Hi Jon,
Not sure Dr Luther ever used the term. [Sola Scriptura]
Jon
Whether or not Luther ever used the term ‘Sola Scriptura’ is not the point. The point is that it was Luther who introduced the concept of Sola Scriptura into Christendom. Prior to him, everyone who taught Scripture Alone and refused to be corrected by the Church, was declared a heretic, just as Luther also was.
That Luther is ‘responsible’ for Sola Scriptura’s introduction into ‘mainstream’ Western Christianity is irrefutable.
Speaking of Luther’s pre-95 Theses days in the monastery (probably pre 1515): “Once he was fully prepared to understand just what the Bible did teach on the doctrines of sin, grace, penance, and salvation,** he was ready to rebuild the whole system on theology on the basis of his own exegesis** and study the Bible in the original languages. **Luther discovered Sola Scriptura, therefore, long before he was prepared to say what the Bible taught in all matters of doctrine.” **(Lutheran) E. G. Schwiebert, “Luther and His Times”, pg. 174
In addition to Luther ‘discovering Sola Scriptura’ here we learn that as late as 2 years prior to his Revolt, Luther was not ‘prepared to say what the Bible taught in all matters of doctrine.’ This seems to say that Luther was nowhere near ready to begin to challenge the doctrines of the 1500 year old Catholic Church in 1517.
“**Among the apostolic fathers, one will search on vain to discover a formally outlined doctrine of Scripture such as may be found in modern theology textbooks. The doctrine of Scripture did not become an independent locus of theology until the sixteenth century. **What we do find throughout the writing of the apostolic fathers is a continual and consistant appeal to the Old Testament and to the Apostles teaching.
During these first decades following Christ, however, we have no evidence demonstrating that the Church considered the Apostles teaching to be entirely confined to written documents………As already noted, we have broad scholarly agreement that Scripture and tradition were not mutualy exclusive concepts in the mind of the early fathers. The concept of ‘tradition,’ when used by these fathers, is simply used to designate the body of doctrine which was committed to the Church by the Lord and his Apostles, whether through verbal or written communication.” Mathison, “The Shape of Sola Scriptura”, pg. 20-21
Here we learn that Sola Scriptura was NOT a belief or practice or ‘tradition’ or anything of the early Church.
“For us in the twentieth century, his [Luther’s] answer cannot be convincing, because application of the Reformation principal of sola scriptura, the Scriptures alone, has not brought the certainty he (Luther) anticipated. **It has in fact been responsible for a multiplicity of explanations and interpretation that seems to render absurd any dependence on the clarity of the Scriptures. **In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries post-Reformation Protestantism tried out many variants of “fundamentalism” to counter the trend, often declaring the letter of the Scriptures sacrosanct. But even desperate rescue missions cannot breath new life into a motto that was once so persuasive: as God truly became incarnate in Jesus, so His spirit became inerrant truth in the Holy Scriptures.” (Reformed biographer of Luther) Heiko Oberman, (Reformed Scholar), “Luther, Man between God and the Devil”, pg. 220-1
Oberman points out here that Sola Scriptura, which he identifies with Luther, “has in fact been responsible for a multiplicity of explanations and interpretation that seems to render absurd any dependence on the clarity of the Scriptures”
Not only did Luther ‘discover’ Sola Scriptura, he also in the exact same manner ‘discovered’ Private Interpretation, which has been AT LEAST as destructive to Christian unity as has Sola Scriptura. The evidence from Scholars of all stripes tying Luther to Private Interpretation is also irrefutable, and probably should be posted here.
God Bless You Jon, Topper
