, in which there are found so many falsehoods and tomfooleries concerning the bones of dogs and horses, that even the devil has laughed at such rascalities, ought long ago to have been condemned, even though there were some good in them; and so much the more because they are without the Word of God; being neither commanded nor counseled, they are an entirely unnecessary and useless thing.

23. But the worst is that [they have imagined that] these relics had to work indulgence and the forgiveness of sins [and have revered them] as a good work and service of God, like the Mass, etc.

Wikipedia claims that the Augsburg Confession has 28 Articles, of which 21 are positive theses and the other 7 are "Articles of Faith":

The Augsburg Confession consists of 28 articles presented by Lutheran princes and representatives of "free cities" at the Diet of Augsburg that set forward what the Lutherans believed, taught and confessed in positive (theses) and negative (antitheses) statements. The theses are 21 Chief Articles of Faith describing the normative principles of Christian faith held by the Lutherans; the antitheses are seven statements describing what they viewed as abuses of the Christian faith present in the Roman Catholic church.

Augsburg Confession - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Three of them in Wikipedia's list in particular stick out to me:

XVIII

Of Free Will

Lutherans believe that we, to some extent, have free will in the realm of "civil righteousness" (or "things subject to reason"), but that we do not have free will in "spiritual righteousness". In other words, we have no free choice when it comes to salvation. Faith is not the work of men, but of the Holy Spirit.

XV

Of Ecclesiastical Usages

Lutherans believe that church holidays, calendars and festivals are useful for religious observance, but that observance and ritual is not necessary for salvation. Human traditions (such as observances, fasts, distinctions in eating meats) that are taught as a way to "merit" grace work in opposition to the Gospel.

XXI

Of the Worship of the Saints

Lutherans keep the saints, not as saviors or intercessors to God, but rather as examples and inspirations to our own faith and life.

Article XVIII reminds me of Calvinism, where the idea is that the righteous do not have a free choice to follow God or not.
One thing that I especially liked about Lutheranism was what I imagined to be a difference with Calvinism on this kind of topic.
Can you please comment briefly on that?


As for Article XV and XXI, I can see that the Bible as a general rule supports having holidays and commemorating holy people in general.
These two articles also suggest to me that the nature of commemorating saints and holidays rises to the level of a "faith" issue, meeting the definition of an "article of faith".

Article XXI begins:

Of the Worship of Saints they teach that the memory of saints may be set before us, that we may follow their faith and good works, according to our calling, as the Emperor may follow the example of David in making war to drive away the Turk from his country.

My challenge with these two Articles arises in light of Sola Scriptura when I think of commemorating specific holidays and saints who are not in the Bible.

Luther's idea is that only the Bible establishes articles of faith. So could Christians "establish" commemorations of festivals and saints who are not in the Bible? For example, could Christians have "calendar" days for ancient Christians' martyrdoms, when those Christians like Polycarp are not in the Bible? Or would such commemorations be "articles of faith"?

In the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, there is a process called "canonization", where a council makes a decision called a canon, meaning "rule" about commemorating saints and having holidays for them. This sounds like an "article."

If the Lutherans' decision at Augsburg that commemorating saints was good counted as an "article of faith", then wouldn't Christians formally deciding to commemorate particular saints also reach the level of making those specific extraBiblical commemorations an "article of faith?"

Let me try to explain this issue in another way.

Luther says that only the Bible can establish "articles of faith", not other sources like the Church Fathers or angels. At times Luther does cite Church fathers like Augustine in order to support a teaching, but my sense is that Luther theorizes that their writings only apply to the extent that they show the Bible's meaning, not because those fathers are actually establishing the teaching themselves. In other words, he sees the Bible as being the only one who makes the teaching, instead of the fathers also establishing the teaching. And for this thesis he relies on the theory that the fathers should only help reveal the Bible's meaning on the topic.

So to give an example, when both the Bible and fathers talk about remembering saints and having festivals, Luther's Sola Scriptura theory would say that the Bible establishes the article that says to have saints and festivals in general. And we only use the fathers to help "get into" the Bible and see that the Bible teaches commemorations. As Luther said: "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." So in this way, Luther would conclude that only the Bible is the true establisher of having commemorations.

