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

[BJ Bear]

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:

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.

I'm not willing to pretend that I haven't read Luther before or that the words of Wengert and Luther aren't clear in this regard. For example, even if a person chooses to ignore or deny the existence of Luther's stated relative relationship between Scripture and other writings it remains that Luther provided thousands of examples of what he meant in that regard.

For grins and giggles I did a word search on Augustine in the first 55 volumes of Luther's Works AE. Augustine alone is referenced over two thousand times. Some of those references are by the editors/ translators. If we estimate their references to Augustine at fifty percent ,a high number, that still leaves over a thousand instructive examples by Luther.

The simplicity of Luther's faith and the Lutheran faith is to be found in the Chief Article of the Smalcald Articles.

"Article I: The First and Chief Article​

1 That Jesus Christ, our God and Lord, died for our sins, and was raised again for our justification, Rom. 4:25.
2 And He alone is the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the world, John 1:29; and God has laid upon Him the iniquities of us all, Is. 53:6.
3 Likewise: All have sinned and are justified without merit [freely, and without their own works or merits] by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, in His blood, Rom. 3:23f
4 Now, since it is necessary to believe this, and it cannot be otherwise acquired or apprehended by any work, law, or merit, it is clear and certain that this faith alone justifies us as St. Paul says, Rom. 3:28: For we conclude that a man is justified by faith, without the deeds of the Law. Likewise 3:26: That He might be just, and the Justifier of him which believeth in Christ.
5 Of this article nothing can be yielded or surrendered [nor can anything be granted or permitted contrary to the same], even though heaven and earth, and whatever will not abide, should sink to ruin. For there is none other name under heaven, given among men whereby we must be saved, says Peter, Acts 4:12. And with His stripes we are healed, Is. 53:5. And upon this article all things depend which we teach and practice in opposition to the Pope, the devil, and the [whole] world. Therefore, we must be sure concerning this doctrine, and not doubt; for otherwise all is lost, and the Pope and devil and all things gain the victory and suit over us."

Part II - Office and Work of Jesus

Treats of the Articles which Refer to the Office and Work of Jesus Christ, or Our Redemption.

bookofconcord.org

Anything which obscures, despises, or denies this clear or pure proclamation of Christ for all men is necessarily not pure and is categorically rejected.

So looking at the WA Vol XX, p.745, an obvious example of the context of which Wengert writes is provided by the short sentence whichi immediately follows the quote by Wengert. "Cyprianus fuit Anabaptista." "Cyprian was an Anabaprist." Pointing out an error of Cyprian only demonstrates that he wasn't a pure teacher of Christ in the same sense as is Scripture. It doesn't make him any less of a, "saintly martyr," or exclude him from being quoted elsewhere in a positive sense by Luther and in the Symbols.

Fwiw, I doubt that the average reader of those sermons on 1 John wouldn't have already understood the context of that statement by Wengert before they reached it.

I've lost track of who said what about that work of Wengert so if you have it what context does he provide?

 

[Tertiumquid]

Thanks for the detailed explanation.

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.

If you mean Wengert's comments on p.18 (which discusses the "sole purity" quote), I don't see any discussion from Wengert on a "start of a discourse on incorporating other authorities into interpreting Scripture." As I skim over Wengert, I don't see any overt sort of historical discussion as to an evolving view for Luther on the nature and role of secondary authorities. Granted, it's a skim. Feel free to exegete Wengert to prove your "seems."

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".

If there's ambiguity in Wengert, I suspect it's because you (and I following your lead) are foisting another aspect of the "sola scriptura" discussion onto Wengert's brief overview analysis. There is a difference between an ultimately infallible authority and secondary fallible authority. These concepts are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For Luther, the Scriptures alone are "pure," and this purity does not negate those secondary authorities are indeed... authorities. In my opinion, Wengert "seems" to simply assume this throughout the section and rather places his focus elsewhere, like on the fruit of sola scriptura, and sola scriputra in relation to Christ, (p.19) etc..

