What do "Articles of Faith" mean in Luther's Smalcald Articles, and would canonizations count?

[rakovsky]

Rev. Dr. Dieter Reinstorf writes in a brief 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.

I don't know if John Frederick himself used that term in his request to Luther, but I read Lutheran Assertions online that the articles of such Lutheran "Confessions" are "Articles of Faith".

Luther wrote in his Smalcald Articles:

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.)

One issue is how whether something needs to be "necessary" or mandatory to count as an "Article of Faith."

I haven't been able to find a solid, full answer to this.

In Defense of All the Articles, Luther calls the "Conception of our Lady" an "article" that the Catholic Church considers unnecessary for salvation. Does he mean that it is an "article of faith"? He notes that the Catholic Church denies that this article's rejection is a heresy. However, he complains that the Catholic Church made other things "necessary articles of faith":

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?

St. Thomas More quotes Luther saying rhetorically at one point:

In sum, if the words of men have the force of articles of faith, why do not my words also make articles of faith?
https://essentialmore.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/A-Response-to-Luther-Book-1.pdf

It sounds as if Luther means that "articles of faith" have a certain force.

He also quotes Luther 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.

It isn't clear if he means here that all "articles of faith" are treated as "necessary"/mandatory, or if some "articles of faith" could just have a certain limited "authority of men".

Luther's Works Vol. 38, p. 289 says that Luther considered the Marburg Articles to be “articles of faith, which had to be taken quite seriously”, but this doesn't mean that Articles of Faith are mandatory per se.
(Cited on page 158: https://www.blts.edu/wp-content/uploads/lsq/50-23.pdf)

Julius Köstlin, in The Theology of Luther in Its Historical Development and Inner Harmony, Volume 2, takes Luther's approval of appointing ("statuendum") some ExtraBiblical things to mean that Luther was approving "free articles of faith":

Luther now again says: Beyond the Scriptures, nothing must be appointed (statuendum), or, if anything be appointed, it must be regarded as voluntary and not necessary...

Kostlin says that Luther is referring to outward ceremonies in divine worship, and comments:

Thus he [Luther] still allowed many things to stand as free articles of faith, but, as indicated by the designation itself, no longer articles of saving faith...

On the other hand, in citing Luther's views on Aquinas' followers' opinions, Kostlin writes that they don't become articles of faith because we are not compelled to believe such unscriptural or non-revealed things:

The opinions of the Thomists, even though approved by Pope and council, are still only opinions, and do not become articles of faith; for that which is maintained without scriptural proof or well-attested revelation may be the basis for an opinion, but we are not compelled to believe it.

On a sidenote, in the quote above, Luther seems to see "well-attested revelation" as a possible source of Articles of Faith separate from the Bible.

Another issue is whether something Articles of Faith are by definition limited to theological faith teachings, or if they can include things like holidays and canonizations of saints.

It looks like it can include things like formally-approved holidays and canonizations.

The Augsburg Confession's first Article begins: "Our Churches, with common consent, do teach..." So the "they" that begin the rest of the Augsburg Confession's articles must apply to Luther's Church.

Article XV of the Augsburg Confession on "Ecclesiastical Usages" mentions that the Churches teach that holidays "ought to be observed" but are not "necessary to salvation":

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.

Article XXI of the Augsburg Confession begins by memorializing saints:

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.

Since Augsburg gives "Articles" on this topic, it seems that holidays and memorializing saints could count as "Articles of Faith."

In his Defense of All the Articles, Luther notes that (A) the Bible doesn't say where Peter and James are buried, that (B) the Pope has canonized saints, and that (C) the Pope has set up "wild articles of faith", likely referring to Papal decisions about A and B.

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 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.

In his response against Henry VIII, Luther 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.
SOURCE: Martinus Lutherus contra Henricum Regem Angliae

Elsewhere in this 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.

Luther presents an idea of endorsing the nonBiblical "authority of men" and "words of men" when they do not contradict Scripture and don't make "articles of faith"

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.
...
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.

 

[Daniel9v9]

A lot to mull over here and I'm not surprised you haven't found any clear answers on this. Part of the problem is that the expression "article of faith" is somewhat fluid — it can mean different things in different contexts.