A challenge to this theory would arise for me when we would go to commemorating saints and festivals not in the Bible. There is a long line of Christian martyrs in the centuries up to Constantine's reign, like Sts. Ignatius and Polycarp. There was a practice in the early Church of commemorating these saints, like at their tombs on the day of their martyrdoms. The local churches made decisions to commemorate these martyrs on their calendars, which agrees with Augsburg's Articles XV and XXI. There are at least a few Lutheran churches in the US named "Saint Augustine." These decisions, "canonizations", seem to meet the definition of "articles of faith" because the issue of whether to commemorate saints seems to be a faith issue, per Article XXI.

So my question is what exactly does "Article of Faith" mean here, and whether decisions about commemorating particular saints would count.

 

[BJ Bear]

BJ,
Tertium said "Certainly... Luther elsewhere is clear" on this.
I am saying that Tertium could be correct in his reading of Luther's particular Sermon and of Wengert's interpretation of it.
I found this part of the Sermon at the top of page 745:

D. Martin Luther's Werke

books.google.com

I welcome you to say specifically where in this particular Sermon Luther was "actually discussing how to appropriate such authorities into the interpretation of Scripture" as Wengert claims. ie.:

Where does Luther explain in this Sermon how to incorporate nonBiblical authorities into interpreting Scripture?

Luther placed the relative order of the "authorities" to Scripture in his earlier statement regarding Scripture alone being the lendlord and master over all other writings on earth. Keep the writings in chronological order and see the examples from the 1527 sermons.

You will find an English translation in LW AE vol 30.

 

[rakovsky]

Luther placed the relative order of the "authorities" to Scripture in his earlier statement regarding Scripture alone being the lendlord and master over all other writings on earth. Keep the writings in chronological order and see the examples from the 1527 sermons.

You will find an English translation in LW AE vol 30.

Wengert said that the context of the particular passage wherein Luther began with the remark, “it is very rare that there are pure teachers in the church. Only Scripture is pure", was that Luther was talking about how to incorporate other authorities in interpreting the Bible.

Wengert's passage is:

Another example of the same skepticism came in Luther’s lectures on 1 John in 1526–27. Again, the context made clear that he was not eliminating other authorities but actually discussing how to appropriate such authorities into the interpretation of Scripture. He began with the remark that “it is very rare that there are pure teachers in the church. Only Scripture is pure.” Luther did not, however, exclude other authorities, as if he were saying that Scripture alone were authoritative. The purity of Scripture had specifically to do with justification by faith as opposed to monastic vows—that is, “Was Christum treibet!”

Wengert is apparently saying that the context of Luther's statement on the purity of Scripture alone is that Luther was explaining here how to incorporate other authorities. Wengert claims that Luther began a discourse on incorporating other authorities with the words that only the Scriptures are pure.

So you would need to talk about specifically this passage, starting with those words in quotations, and show how that passage's particular context deals with incorporating other authorities.

 

[Tertiumquid]

So you would need to talk about specifically this passage, starting with those words in quotations, and show how that passage's particular context deals with incorporating other authorities.

Why is what Luther purported as saying and its relation to "other authorities" in this context important? I appear to have missed the point.

 

[BJ Bear]

An Apology for Article 28 goes into a little more detail.
It seems that God's Word in this Article refers to the Bible, because paragraphs 13-14, 18 in the Apology seem to explain the Article 28 that way:

Since article XXVIII of the Augsburg Confession is short, certainly shorter than a sermon or the Apology, a demonstration of it's context will be helpful.

The article is under a general heading of abuses, Articles XXI-XXVIII. The particular abuse or range of abuse is stated at the beginning of Article XXVIII.

"1 There has been great controversy concerning the Power of Bishops, in which some have awkwardly confounded the power of the Church

2 and the power of the sword. And from this confusion very great wars and tumults have resulted, while the Pontiffs, emboldened by the power of the Keys, not only have instituted new services and burdened consciences with reservation of cases and ruthless excommunications, but have also undertaken to transfer the kingdoms of this world,

3 and to take the Empire from the Emperor. These wrongs have long since been rebuked in the Church

4 by learned and godly men."
Augsburg Confession, Article XXVIII

Article XXVIII. Of Ecclesiastical Power.