The issue that Wengert raises is: When Luther says that only the Bible is pure, does Luther imply that other sources are not "authoritative?"

I don't see Wengert raising that issue: I see you repeatedly raising that issue. It reminds me of the poster here dberrie that takes any subject and leads it into a discussion of faith and works, however unrelated it may be to the actual subject he began with.

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.

And.... you discovered that from reading Luther's context, or are you simply parroting back what I posted earlier? When you say, "The rest of the text can answer the question," have you actually read Luther in context? Regardless, you're placing a concern on the text that isn't there.

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.

Because of time restraints and general weariness, I'm not going to allot time to respond to every sentence you put forth. However, the point you're fixated on in regard to this sermon appears to be resolved. Luther in this sermon was not ruling out secondary authorities.

After reading Luther for over two decades, there is a healthy amount of criticism and critique (both positive and negative) of the writings of the church (Jerome, Augustine, etc.).

If you want to interact with "solo" me-in-the-woods-with-my-bible-under-a-tree-waiting-to-hear-from-God" scriptura advocates, you won't find that discussion with me, or Luther. There are plenty of those folks on CARM.

 

[rakovsky]

"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.

Wengert actually made two claims in his statement below:
"Again, the context made clear that (A) he was not eliminating other authorities but actually (B) discussing how to appropriate such authorities into the interpretation of Scripture."

Luther said that few teachers are pure and that only the Bible is pure, and then pointed out the errors of authorities whom he listed.

(A) The action of pointing out the errors of Commentators is neither clearly eliminating them as authorities, nor clearly not eliminating them. If an innovative new "Quranist" claims that only the Quran is pure and lists different historic Islamic commentators, pointing out their errors, is the new Quranist eliminating or not eliminating them? Technically, simply pointing out someone's errors does not itself necessarily eliminate them as an authority, but it could be part of the critic's larger intent to eliminate them.

(B) The action of pointing out the errors of Commentators is not a discussion on how to actively appropriate them into interpreting Scripture.


Wengert seems to claim that Luther's Sermon passage starting with the declaration that very few teachers are pure has the context of Luther explaining how to appropriate other authorities into Scripture. If you or I could read the full passage, we could check whether Luther was actually doing that.

But:
- I don't have Luther's Works Volume 30 (The Catholic Epistles).
- I have the original Luther's Werke in a mix of German and Latin, but can't read those language.
- Tertium checked the text and concluded that in this passage, Luther was not explaining to his readers how to incorporate other authorites into interpreting Scripture.

 

[rakovsky]

So looking at the WA Vol XX, p.745, an obvious example of the context of which Wengert writes is provided by the short sentence whichi immediately follows the quote by Wengert. "Cyprianus fuit Anabaptista." "Cyprian was an Anabaprist." Pointing out an error of Cyprian only demonstrates that he wasn't a pure teacher of Christ in the same sense as is Scripture. It doesn't make him any less of a, "saintly martyr," or exclude him from being quoted elsewhere in a positive sense by Luther and in the Symbols.

I've lost track of who said what about that work of Wengert so if you have it what context does he provide?

Hello, BJ!
Here is Wengert's statement that you asked for:

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 does not give any specifics of any context showing that Luther was trying to appropriate Commentators into interpreting Scripture in this passage.

You are right that when Luther pointed out Cyprian's error, this does not necessarily mean that Luther was excluding them from being quoted elsewhere positively.

But nor does Luther's criticism of the fathers in this passage support Wengert's statement that Luther was explaining in this passage how to use these Fathers in interpreting the Scripture.

 

[rakovsky]

"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."

If you mean Wengert's comments on p.18 (which discusses the "sole purity" quote), I don't see any discussion from Wengert on a "start of a discourse on incorporating other authorities into interpreting Scripture." As I skim over Wengert, I don't see any overt sort of historical discussion as to an evolving view for Luther on the nature and role of secondary authorities.


"The issue that Wengert raises is: When Luther says that only the Bible is pure, does Luther imply that other sources are not "authoritative?""


