Holy Scripture must necessarily be clearer, simpler, and more reliable than any other writings. Especially since all teachers verify their own statements through the Scriptures as clearer and more reliable writings, and desire their own writings to be confirmed and explained by them. But nobody can ever substantiate an obscure saying by one that is more obscure; therefore, necessity forces us to run to the Bible with the writings of all teachers, and to obtain there a verdict and judgment upon them. Scripture alone is the true lord and master of all writings and doctrine on earth. If that is not granted, what is Scripture good for? The more we reject it, the more we become satisfied with men’s books and human teachers.5
5. Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 32: Career of the Reformer II, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, Hilton C. Oswald, and Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 32 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1999), 11–12.
This person argued Luther was absolutely wrong that the Bible is simpler and clearer than any other writing. On the face of it, it does certainly seem like Martin Luther made a logical blunder. Isn't a children's book much "simpler" than the Bible? I suspect there are many books in my own personal library that are "clearer" than the Bible as well. Did the great Martin Luther have a misguided zeal in his claims about the Bible? Sure, the Bible is a great book, but is it "clearer, simpler, and more reliable than any other writings"? Let's take a closer look.
Documentation
Even though the quote is found precisely in LW 32:11-12, this does not necessarily mean the person using it read LW 32 and mined it out; a simple Google search of the formatted reference ("5") suggests this quote was probably taken from R. Scott Clark's blog article, Was Sola Scriptura A Reformation Slogan And Doctrine? Also, the bolding in the quote does not appear in Clark's blog article, nor in LW 32.
The quote comes from Grund und Ursach aller Artikel D. Martin Luthers so durch römische Bulle unrechtlich verdammt sind, 1521 (Defense and Explanation of All the Articles). While this treatise is found in its original German from Luther's actual manuscript in WA 7, 308- 457 (with the quote appearing on page 317), the English translation this particular quote is based on primarily comes from O. Clemen, Luthers Werke in Auswahl, 11. In Clemen, the quote is found on page 64:
The English rendering of LW 32 is a revision of this treatise found in the Philadelphia Edition of Luther's Works vol. 3 (with the quote occurring on p. 16, found below). Ewald Plass also includes an English translation of the quote in What Luther Says, Vol. 1, 74 (see below).
Context
This is my answer to those also who accuse me of rejecting all the teachers of the Church. I do not reject them; but everyone knows that they have erred at times, as men will, I am willing to put confidence in them only so far as they give me proofs for their opinions out of the Scriptures, which never yet have erred. This St Paul commands me in 1 Thessalonians, the last chapter, where he says, “First prove and confirm all doctrines; hold fast that which is good.” St Augustine writes to St Jerome to the same effect: “I have learned to do only those books that are called the Holy Scriptures the honor of believing firmly that none of their writers has erred; all others I so read as not to hold what they say to be the truth, unless they prove it to me by the Holy Scriptures or by clear reason.”
The Holy Scriptures must needs be clearer, easier of interpretation and more certain than any other scriptures, for all teachers prove their statements by them, as by clearer and more stable writings, and wish their own writings to be established and explained by them. But no one can ever prove a dark saying by one that is still darker; therefore, necessity compels us to run to the Bible with all the writings of the doctors, and thence to get our verdict and judgment upon them; for Scripture alone is the true over-lord and master of all writings and doctrines on earth. If not, what are the Scriptures good for? Let us reject them and be satisfied with the books of men and human teachers.
Conclusion
As the contextualist I strive to be, I try to read materials according to their written and historical context. The quote being cited is from Luther's introductory general statement from his preface to a 1521 document in which he was responding to the papal bull Exsurge Domine. Luther's contention was that the Papal church was teaching errors not in accord with Scripture. A cursory reading of LW 32 demonstrates Luther's argument is partly in regard to the hierarchy of authority. Luther is simply saying the Bible is the final authority which determines the veracity of secondary authorities, particularly "all the teachers of the Church." In that sense, if the Bible is the final authority that judges secondary authorities, it is simpler and clearer, able to be judge and jury of lesser authorities. In practice: if one picks up any volume of Christian theology, however old or new, its veracity is determined by whether or not it can be substantiated by the ultimate authority of sacred scripture.In this early period of Luther's fight with Rome, when the papists cited decrees, councils, fathers, etc. against him, his response was to counter with Scripture. As an experiment, if one reads LW 32: 12-19, "The First Article," Luther called out the Papal church for saying the sacraments give grace to anyone without almost any qualifications. Read Luther's answer and ask if the Papal church in the year 1521 was teaching something simpler and clearer than the Scriptures were teaching (Note also, Luther includes citations from Augustine in his answer). Luther's answers in the entirety of the Defense and Explanation of All the Articles demonstrates exactly what his preface alluded to: that the Scriptures gave infallible clarity on issues that had been obscured by the Papal church. The Bible was clearer, simpler, and more reliable than what the Papal church was saying.