1 There has been great controversy concerning the Power of Bishops, in which some have awkwardly confounded the power of the Church 2 and the power of the sword. And from this confusion very great wars and tumults have resulted, while the Pontiffs, emboldened by the power of the Keys, not only...

bookofconcord.org

The measure, the word of God, is then clearly indicated. The AC continues:

"Therefore our teachers, for the comforting of men’s consciences, were constrained to show the difference between the power of the Church and the power of the sword, and taught that both of them, because of God’s commandment, are to be held in reverence and honor, as the chief blessings of God on earth.

5 But this is their opinion, that the power of the Keys, or the power of the bishops, according to the Gospel, is a power or commandment of God, to preach the Gospel, to remit and retain sins, and to administer Sacraments.

6 For with this commandment Christ sends forth His Apostles, John 20:21 sqq.: As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you. Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.

7 Mark 16:15: Go preach the Gospel to every creature." ibid.

The Symbols are written in a straightforward manner. There is no secret code or hidden interpretive lens through which they must be read in order to reach a right understanding of them .

 

[rakovsky]

Why is what Luther purported as saying and its relation to "other authorities" in this context important? I appear to have missed the point.

Wengert seems to take the view that this statement on the sole purity of Scripture was the very start of a discourse on incorporating other authorities into interpreting Scripture. Wengert seems to use this authority-based exegetical context to suggest that Luther's declaration here of the sole purity of Scripture did not mean "that Scripture alone were authoritative".

The issue that Wengert raises is: When Luther says that only the Bible is pure, does Luther imply that other sources are not "authoritative?" Right after Luther declared that only the Bible was pure, he went through and recited mistakes of others- St. Cyprian, Augustine, Francis. Does Luther use their faults in light of scripture to mean that only the Bible was "authoritative?" Or does Luther openly declare that we must incorporate other writers into interpreting Scripture? The rest of the text can answer the question.

Wengert seems to take the text starting with Luther's declaration on purity to be overall about incorporating "authorities."

However, there are a couple clues as to whether Luther might actually conclude from the sole purity of Scripture that other writings are "authoritative." One clue is that he saw the most extreme simplicity and reliability of the Bible as entailing that the Bible must logically be the only true "master" of all writings. To call something the only true master could mean that it is the only true "authority."

A second clue is whether he ever specifically called Bible commentaries "authoritative." Luther said that we should use the fathers and commentaries only to "get into" Scripture.

Lots of everyday people today might say that when you use a commentary or a study guide to find the meaning of a book like War and Peace, then your commentaries are "authoritative" on their subject. My guess is that when Wengert sees Luther treat Augustine in a way that most people today might consider "authoritative," Wengert concludes that Luther incorporated these authorities and didn't mean to eliminate them.

However, would Luther himself agree that he was incorporating "authorities?" Here we get into the difference between theory and practice. When Luther says that you just use fathers to get into the Scriptures, would he consider this to mean that they were "authorities" on the Bible?

A brief internet search didn't show me whether Luther himself explicitly called the Bible the "only authority." Among Lutheran websites, I found a mix of those asserting that the Bible is the only authority and that the Bible is not the only authority, but just the highest or only infallible authority.

On one hand, the ELCA article "Sources of Authority according to the Lutheran Confessions" asserts that the Confessions are "authoritative", but only in the sense and extent to which that they recite Biblical principles:

The confessional documents' authority is external to themselves; they came to be authoritative for Lutherans because of the conviction that their testimony was faithful and true as an exposition of the Scriptures. There is no claim, within the documents, to "authority" as simply a naked assertion of power or the right to decide. Authority is rather recognized in someone or something's ability to convey the content of the message about and from the Lord.

But it also notes: "The same conviction [as in the Formula of Concord that I cited earlier in the thread] is found in the elca constitution: "This church accepts the canonical Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as the inspired Word of God and the authoritative source and norm of its proclamation, faith, and life."

Sources of Authority according to the Lutheran Confessions

The ELCA is one of the largest Christian denominations in the United States, with more than 3.8 million members. "God's work. Our hands."

www.elca.org

The word "the" in the singular in "the authoritative source" suggests grammatically that the Bible is the only authoritative source.