I don't see Wengert raising that issue: I see you repeatedly raising that issue.

Let me explain Wengert's passage better, Tertium.

Wengert begins his paragraph with the statement: "Luther also recognized the dangers of claiming to construct doctrine on the basis of Scripture alone."

Wengert then gives as an example Luther's criticism of theologians like Erasmus who read the Bible alone but who failed to separate the meaning of Scripture from their own views. The danger that Wengert refers to could be that a person who makes doctrine on the basis of Scripture alone might not realize that he is incorporating his own views into reading the Bible. At least, Luther should have realized from this example that reading the Bible alone ("sola lectio Scripturarum") does not prevent one from mistakes in interpretation resulting from one's biases.

Then, Wengert writes, "Another example of the same skepticism came in Luther’s lectures on 1 John in 1526–27."
Wengert is giving some place in Luther's sermons on 1 John as another case where Luther apparently took a skeptical attitude to constructing teachings on the Bible alone.

Next, Wengert talks about this "example": "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.”

The "context" of which passage makes Wengert's contention about appropriating authorities "clear?" There are two indications:
1. Wengert must be referring to a passage that serves as "another example" of Luther's skepticism about reading the Bible alone.
2. Wengert says that Luther begins this exemplary passage "with the remark that 'it is very rare that there are pure teachers in the church. Only Scripture is pure.'" Thus, Wengert is talking about a discourse that starts with these words.

Does Luther's passage here discuss "how to appropriate such authorities", as Wengert claims?
You've read the full passage, and your comment makes me think that the answer is probably "No":

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).

Luther's declaration of the sole purity of Scripture is on LW 30:295, and it's another 3 pages later on p. 298 that Luther cites Augustine positively. This implies to me that the Luther's words about the sole purity of Scripture are not the start of a passage whose context is on positively appropriating Commentators into interpreting Scripture.

Besides, you also write helpfully:

"If you mean Wengert's comments on p.18 (which discusses the "sole purity" quote), I don't see any discussion from Wengert on a "start of a discourse on incorporating other authorities into interpreting Scripture."

In Wengert's next sentence after citing Luther on Scripture's sole purity, Wengert adds: "Luther did not, however, exclude other authorities..."

Here, Wengert addresses whether Luther's declaration on the sole purity of Scripture was aimed at excluding other authorities. By using the word "however," Wengert juxtaposes Luther's declaration that "Only Scripture is pure" against Wengert's assertion that Luther "did not exclude other authorities".

Then, in the underlined sentences below, Wengert raises the issue of what Luther was implying or "saying" when Luther declared the sole purity of Scripture. Wengert writes:

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!”"

So, Wengert asserts that when Luther remarked that "Only Scripture is pure," Luther was not "saying that Scripture alone" was "authoritative," but rather that "the purity of Scripture had" to do with something else.

Thus, Wengert here is raising the issue of whether Luther's declaration of the sole "purity of Scripture" implies that the "Scripture alone" is "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."

And.... you discovered that from reading Luther's context, or are you simply parroting back what I posted earlier? When you say, "The rest of the text can answer the question," have you actually read Luther in context? Regardless, you're placing a concern on the text that isn't there.

I typed and read enough of the German-Latin mix via Google Translate to see that right after declaring the sole purity of Scripture, Luther next listed Church Fathers and criticised them as having errors. However, I did not read further, because I do not have LW vol. 30.

Regards.

 

[rakovsky]

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.

I found St Thomas More quoting Luther as saying:

I have not denied the usage or the authority of men completely; I simply wish whatever has been written outside the holy scriptures to be free and indifferent, as I refuse to have necessary articles of faith fashioned from the words of men.

SOURCE: https://essentialmore.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/A-Response-to-Luther-Book-1.pdf

It sounds like he agrees with the authority of men to some extent but wishes their unscriptural ideas to be "free and indifferent", not "necessary articles of faith."

