In answer to the claim that the doctrine of inspiration is a "dogmatic construction," which owes its origin to the later dogmaticians of the Lutheran Church, we point to the fact that already in its Confessions the Lutheran Church upheld the plenary inspiration of the Bible, although at that time the doctrine was not in controversy, so that there was no pressing need for presenting it in detail. A few quotations from our Confessions show in what way the writers regarded the Holy Bible. We read: "Whence have the bishops the right to lay these traditions upon the Church . . . when Peter, Acts 15, 10, forbids to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples and Paul says, 2 Cor. 13, 10, that the power given him was to edification? Did the Holy Ghost in vain forewarn of these things?" Augsburg Conf., Art. XXVIII. Again: "You have now therefore, reader, our Apology, from which you will understand not only what the adversaries have judged, ... but also that they have condemned several articles contrary to the manifest Scripture of the Holy Ghost. (Apol., § 9. Triglot, p.lOl.) Again: "In this way the distinction between the Holy Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament and all other writings is preserved, and the Holy Scriptures alone remain the only judge, rule, and standard according to which, as the only touchstone, all dogmas shall and must be discerned and jud,ged as to whether they are good or evil, right or wrong." (Formula of Concord, Epitome, § 7; Triglot, p. 779.)
From these and many other statements in our Confessions it is obvious that their writers regarded the Holy Bible as the inspired and infallible Word of God; hence the claim that the doctrine of verbal and plenary inspiration is "an artificial theory of the later dogmaticians" ("eine kuenstliche Theorie der spaeteren Dogmatiker") is unfounded. The later Lutheran dogmaticians taught no other doctrine concerning Holy Scripture than that which was maintained and defended in the Lutheran Confessions.
Closely related to the claim just stated is another, namely, that Luther himself did not regard the Bible as verbally and plenarily inspired, but that he assumed a "free attitude" on this point. However, Luther's position, or attitude, toward the Bible was the very opposite of "free"; for time and again he professed himself to be bound to God's Word, set forth in Scripture, as the following statements of his plainly show: "Holy Scripture was spoken through the Holy Ghost." Again: "The Bible is 'God's Letter' to men." . Again: "The Bible did not grow upon earth." . Etc. While Luther's chief opponents, the papists, asserted the traditions, the decisions of the church councils, and the decrees of the Popes to be sources of faith, Luther recognized but one standard of faithGod's Book, the Bible. In it "the Holy Spirit so speaks to us" that even "the trivial things" in it are the teachings of the ''high divine Majesty." In it "the absolutely pure mouth of the Holy Spirit" revealed even the "atrocious, indecent tale" of Judah and Tamar (Gen. 38) for our comfort. ff. Even as to historical and scientific matters recorded in Scripture we must "do the Holy Spirit the honor of admitting that He is more learned than we are." . The Holy Spirit did not commit any mistakes even in the chronology of Scripture. ff. Modern rationalistic theologians hold that there are "degrees of inspiration," a view which practically denies the entire inspiration of Scripture. Luther, on the contrary, "assigned the whole Bible to the Holy Ghost." . Ad Ps. 127, 3 he says that not only the words (vocabula), but the very mode of expression (phrasis) is divine (divina). .
In view of these express declarations of Luther the alleged proofs from his writings on behalf of his "free position" sink into insignificance from the very outset. Luther is supposed to have taught that the Bible contains "hay, straw, and stubble," in other words, truth and error. But this quotation is incorrect; for when using those words, Luther did not refer to the Biblical writers, but to the interpreters of the Bible. (Kawerau, Theol. Lit.-Ztg., 1895, p. 216; cf. also ff.) What Luther here says of the interpreters of the Bible in olden times is true of all Bible interpreters to this day; for sometimes they err in explaining the sacred text.
Again, Luther is said to have taught that certain passages in Scripture are "inadequate." The reference in this case is especially to Gal. 4, 21 ff., on which passage he remarked that in a controversy with Jews (contra Iudaeos), who did not accept Paul's apostolic authority, it is less valid in controversy (in acie minus valet) than others; or according to some German translations, it is "zum Stich, zu schwach," that is to say, it does not convince. By this expression, however, Luther did not mean to deny the doctrine of inspiration, but merely wished to indicate that Paul's allegory, as used in this passage, would not convince an unbelieving Jew, who did not accept the apostle's authority. This certainly is true, especially since Paul in his interpretation departs from the literal sense of the words and shows its allegorical meaning, as Luther rightly points out. (Cf. .)
Moreover, Luther's "free position" with respect to Scripture is supposed to appear from his sharp distinction between the Homologumena and the Antilegomena in the New Testament canon. We admit the fact that Luther did make distinctions (e. g., the epistle of James he calls a "strawy epistle" as compared with Paul's epistles, St. L., XIV, 91); but at the same time he regarded all the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures as God's divinely inspired Word, just as we do to-day, though we, too, acknowledge the distinction between Homologumena and Antilegomena. Furthermore it is said that Luther accepted a "canon within the canon," since he limited the divine authority of the Bible to those books which "urge Christ" ("Christum treiben" ). The passages on which this contention is based are found in the St. Louis Ed. (XIV, 129, and XIX, 1441) and read: "Whatever does not urge Christ is not yet apostolic, even if St. Peter or St. Paul should teach it. On the other hand, whatever teaches Christ, that is apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, or Herod should do it." And: "If our adversaries insist upon Scripture, we insist upon Christ against Scripture." As strange as these statements may sound when they are removed from their context, they become perfectly clear when they are considered in their connection. By Scripture Luther here does not mean the Bible per se, but as it was falsely interpreted by the papists. This fully explains the second quotation. The first is explained by the fact that Luther here assumes a case which in reality can never occur, since neither St. Paul nor St. Peter could teach anything without "urging Christ," nor would Annas, Pilate, or Herod "urge Christ," no matter what they presumed to teach. Luther's insistence here was upon the authority of the divine Christ whom the Bible teaches from beginning to end as the Church's only Lord, Luke 24, 25--27; Acts 10, 43.
Whatever other arguments have been advanced to prove Luther's "free position" with regard to Holy Scripture come under the same category as those cited above. In the interest of their pernicious designs modern theologians either misquote Luther or misapply his statements. In spite of this, however, they cannot disprove the clear words in which Luther emphatically professes his devoted loyalty to Scripture as God's own inspired Book.