So to answer your question, the issue is whether Luther in this sermon was saying that since only the Bible is pure, only the Bible is authoritative. Wengert is answering that No, Luther did not mean this, because Wengert asserts that the context following this declaration was about incorporating authorities.

 

[BJ Bear]

The Smalcald articles seem to me one of Luther's most formal statements on Sola Scriptura.


What does "Articles of Faith" mean here? For example, is it specifically something "Credal" like the "Nicene Creed," or does it refer to any formal religious teaching?

In this instance it primarily refers to what a person is to believe with regard to what justifies or condemns a man. (It doesn't exclude the things which Scripture presents to believe which neither justify or condemn a man.) The contrast has been the errors of the Papacy with regard to their Mass and other errors which spring from it. A brief example is provided by the immediately preceding words.

"14 Our Papists, however, cite such statements [opinions] of men in order that men should believe in their horrible, blasphemous, and cursed traffic in masses for souls in purgatory [or in sacrifices for the dead and oblations], etc. But they will never prove these things from Augustine. Now, when they have abolished the traffic in masses for purgatory, of which Augustine never dreamt, we will then discuss with them whether the expressions of Augustine without Scripture [being without the warrant of the Word] are to be admitted, and whether the dead should be remembered at the Eucharist."

Article II: Of the Mass | Book of Concord

1 That the Mass in the Papacy must be the greatest and most horrible abomination, as it directly and powerfully conflicts with this chief article, and yet a ...

boc.confident.faith

Creedal statements are not excluded in so far as they are based upon Scripture and accurately reflect it. For example, the first of the Smalcald articles begins and ends this way.

"Part I​

Treats of the Sublime Articles Concerning the Divine Majesty, as:

1 I. That Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, three distinct persons in one divine essence and nature, are one God, who has created heaven and earth.
2 II. That the Father is begotten of no one; the Son of the Father; the Holy Ghost proceeds from Father and Son.
...
5 Concerning these articles there is no contention or dispute, since we on both sides confess them. Therefore it is not necessary now to treat further of them."

Part I - The Divine Majesty

Treats of the Sublime Articles Concerning the Divine Majesty, as:

bookofconcord.org

Luther seems to consider the Catholic Church to consider relics to be an "article of faith" in Catholicism. I am not sure exactly what he is referring to, like whether the Catholic Church has some formal decision approving veneration of relics. I don't know if there is a Catholic canon specifying that relics can work miracles either, or just if that's a common belief. Later in the same article, he writes:



Wikipedia claims that the Augsburg Confession has 28 Articles, of which 21 are positive theses and the other 7 are "Articles of Faith":

For what it is worth, the headings and other organizational helps were later added. The first XXI are under the heading The Chief Articles Of Faith. XXII-XXVIII are under the heading Articles in Which Are Reviewed the Abuses Which Have Been Corrected.

https://bookofconcord-dot-org/augsburg-confession/

Three of them in Wikipedia's list in particular stick out to me:



Article XVIII reminds me of Calvinism, where the idea is that the righteous do not have a free choice to follow God or not.
One thing that I especially liked about Lutheranism was what I imagined to be a difference with Calvinism on this kind of topic.
Can you please comment briefly on that?

The briefest most comprehensive answer in this regard comes from Scripture. "“Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” (Joh 14:6, EMTV)

A man's will by nature is not Jesus so it is not the way, the truth, or the life and no one comes to the Father except through it. (That is a riff on a paraphrase of a statement in Luther's Bondage Of The Will.)

We categorically reject the idea or belief that the Spirit is ever apart from the Word, Calvin's, "horrible decree," etc. In short, by Confession we call their view of election blasphemous. https://boc.confident-dot-faith/ep-xi-0016

As for Article XV and XXI, I can see that the Bible as a general rule supports having holidays and commemorating holy people in general.
These two articles also suggest to me that the nature of commemorating saints and holidays rises to the level of a "faith" issue, meeting the definition of an "article of faith".

Article XXI begins:


My challenge with these two Articles arises in light of Sola Scriptura when I think of commemorating specific holidays and saints who are not in the Bible.