 

[rakovsky]

When I check the use of the term Article of Faith in the Smalcald Articles, it looks like the meaning of this term (eg. whether it refers to teachings that are binding, necessary, infallible, purely advisory, optional, etc.) might not be really decisive for the meaning of Sola Scriptura. Luther complains here that the RCs made relics an "Articles of faith", but Luther considers Augustine's mother's request for Augustine to pray for her at mass to be outside an Article of Faith. Luther says that Articles of faith must be established by the Bible Alone. Luther says that once the RCs abolish masses dedicated to souls in purgatory, then we can discuss whether the dead should be remembered at the Eucharist. Based on his writings elsewhere, it seems that he would demand that if one were to make such commemorations a "teaching", even a non-compulsory one, then one must evaluate it Biblically.

The surrounding paragraphs in the Smalcald articles are:

13. The Papists quote here Augustine and some of the Fathers who are said to have written concerning purgatory, and they think that we do not understand for what purpose and to what end they spoke as they did. St. Augustine does not write that there is a purgatory, nor has he a testimony of Scripture to constrain him thereto, but he leaves it in doubt whether there is one, and says that his mother asked to be remembered at the altar or Sacrament. Now, all this is indeed nothing but the devotion of men, and that, too, of individuals, and does not establish an article of faith, which is the prerogative of God alone.

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.

15. 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."

16. Secondly. From this it has followed that evil spirits have perpetrated much knavery [exercised their malice] by appearing as the souls of the departed, and with unspeakable [horrible] lies and tricks demanded masses, vigils, pilgrimages, and other alms.

17. All of which we had to receive as articles of faith, and to live accordingly; and the Pope confirmed these things, as also the Mass and all other abominations. Here, too, there is no [cannot and must not be any] yielding or surrendering.

(Martin Luther, 1537, Smalcald Articles II, 14-15.)

 

[BJ Bear]

I found St Thomas More quoting Luther as saying:

SOURCE: https://essentialmore.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/A-Response-to-Luther-Book-1.pdf

It sounds like he agrees with the authority of men to some extent but wishes their unscriptural ideas to be "free and indifferent", not "necessary articles of faith."

Does More cite a primary source or is that just his interpretation of Luther?

The unscriprural ideas of men are necessarily free and indifferent to Christians. This is why the undivided church of Rome and the later Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox split enforced those ideas with the sword.

 

[BJ Bear]

When I check the use of the term Article of Faith in the Smalcald Articles, it looks like the meaning of this term (eg. whether it refers to teachings that are binding, necessary, infallible, purely advisory, optional, etc.) might not be really decisive for the meaning of Sola Scriptura. Luther complains here that the RCs made relics an "Articles of faith", but Luther considers Augustine's mother's request for Augustine to pray for her at mass to be outside an Article of Faith. Luther says that Articles of faith must be established by the Bible Alone. Luther says that once the RCs abolish masses dedicated to souls in purgatory, then we can discuss whether the dead should be remembered at the Eucharist. Based on his writings elsewhere, it seems that he would demand that if one were to make such commemorations a "teaching", even a non-compulsory one, then one must evaluate it Biblically.

The surrounding paragraphs in the Smalcald articles are:

Context makes the difference. If the Roman church was willing to kill over something then for them it is an article of faith. The later story of papal infallibility was still more than a century away.

 

[rakovsky]

Does More cite a primary source or is that just his interpretation of Luther?

In his article "A Response to Luther," he was quoting Luther, as he puts it in an indented paragraph blockquote. In St. More's article that I linked to, More was responding to Luther's article that responded to Henry VIII's tract.

 

[rakovsky]

Context makes the difference. If the Roman church was willing to kill over something then for them it is an article of faith.

I was asking whether an "Article of Faith" is something by definition compulsory, or if there could be voluntary, non-compulsory "Articles of Faith."

For one possible example of the latter, I previously cited Luther's statement that the Catholic Church considered rejection of the Immaculate Conception to be an "article" that does not amount to "heresy":

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.