For example, when we refer to Confessional writings as "articles of faith", we hold that they are mandatory. That is, we subscribe to them fully, and not in part. However, in other cases, "article of faith" can simply mean "doctrine", whether it's true or not. e.g. we can talk about Mormon articles of faith, which are heretical. And sometimes we use the term to contrast between something that is apprehended by faith as opposed to by reason, with regards to holy mysteries such as the Eucharist, the Trinity, the incarnation etc.

The Lutheran Church does not have extra-Biblical articles of faith* as if they were necessary to salvation, regarding things such as holidays and canonisation of saints, but we do value tradition. Simply, we are bound to confess what God's Word says, and if something is neither commanded nor forbidden, it is adiaphora — we have Christian freedom to believe or exercise it according to our conscience and whatever best serves our neighbour.

*There is only one exception to this that I can think of:
In the Latin version of the Smalcald Articles, Part I, 4, there is a reference to the perpetual virginity of Mary.
The Smalcald Articles – Luco

Again, this is something only found in the Latin version of our Confessions. It wasn't in German and it's actually been dropped in the English in the Concordia published by CPH (which has become more or less standard), and I think for good reasons. God's Word does not explicitly state that Mary is forever virgin. It has a strong history, but a case can be made either way. So, in this case, the reformers overstepped and went beyond Scripture. Essentially: The perpetual virginity of Mary may or may not be true — the Scriptures are not explicit on it — and so, we do not burden anyone with it. Furthermore, it holds no real value in our theological framework.

 

[rakovsky]

A lot to mull over here and I'm not surprised you haven't found any clear answers on this. Part of the problem is that the expression "article of faith" is somewhat fluid — it can mean different things in different contexts.

For example, when we refer to Confessional writings as "articles of faith", we hold that they are mandatory. That is, we subscribe to them fully, and not in part. However, in other cases, "article of faith" can simply mean "doctrine", whether it's true or not. e.g. we can talk about Mormon articles of faith, which are heretical. And sometimes we use the term to contrast between something that is apprehended by faith as opposed to by reason, with regards to holy mysteries such as the Eucharist, the Trinity, the incarnation etc.

Daniel, the issue came up because I was trying to understand when Luther wrote that only the Bible can establish Articles of Faith, did he mean that only the Bible can establish mandatory religious teachings, or did he mean more broadly that only the Bible can establish religious teachings in general?

One way for me to check was to see how Luther himself used the term. My impression is that he was referring to just mandatory doctrines. A possible counter-example is that he calls the teaching of the Immaculate Conception an "article" whose rejection the Catholic Church does not consider to be "heresy." But he does not use the term "article of faith" here, just "article", so it's not clear.

When I look for Luther's writings on Sola Scriptura elsewhere, it forms a stronger impression that Luther more broadly had the idea that the Bible judges all "teachings", not just compulsory ones.

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. ... The dear fathers wished, by their writings, to lead us to the Scriptures, but we so use them as to be led away from the Scriptures, though the Scriptures alone are our vineyard in which we ought to work and toil.

Luther 1520, in: Open letter to the Christian nobility (Reform Part 3.25).

This is my answer to those also who accuse me of rejecting all the holy teachers of the church. I do not reject them. But everyone, indeed, knows that at times they have erred, as men will; therefore, I am ready to trust them only when they give me evidence for their opinions from Scripture, which has never erred. This St. Paul bids me to do in I Thess. 5:21, where he says, “Test everything; hold fast what 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 ever erred. All others I so read as not to hold what they say to be the truth unless they prove it to me by holy Scripture or clear reason." *

* Augustine, Letter 82 (to St. Jerome). Migne 33, 286-287.
Martin Luther, Luther’s Works, Vol. 32: Career of the Reformer II,

I don't want to debate or get off track here - Luther was not denying that the Fathers had a role in finding the Bible's meaning, but when he talks about Sola Scriptura, he talks as if all teachings must be established by the Bible, like when the Formula of Concord says:

“The Word of God is and should remain the sole rule and norm of all doctrine” (FC SD, Rule and Norm, 9).