Luther's idea is that only the Bible establishes articles of faith. So could Christians "establish" commemorations of festivals and saints who are not in the Bible? For example, could Christians have "calendar" days for ancient Christians' martyrdoms, when those Christians like Polycarp are not in the Bible? Or would such commemorations be "articles of faith"?

In the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, there is a process called "canonization", where a council makes a decision called a canon, meaning "rule" about commemorating saints and having holidays for them. This sounds like an "article."

If the Lutherans' decision at Augsburg that commemorating saints was good counted as an "article of faith", then wouldn't Christians formally deciding to commemorate particular saints also reach the level of making those specific extraBiblical commemorations an "article of faith?"

Let me try to explain this issue in another way.

Luther says that only the Bible can establish "articles of faith", not other sources like the Church Fathers or angels. At times Luther does cite Church fathers like Augustine in order to support a teaching, but my sense is that Luther theorizes that their writings only apply to the extent that they show the Bible's meaning, not because those fathers are actually establishing the teaching themselves. In other words, he sees the Bible as being the only one who makes the teaching, instead of the fathers also establishing the teaching. And for this thesis he relies on the theory that the fathers should only help reveal the Bible's meaning on the topic.

So to give an example, when both the Bible and fathers talk about remembering saints and having festivals, Luther's Sola Scriptura theory would say that the Bible establishes the article that says to have saints and festivals in general. And we only use the fathers to help "get into" the Bible and see that the Bible teaches commemorations. As Luther said: "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." So in this way, Luther would conclude that only the Bible is the true establisher of having commemorations.

A challenge to this theory would arise for me when we would go to commemorating saints and festivals not in the Bible. There is a long line of Christian martyrs in the centuries up to Constantine's reign, like Sts. Ignatius and Polycarp. There was a practice in the early Church of commemorating these saints, like at their tombs on the day of their martyrdoms. The local churches made decisions to commemorate these martyrs on their calendars, which agrees with Augsburg's Articles XV and XXI. There are at least a few Lutheran churches in the US named "Saint Augustine." These decisions, "canonizations", seem to meet the definition of "articles of faith" because the issue of whether to commemorate saints seems to be a faith issue, per Article XXI.

So my question is what exactly does "Article of Faith" mean here, and whether decisions about commemorating particular saints would count.

From Article XV:

"Article XV. Of Ecclesiastical Usages​

1 Of Usages in the Church they teach that those ought to be observed which may be observed without sin, and which are profitable unto tranquillity and good order in the Church, as particular holy days, festivals, and the like.
2 Nevertheless, concerning such things men are admonished that consciences are not to be burdened, as though such observance was necessary to salvation.
3 They are admonished also that human traditions instituted to propitiate God, to merit grace, and to make satisfaction for sins, are opposed to the Gospel and the doctrine of faith. Wherefore vows and traditions concerning meats and
4 days, etc., instituted to merit grace and to make satisfaction for sins, are useless and contrary to the Gospel.

 

[rakovsky]

In this instance it primarily refers to what a person is to believe with regard to what justifies or condemns a man. (It doesn't exclude the things which Scripture presents to believe which neither justify or condemn a man.) The contrast has been the errors of the Papacy with regard to their Mass and other errors which spring from it. A brief example is provided by the immediately preceding words.

"14 Our Papists, however, cite such statements [opinions] of men in order that men should believe in their horrible, blasphemous, and cursed traffic in masses for souls in purgatory [or in sacrifices for the dead and oblations], etc. But they will never prove these things from Augustine. Now, when they have abolished the traffic in masses for purgatory, of which Augustine never dreamt, we will then discuss with them whether the expressions of Augustine without Scripture [being without the warrant of the Word] are to be admitted, and whether the dead should be remembered at the Eucharist."

Article II: Of the Mass | Book of Concord

1 That the Mass in the Papacy must be the greatest and most horrible abomination, as it directly and powerfully conflicts with this chief article, and yet a ...

boc.confident.faith

Creedal statements are not excluded in so far as they are based upon Scripture and accurately reflect it. For example, the first of the Smalcald articles begins and ends this way.

"Part I​

Treats of the Sublime Articles Concerning the Divine Majesty, as:

1 I. That Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, three distinct persons in one divine essence and nature, are one God, who has created heaven and earth.
2 II. That the Father is begotten of no one; the Son of the Father; the Holy Ghost proceeds from Father and Son.
...
5 Concerning these articles there is no contention or dispute, since we on both sides confess them. Therefore it is not necessary now to treat further of them."