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

However, Luther does not use the full phrase "article of faith" in this sentence. So I don't know if the term "article of faith" refers only to compulsory teachings.

In any case, my question must overall be moot, because Luther repeatedly says that the Bible is the only source of all teachings, which means not just compulsory teachings.

 

[BJ Bear]

In his article "A Response to Luther," he was quoting Luther, as he puts it in an indented paragraph blockquote. In St. More's article that I linked to, More was responding to Luther's article that responded to Henry VIII's tract.

Since it is a work of fiction and without a primary source reference there is no reason not to consider the quote to be a work of fiction or at best an interpretation rather than a quote.

 

[rakovsky]

I found St Thomas More quoting Luther as saying:
"I have not denied the usage or the authority of men completely; I simply wish whatever has been written outside the holy scriptures to be free and indifferent, as I refuse to have necessary articles of faith fashioned from the words of men."
SOURCE: https://essentialmore.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/A-Response-to-Luther-Book-1.pdf

I found Luther talking about the "authority of men" as something to be freely obeyed or changed in "Martin Luther against Henry King of England" online:

If any usage and authority of men be allowed, which are not repugnant to the Scriptures, I do not condemn them, but wish them to be treated with toleration with this one provision, that they do not interfere with Christian liberty, and that we have the option of following them, keeping them, or changing them when and wherever and how we please. But if they wish to take away from us this liberty, and try to establish them as articles of faith, again I say: Let him be anathema who has presumed to do this, whether he be a senseless Thomist, or foolish Papist, or a King, or a Pope. Such is the procedure which our Lord King urges for making into articles of faith his Sacraments of confirmation, matrimony, holy orders, extreme unction and the mixing of water in the wine, etc.

SOURCE: http://anglicanhistory.org/lutherania/against_henry.html

It sounds like Luther is juxtaposing the nonmandatory "authority of men" against "articles of faith", so that if Henry took a position on the sacraments, it would just be the "authority of man" and not count as an "article of faith" unless Henry made his positions mandatory.

Luther reiterates this in the next passage where he seems to consider "traditions" and "commands" to be technically different from "articles of faith", until Henry makes them into "articles of faith":

But to us, against this Thomist straw and stubble, those divine thunderbolts are more than overpowering, whereby Christ (Matt. XV) passes judgment on all the traditions of men, saying: In vain do they worship Me with the teachings and commandments of men. What avail the universal dregs of this demented Thomist against this one saying of Christ, that I may pass over many others recorded elsewhere? If what is commanded by men is but vain, how brazenly does this stolid King, from men's commands, make for us articles of faith! ...

The sum of the whole matter is that if the sayings of men are able to be made into articles of faith, why should not my sayings be made articles of faith? Am I not a man? Moreover, according to this new Kingly wisdom, all men are compelled to believe the words of all other men.

Luther reiterates his idea of endorsing the nonBiblical "words of men" when they just do not contradict Scripture and don't make "articles of faith" when he says near the end:

On the contrary, the sum of my argument is that whereas the words of men, and the use of the centuries, can be tolerated and endorsed, provided they do not conflict with the sacred Scriptures, nevertheless they do not make articles of faith, nor any necessary observances.

Endorsement of nonBiblical noncontrary "words of men" seems to possibly go against Luther's separate c. 1521 declaration about the Fathers, "I am ready to trust them only when they give me evidence for their opinions from Scripture, which has never erred." (See the first message of this thread).

Elsewhere in the essay he seems to use "Articles of Faith" and "Articles" interchangeably, as in:

Wherefore we choose to keep silence before these Papists and holy Henrys on the question of those magnificent articles of their faith by which they believe that Communion should be celebrated only in the morning, that it should only be celebrated in a sacred place or by means of their portables (as they call them), that water should always be mixed with the wine, and other articles most weighty and most worthy of these most holy saints. ... But this is a signal mark of the Thomist wisdom, which, when asked the reason for this article of faith, and knowing no article is admitted by me unless supported by plain Scripture, has no other reply to make than It must be so.