You brought up another important issue, what happens when something is not "Biblical", and I agree that Luther considered non-Biblical things to be at best non-compulsory, like when you said:

The Lutheran Church does not have extra-Biblical articles of faith* as if they were necessary to salvation, regarding things such as holidays and canonisation of saints, but we do value tradition. Simply, we are bound to confess what God's Word says, and if something is neither commanded nor forbidden, it is adiaphora — we have Christian freedom to believe or exercise it according to our conscience and whatever best serves our neighbour.

We can sum these ideas up as:
- Luther and the Formula of Concord seem to say that the Bible establishes all teachings.
- "Teachings" seem to include both mandatory and nonmandatory ones.
- Some relevant topics are not in Scripture (eg. lives of many saints who get canonized).
- Luther considers ideas on extraBiblical topics to be nonmandatory.

According to this scheme, can the Lutheran Church have nonmandatory "teachings" on extraBiblical topics (eg. whether Augustine is a "saint", or on the extraBiblical specifics of Church services)? In the Orthodox Church, we have doctrines and "canons" (eg. specific "canonizations" of some saints) that seem to meet Luther's category of nonmandatory teachings (eg. the nonmandatory Catholic stance on the Immaculate Conception in Luther's era).

Do you see the issue that I am getting at? In light of the Sola Scriptura doctrine, might Luther or Lutheranism answer that common extraBiblical teachings (eg. Augustine's sainthood) don't count as "teachings," or might they just skip over the issue by saying that they are nonmandatory/adiaphora?

Thanks for writing.

 

[Daniel9v9]

Daniel, the issue came up because I was trying to understand when Luther wrote that only the Bible can establish Articles of Faith, did he mean that only the Bible can establish mandatory religious teachings, or did he mean more broadly that only the Bible can establish religious teachings in general?

One way for me to check was to see how Luther himself used the term. My impression is that he was referring to just mandatory doctrines. A possible counter-example is that he calls the teaching of the Immaculate Conception an "article" whose rejection the Catholic Church does not consider to be "heresy." But he does not use the term "article of faith" here, just "article", so it's not clear.

When I look for Luther's writings on Sola Scriptura elsewhere, it forms a stronger impression that Luther more broadly had the idea that the Bible judges all "teachings", not just compulsory ones.



I don't want to debate or get off track here - Luther was not denying that the Fathers had a role in finding the Bible's meaning, but when he talks about Sola Scriptura, he talks as if all teachings must be established by the Bible, like when the Formula of Concord says:


You brought up another important issue, what happens when something is not "Biblical", and I agree that Luther considered non-Biblical things to be at best non-compulsory, like when you said:

We can sum these ideas up as:
- Luther and the Formula of Concord seem to say that the Bible establishes all teachings.
- "Teachings" seem to include both mandatory and nonmandatory ones.
- Some relevant topics are not in Scripture (eg. lives of many saints who get canonized).
- Luther considers ideas on extraBiblical topics to be nonmandatory.

According to this scheme, can the Lutheran Church have nonmandatory "teachings" on extraBiblical topics (eg. whether Augustine is a "saint", or on the extraBiblical specifics of Church services)? In the Orthodox Church, we have doctrines and "canons" (eg. specific "canonizations" of some saints) that seem to meet Luther's category of nonmandatory teachings (eg. the nonmandatory Catholic stance on the Immaculate Conception in Luther's era).

Do you see the issue that I am getting at? In light of the Sola Scriptura doctrine, might Luther or Lutheranism answer that common extraBiblical teachings (eg. Augustine's sainthood) don't count as "teachings," or might they just skip over the issue by saying that they are nonmandatory/adiaphora?

Thanks for writing.

Yes, simply speaking, we confess that Scriptures alone dictate articles of faith, in the sense of it being doctrine that must be believed, or at least not denied. (That is, it's possible to be ignorant of it).

Extra-Biblical teachings are, as you say, nonmandatory. viz. the Church and its tradition is an authority, and we do value tradition, but God's Word is the supreme authority in all things. So Sola Scriptura is not void of tradition, but it's a rejection of the concept of Holy Tradition as understood by our Roman Catholic friends.