Part I - The Divine Majesty

Treats of the Sublime Articles Concerning the Divine Majesty, as:

bookofconcord.org

For what it is worth, the headings and other organizational helps were later added. The first XXI are under the heading The Chief Articles Of Faith. XXII-XXVIII are under the heading Articles in Which Are Reviewed the Abuses Which Have Been Corrected.

https://bookofconcord-dot-org/augsburg-confession/

The briefest most comprehensive answer in this regard comes from Scripture. "“Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” (Joh 14:6, EMTV)

A man's will by nature is not Jesus so it is not the way, the truth, or the life and no one comes to the Father except through it. (That is a riff on a paraphrase of a statement in Luther's Bondage Of The Will.)

We categorically reject the idea or belief that the Spirit is ever apart from the Word, Calvin's, "horrible decree," etc. In short, by Confession we call their view of election blasphemous. https://boc.confident-dot-faith/ep-xi-0016


From Article XV:

"Article XV. Of Ecclesiastical Usages​

1 Of Usages in the Church they teach that those ought to be observed which may be observed without sin, and which are profitable unto tranquillity and good order in the Church, as particular holy days, festivals, and the like.
2 Nevertheless, concerning such things men are admonished that consciences are not to be burdened, as though such observance was necessary to salvation.
3 They are admonished also that human traditions instituted to propitiate God, to merit grace, and to make satisfaction for sins, are opposed to the Gospel and the doctrine of faith. Wherefore vows and traditions concerning meats and
4 days, etc., instituted to merit grace and to make satisfaction for sins, are useless and contrary to the Gospel.

Do "Articles of Faith" mean A. religious statements that people believe like the 28 "Articles of Faith," or does it B. mean something that specifically "justifies or condemns a man"?

It seems the former, A.

You gave a good example of how in the previous part of the Smalcald Articles, Luther says that the Catholic Church teaches that people should believe in masses for souls in Purgatory. Next, Luther implies that relics are mistaken "Articles of Faith" in the RC Church. Here, Luther isn't specifically talking about whether one's salvation depends on believing in masses for souls in Purgatory or believing in relics. He is just complaining that the RC Church said that one should believe in the masses for souls and that the RC Church made relics an Article of Faith.

It would be helpful to see where else Luther used the term Article of Faith. The Augsburg Confession is called a Confession of Faith, and it is made of a list of articles of postulates. When Luther made his Smallcald Articles and used the phrase Articles of Faith, he may have been thinking of statements like those that make up his Articles. You pointed out that the 21 Theses or 28 Theses got their headings after they were written. Were they called 21 Articles of Faith in Luther's lifetime?

In discussing the Biblical teaching about the waters above the heavens, Luther declared that since the Bible taught this, we must believe that there are waters above the heavens: "Although there are some things which are beyond our comprehension, as for instance these waters that are ‘above’ the firmament, all such things are rather to be believed with a confession of our ignorance than profanely denied, or arrogantly interpreted according to our shallow comprehension."
Source:

Luther, Literalism, and the Firmament (Part 2)

Last time, we saw in Martin Luther’s thinking the convergence of the priesthood of all believers, a preference for the literal sense of the Bible, and the perspicuity (clarity) of the Bible o…

danielgordonblog.com

This would seem to make the categories of teachings to be "believed" to be quite wide. In Article XV, Luther declares that observances like holidays are not necessary for salvation. Does he mean that fulfilling the observance, eg. weekly Sunday attendance, is not necessary, or does he mean that it's not necessary to believe in having observances?

He speaks in Thesis XV as if approving that they "ought to be observed." Certainly the Bible teaches the principle that holy days, eg. the Sabbath, the Day of Atonement, and Passover, ought to be observed. I can't remember if the NT specifies that some days should be observed, eg. The Lord's Day, but certainly the early Christians observed holidays like The Lord's Day. Didn't Luther teach in his articles of faith or confessions that one ought to fulfill such observances like Wikipedia claims?