He gives examples of nonBiblical topics that should not be mandatory, nor be "instituted" nor "articles of faith":

Thus Christ, Who in the evening instituted the Communion, did not institute the evening for the Communion, nor the morning; for He said no word about time, persons, places or dress. Otherwise if He had made our following the time an article of faith, He would have made also articles of faith out of age, place, persons, dress, and it would not be lawful for any, except men of the same age as the apostles were, to partake of that Supper, and only then in lay dress.

Also in Luther's essay, he agrees that the "Church" in the sense of all its members has the "authority" to "judge" all dogmas and laws, but not to "make" laws:

Therefore let us turn our pen to the principal and chief part of his perfidy, which is that saying of Augustine:

• I would not believe the Gospel unless the authority of the Church moved me so to do.

These words they sacrilegiously so twist and change that to the Church (that is, to the Romish harlot, who is neither Church nor Christian except in name) they attribute the right to make laws.

The Lord Henry adds to this that he even urges me by the authority of this same saying, citing my own words, where I said,

• With the Church is the right of judging all dogmas.

I see that this ignorant royal head has need of nothing else than a gem round his neck inscribed with a vocabulary, or with a short list of words, that he may begin where boys begin and learn his parts of speech, unless he does what he does from mere Thomist wickedness, forcing all words to mean all things, so that even here the right of judging laws becomes the same thing as the right of establishing, or making laws.
...
To know and judge concerning doctrine belongs to all men, even to individual Christians; and in such a way belongs that, Let him be anathema who shall injure this right, even in the least particular. For Christ Himself instituted this right by various invincible sayings, such as (Matt. VII): Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing.

This saying speaks to the people against their teachers, and commands them to avoid their false teachings. But how can they avoid them unless they know? And how know unless they have the right of judging? And here Christ has established not only the right, but the commandment to judge, so that this sole authority can be sufficient against the opinions of all the Fathers, of all the Councils, and of all the Schools, which reserve the right of judging and discerning as only to be exercised by bishops and ministers, and have thus impiously and sacrilegiously taken it away from the people, that is from the rightful queen of the Church.
...
If Christ (Matt. XXIV and everywhere) says in His teaching anything of false teachers, and Peter and Paul of false apostles, who are teachers, and John of proving the spirits, it follows that the authority in judging, proving and condemning lies with the people, arid lies with them most rightfully. For every man, at his own peril, believes either rightly or wrongly; and therefore each must take care, on his own behalf, that he believe rightly. So that even common sense, and the need of salvation, argue the necessity of the hearer having the judgment.

 

[BJ Bear]

I was asking whether an "Article of Faith" is something by definition compulsory, or if there could be voluntary, non-compulsory "Articles of Faith."

For one possible example of the latter, I previously cited Luther's statement that the Catholic Church considered rejection of the Immaculate Conception to be an "article" that does not amount to "heresy":

However, Luther does not use the full phrase "article of faith" in this sentence. So I don't know if the term "article of faith" refers only to compulsory teachings.

I think the answer to your question is in his very next words. "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?


Therefore I must myself retract this article and condemn it to the flames. I have said in this article, very foolishly, that we need not believe the pope in regard to unnecessary things. I ought to have said, If the pope and his papists in a Council were so wanton and arbitrary as to waste time and money on unnecessary things, when it is the business of a council to deal only with the great and necessary matters, we ought not only not to obey them, but to consider them insane or malicious."

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

In any case, my question must overall be moot, because Luther repeatedly says that the Bible is the only source of all teachings, which means not just compulsory teachings.

It isn't moot because among unnecessary things are adiaphora, things neither commanded or prohibited by God. A good example of how this works out is found in the Augsburg Confession, Article VII.

"2. And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and

3 the administration of the Sacraments. Nor is it necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies, instituted by men, should be everywhere alike.

4 As Paul says: One faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, etc. Eph. 4:5-6."

Article VII. Of the Church.