Addendum #1 Other English Renderings
Other English versions of this quote can be found here and here, Ewald Plass translates the quote as follows:
"Holy Scripture must certainly be clearer, plainer, and more explicit than the writings of all others, because by it, as by a writing clearer and more reliable, all teachers prove their statements; and they want their writing to be confirmed and clarified by it. But surely no one can prove an obscure statement with a more obscure statement, Therefore we must needs turn to Scripture with the writings of all teachers and from that source get our judgments and verdict concerning them. For Scripture alone is the true lord and master of all writing and teaching on earth. If this is not to be. of what use is Scripture to us? Then we had better reject it and be satisfied with men's books and human teachers."
Addendum #2 Roman Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar
In his massive biography of Luther, Roman Catholic historian Hartmann Grisar says,
Thus the Bible, according to a further statement, is "clearer, easier and more certain than any other writing." "It is in itself quite certain, quite easy and quite plain; it is its own explanation; it is the universal argument, judge and enlightener, and makes all clear to all."
Later, however, the idea that Holy Scripture was obscure preponderated with him. Two days before his death Luther wrote in Latin on a piece of paper, which was subsequently found on his table, his thoughts on the difficulty of understanding Scripture : "No one can understand the Bucolics of Virgil who has not been a herdsman for five years; nor his Georgics unless he has laboured five years in the fields. In order to understand aright the epistles of Cicero a man must have been full twenty years in the public service of a great State. No one need fancy he has tasted Holy Scripture who has not ruled Churches for a hundred years with prophets like Elias and Eliseus, with John the Baptist, Christ and the Apostles." In all likelihood his experiences with the sectarians in his own camp led him towards the end of his life to lay more stress on the difficulty of understanding the Bible.
A first response to Grisar is based on a textual consideration. What's being cited from Luther (that the Scriptures are "obscure") is not something Luther actually wrote. Grisar is citing Table Talk utterance 5677. Second, this second-hand comment from Luther does not say that the Bible is obscure. The text says, "Let nobody suppose he has tasted the Holy Scriptures sufficiently unless he has ruled over the churches with the prophets for a hundred years (LW 54:476). The Table Talk also records Luther saying that since the Bible is the word of the Holy Spirit it's depth cannot be completely plumbed (utterance 1205, cf. What Luther Says, entry 212). This sentiment makes more sense in regard to "tasting" the Scriptures rather than a despondent Luther declaring the Scriptures obscure two days before he died.
Addendum #3 William Whitiker
In his book, A Disputation on Holy Scripture: Against the Papists, Especially Bellarmine and Stapleton,
William Whitiker uses Luther's argument here.
Our eighth argument is to this effect: The fathers proved their opinions out of the scriptures. Therefore the scriptures are clearer than the writings and commentaries of the fathers: for no one proves what is unknown by what is still more unknown. Luther hath this argument in the Preface of his Articles condemned by Leo X. The Jesuit answers, that the scriptures are indeed, in respect of their truth, clearer and more open than the writings of the fathers, but not in respect of the words. Which surely is a foolish answer: for to say that the scriptures are clearer than the fathers in respect of their truth, is nothing more than saying that they are truer. But what sort of a distinction is this? If the truth of scripture be clearer, how can the words be more obscure? For it is from the words that the truth arises. If therefore he confess that the scriptures are plainer than the commentaries of the fathers, in respect of their truth, then he concedes that the truth is plainer in the scriptures than in the writings of any father; which is sufficient. And doubtless if we will compare the scripture with the writings of the fathers, we shall generally find greater obscurity and difficulty in the latter than in the former. There is no less perspicuity in the Gospel of John or in the Epistles of Paul, than in Tertullian, in Irenæus, in certain books of Origen and Jerome, and in some other writings of the fathers. But in all the schoolmen there is such obscurity as is nowhere found in scripture. “The words of scripture,” says he, are more obscure than the words of the fathers.” Even if there were some obscurity in the words of scripture greater than in those of the fathers, it would not nevertheless be a just consequence, that the scriptures were so obscure that they should not be read by the people. This should rather rouse men to an attentive reading than deter them from reading altogether. Besides, the scriptures speak of necessary things no less plainly than any fathers, or even much more plainly, because the Holy Spirit excels in all powers of expression. Where has Augustine or Chrysostom, or any father, written more plainly that Christ hath delivered men from their sins and from eternal punishment, than the evangelists, than Paul, than Peter, than the rest of those whose ministry the Holy Ghost hath used in writing the scriptures? Surely all necessary things are so plainly set forth in the scripture, that he who does not understand them in scripture will never be instructed by any commentaries of the fathers.
Posts