 

[rakovsky]

A commentary on the Smalcald articles calls them articles of faith:

Imbued by Luther’s spirit, the elector of Saxony, John Frederick, instructed Luther in a letter of December 11, 1536, to prepare a statement indicating the articles of faith in which concessions might be made for the sake of peace, and the articles in which no concessions could be made.

In his Defense of All the Articles, Luther

I have said all this so that we may know that no one is bound to believe more than what is based on Scripture, and those who do not believe in purgatory are not to be called heretics, if in other respects they hold the entire Scriptures, as the Greek Church does. The Gospel compels me to believe that St Peter and St James are saints, but it is not necessary to believe that St Peter is buried at Rome and St James at Compostella f202 and their bodies are still there, for that the Scriptures do not tell us. Again, there is no sin in holding that none of the saints whom the pope canonizes are saints, and the saints take no offense at that, for there are many saints in heaven of whom we do not know that they exist at all, still less that they are saints; and they take no offense at that, and do not think us heretics because of it. The pope and his sectaries play this game only that he may set up many wild articles of faith, beside which the true articles of the Scriptures are silenced and suppressed.

Is Luther saying that the Catholic Church makes the burial places of James and Peter, and the sainthood of canonized saints to be Articles of Faith, whereas these matters should not rise to that level?

He cites the Greek Church approvingly in this context. However, the Greek Church also formally "canonizes" saints and has relics.

One possibility could be that Luther is saying that Articles of faith are things that are dogmatic and necessary, and he is complaining that these issues should not rise to that level.

Another possibility could be that an Article means something true and settled, not just what Luther considers a belief or opinion. Luther distinguishes these two categories in his Defense of All the Articles, although he doesn't use the term Article of Faith:

The sin remaining after baptism, of which we spoke in the preceding article, is called “tinder” because, as everyone observes in his own case, it is easily inflamed and moved to evil love, lust and works, as tinder easily takes fire. Now hitherto I have never held this article except as an opinion and belief, not as a settled and certain truth that ought to be taught. It was not necessary, therefore, to condemn it. But since my opponents bring forward nothing to the contrary except the single word “We do not like it,” and I care not what they like or do not like, and since, moreover, I have given the matter more thought meanwhile, I now assert it as a settled and true doctrine, confess it, and will maintain it, defying them to overthrow it with Scripture or with reason.

 

[rakovsky]

Glen Thompson writes in "The Daughter of the Word,":

Luther did see great value in the Fathers and the early councils as historical witnesses to scriptural teaching. They too were masks of God in his spir-itual regime when they faithfully witnessed to the gospel message. In his mature work On the Councils and the Church (1539), Luther makes this pointclear. The main value of the early councils was not that they served as authoritative assemblies, but rather that they witnessed to the scriptural teaching that the early church shares with us.

In the first half of the treatise, he argues that councils have no authority to establish new articles of faith, to command specific good works, to impose ceremonies, or to interfere in secular governmental affairs (i.e., take part in God’s first regime). On the other hand, they did have the duty to condemn and suppress new articles of faith, evil works, and ceremonies that conflicted with Scripture, and they could legitimately institute ceremonies that were useful and profitable to the church.

THE DAUGHTER OF THE WORD: WHAT LUTHER LEARNED FROM THE EARLY CHURCH AND THE FATHERS

It sounds like Luther might categorize conciliar decisions on holidays as being voluntary institutions or mandatory impositions of ceremonies, with Luther approving of the former and rejecting the latter. This would resemble his position in Article XV where he agrees with holidays as something that one "ought" to do, but is not mandatory.


In his Defense of All the Articles, Luther responds to a Papal Bull in his 3rd Article on the topic of original sin:

The hinder of original sin, even without actual sin, hinders the soul from entrance into the kingdom of heaven.
...
Is it not disgusting that we have to read such foolish and childish things in papal bulls? And yet they command that these things shall be regarded as serious, Christian articles of faith!

Here, Luther treats a Papal Bull giving a decision on the topic of original sin as if it is commanding one to regard the Bull's decision as an "article of faith."