 

[rakovsky]

Yes, simply speaking, we confess that Scriptures alone dictate articles of faith, in the sense of it being doctrine that must be believed, or at least not denied. (That is, it's possible to be ignorant of it).

Extra-Biblical teachings are, as you say, nonmandatory. viz. the Church and its tradition is an authority, and we do value tradition, but God's Word is the supreme authority in all things. So Sola Scriptura is not void of tradition, but it's a rejection of the concept of Holy Tradition as understood by our Roman Catholic friends.

Daniel,

Let me please reiterate the dilemma: I gathered all of a few dozen usages of "Sola Scriptura" type phrases by Luther that I came across to see what he meant by this teaching. It looks like he takes it to mean that the Bible Alone must establish and judge all teachings, and this definition doesn't seem to leave room for nonBiblical nonmandatory teachings, as when he says:

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. But Emser thinks that they should have a special function alongside the Scriptures, as if Scripture were not enough for teaching us.

Luther, 1523, Reply to "Emser the Goat"

However, in a few other places, he does seem to "endorse" what he considers nonmandatory nonBiblical teachings that one "ought" to follow (eg. as in Articles XV and XXI of the Augsburg Confession). Perhaps Luther did not recognize this dilemma (The all-encompassing nature of "Sola Scriptura" vs. nonmandatory nonBiblical teachings), or else he did not try to address it?

 

[Daniel9v9]

Daniel,

Let me please reiterate the dilemma: I gathered all of a few dozen usages of "Sola Scriptura" type phrases by Luther that I came across to see what he meant by this teaching. It looks like he takes it to mean that the Bible Alone must establish and judge all teachings, and this definition doesn't seem to leave room for nonBiblical nonmandatory teachings, as when he says:

However, in a few other places, he does seem to "endorse" what he considers nonmandatory nonBiblical teachings that one "ought" to follow (eg. as in Articles XV and XXI of the Augsburg Confession). Perhaps Luther did not recognize this dilemma (The all-encompassing nature of "Sola Scriptura" vs. nonmandatory nonBiblical teachings), or else he did not try to address it?

Sorry, I'm not sure if I'm quite understanding the dilemma. Apologies for being slow and thank you for being patient with me! But it sounds to me like you're touching on theology regarding authority in the Church.

Perhaps it can be helpful to consider the context in which the Confessions were put together. The authority in the Church according to the Roman Catholic Church is the Roman Catholic Church, which includes Holy Scriptures, Holy Tradition, Councils, and the Pope. It's good to consider that the Roman Catholic body of doctrine is progressive — that is, the Pope, according to their doctrine, has the power and right to decree and define articles of faith. Now, the articles of faith in the Lutheran Church are fixed, same as that of your church body. The Lutheran system is fixed to our Confessions, just as yours are fixed to the ecclesiastical deliverances of the time from 325 to 787.

This is a long-winded way of re-iterating that the Lutheran Church holds that only Scriptures can dictate articles of faith — that is, doctrine that must be believed (or at least not denied). Our Roman Catholic friends have articles of faith formed purely out of tradition (canon-law), and it's against this that we confess:

"We believe, teach, and confess that the sole rule and standard according to which all dogmas together with [all] teachers should be estimated and judged [2 Timothy 3:15–17] are the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures of the Old and of the New Testament alone, as it is written Psalms 119:105: “Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path.” And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Galatians 1:8."
— Formula of Concord: Epitome, Introduction 1

Now, Luther and our church also endorse or promote tradition, but we hold that tradition is subject to God's written Word. We retain tradition insofar as it's useful and appropriate for the sake of good order, edification, and reverence. We keep and promote tradition out of consensus and our freedom in Christ, and not by forcing it or claiming that it is by divine right. If you're interested, you can find more about this in the Formula of Concord on Church Rites.
The Epitome – Luco
The Solid Declaration – Luco

So, in other words, in our theological framework, there's no real tension between the authority of the church and the authority of the Scriptures, because the authority of the church is bound and subject to the Scriptures. This is why Orthodox Lutheran bodies, such as the one I serve in, can endorse tradition but at the same time be Sola Scriptura.

Blessings!