1 Also they teach that one holy Church is to continue forever. The Church is the congregation of saints, in which the Gospel is rightly taught and the Sacraments are rightly administered. 2 And to the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree concerning the doctrine of the Gospel and 3 the...

bookofconcord.org

The Papacy disagreed.

 

[BJ Bear]

Elsewhere in the essay he seems to use "Articles of Faith" and "Articles" interchangeably, as in:

The distinction is, "Articles of their faith," and, "other Articles," again in reference to their articles.

"Wherefore we choose to keep silence before these Papists and holy Henrys on the question of those magnificent articles of their faith by which they believe that Communion should be celebrated only in the morning, that it should only be celebrated in a sacred place or by means of their portables (as they call them), that water should always be mixed with the wine, and other articles most weighty and most worthy of these most holy saints. ... But this is a signal mark of the Thomist wisdom, which, when asked the reason for this article of faith, and knowing no article is admitted by me unless supported by plain Scripture, has no other reply to make than It must be so."

 

[Tertiumquid]

The distinction is, "Articles of their faith," and, "other Articles," again in reference to their articles.

BJ: In regard to the entirety of this thread, what is your opinion as to what the main point is? It seems to me to be a bunch of nitpicking over this sentence or that sentence. It seems like just a bunch of words with no purpose.

If the end goal is supposed to be that some other infallible authority must necessarily accompany infallible scripture (like Eastern Orthodoxy or Rome), it's a rather tedious and circuitous path being chosen to get there, and that's putting it as kindly as I can muster up.

 

[rakovsky]

The distinction is, "Articles of their faith," and, "other Articles," again in reference to their articles.

"Wherefore we choose to keep silence before these Papists and holy Henrys on the question of those magnificent articles of their faith by which they believe that Communion should be celebrated only in the morning, that it should only be celebrated in a sacred place or by means of their portables (as they call them), that water should always be mixed with the wine, and other articles most weighty and most worthy of these most holy saints. ... But this is a signal mark of the Thomist wisdom, which, when asked the reason for this article of faith, and knowing no article is admitted by me unless supported by plain Scripture, has no other reply to make than It must be so."

In this case, those "other Articles" would count as "Articles of their faith", but I suppose that not all "articles" might be "articles of faith".

The reason that I paid attention to this was because Luther said in the Smalcald Articles that the Bible alone must establish Articles of Faith. I was considering whether "Articles of Faith" meant only binding "articles" or did it mean religious "articles" in general.

For example, Luther said that Mary's Immaculate Conception was an "article" whose detractors the Catholic Church did not consider "heretics." It seems that he considered the Immaculate Conception to be a noncompulsory "article", but I'm not sure if that makes it count as an "article of faith".

Luther ends his statement above by saying that "no article is admitted by me unless supported by plain Scripture". This seems to mean that whether an article is compulsory or not (eg. the noncompulsory "article" of the Immaculate Conception), Luther would not admit any "article" unless it's supported by Scripture.

 

[BJ Bear]

BJ: In regard to the entirety of this thread, what is your opinion as to what the main point is? It seems to me to be a bunch of nitpicking over this sentence or that sentence. It seems like just a bunch of words with no purpose.

If the end goal is supposed to be that some other infallible authority must necessarily accompany infallible scripture (like Eastern Orthodoxy or Rome), it's a rather tedious and circuitous path being chosen to get there, and that's putting it as kindly as I can muster up.

Based on the posts so far and how the claims of different parties are used and adjudicated, it seems that the initial intent was to construct a straw man for the usual abuse.

It seems like a defensive move designed to justify an adherence to and a deflection from a "christianized" form of the distributed justification of the pagan philosophers. It's sort of like the guy in The Wizard Of Oz working the levers and knobs who tells Dorothy, "Ignore the little man behind the curtain!"

The document at the link regarding Scripture alone is an updated version of an Orthodox document that was regularly present at various Orthodox festivals which I attended in the past. The claims within it against sola scriptura would have given Luther a good laugh.