However, in Catholicism, Papal Bulls are not automatically treated as "infallible", AFAIK:

"As for the binding force of these documents it is generally admitted that the mere fact that the pope should have given to any of his utterances the form of an encyclical does not necessarily constitute it an ex-cathedra pronouncement and invest it with infallible authority. The degree in which the infallible magisterium of the Holy See is committed must be judged from the circumstances, and from the language used in the particular case."
SOURCE: The Catholic Encyclopedia
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05413a.htm

So although the Pope was ordering people to accept something in his bull that counts for Luther as an "Article of Faith", an Article of Faith might not necessarily be "infallible."

I think that Luther's quote below shows that an "Article of Faith" does not per se refer "to what a person is to believe with regard to what justifies or condemns a man", BJ:

The Twenty Eighth Article
If the pope, and the greater part of the Church with him, were to hold a certain opinion, and even though he were not in error, it would nevertheless not be sin or heresy to hold a different opinion, especially in things not necessary to salvation, until it had been either rejected or approved by a General Council.

Why will they not allow me this article, since it speaks only of things not necessary to salvation? In regard to the Conception of our Lady they have allowed that it is not heresy nor error when some hold that she was conceived in sin, though Council, pope and the majority hold a different view, because this article is not necessary to salvation. How comes it, then, that we poor Christians must believe whatever the pope and his papists think, even when it is not necessary to salvation? Has the papal authority the power to make unnecessary things necessary articles of faith, and can it make heretics in things which are not necessary?

WORKS OF MARTIN LUTHER - AN ARGUMENT - IN DEFENSE OF ALL THE ARTICLES OF DR. MARTIN LUTHER WRONGLY CONDEMNED IN THE ROMAN BULL JESUS

In the quote above, Luther says that the Conception of our Lady is "an Article" that Catholics in Luther's time didn't consider it a "heresy" to reject, because it wasn't a teaching necessary to Salvation. Thus, belief in this "Article" is not something that justifies or condemns someone.

It sounds like Luther is complaining that the Pope claimed the power to mandate certain Articles of Faith as "necessary," and that Luther is contrasting it with the optional "Article" on the "Conception of our Lady," in that the latter teaching is not "unnecessary."

So it sounds like Luther in this passage categorizes some "Articles of Faith" as necessary and others as not necessary.

Luther had complained that the Pope had made the sainthood of canonized saints necessary and set up Articles of Faith about this. Luther had noted that the Bible does not say where James and Peter were buried, which makes sense because those are facts not narrated in the Bible. Thus it would seem that the Bible does not talk about other saints, like Ignatius and Augustine, either. It would seem then that Church decisions about saints would meet Luther's extrabiblical classification for "Articles of Faith."

 

[BJ Bear]

You're welcome. I don't recall the Wengert link being mentioned previously, I found the link quite haphazardly. I've been desperately trying to avoid buying books, as my personal library is approaching the category of ridiculous. Wengert is a good scholar, I have some of his stuff, but not this one. The "run and find this secondary source" game is a true nuisance, particularly now that I'm older. I simply don't want to buy any more books of "Luther said this" when Luther's actual written corpus is readily available.

Yes, I hear you. I pretty much stopped my physical library at about twenty linear feet of shelf space, stem and political works included.

Ah, ok, what I meant was that in regard to the Luther quote Wengert used from WA 20:745 (Rörer), Wengert says the context of Luther's comments makes it "clear" Luther "was not eliminating other authorities." Contrary to Wengert, I don't think the context of WA 20:745 makes that clear. Certainly Wengert's book is clear and Luther elsewhere is clear, but WA 20:745 (Rörer) doesn't appear clear to me that Luther "was not eliminating other authorities" since the "authorities" being mentioned fall under Luther's sharp criticism.

Ok, I think we are reading it differently. Pointing out particular errors of particular authorities with regard to the person and work of Christ doesn't mean that they are eliminated as authorities but that they are eliminated as "pure" authorities.

In other words, I don't see how Luther pointing out a particular error of someone means that he couldn't speak or write authoritatively on some other aspect of the fairh. It's not as if he wrote that these guys are never right or they are only, "broken clock," right.

Frankly, I think the point of the nature of authority is foisting something on the context that's not discussed in that context (the value of "other authorities"). That's not the discussion Luther was having here.

Agreed.

I'll take a look.

Thanks. After looking up ajar in a contemporaneous to the translation dictionary it just seems to me to be an odd translation.