Page History

...

The Romanists must admit that there are among us good Christians who have the true faith, spirit, understanding, word, and mind of Christ. Why, then, should we reject the word and understanding of good Christians and follow the pope, who has neither faith nor the Spirit? . . .
Besides, if we are all priests, . . . and all have one faith, one gospel, one sacrament \[i.e., baptism\], why should we not also have the power to test and judge what is right or wrong in matters of faith? What becomes of Paul's words in 1 Cor 2\[:15\], I A spiritual man judges all things, yet he is judged by no one'? And 2 Cor 4\[:13\], 'We all have one spirit of faith'? Why, then, should we not perceive what is consistent with faith and what is not, just as well as \[_sic\!_\] an unbelieving pope does?
 We ought to become bold and free on the authority of all these texts, and many others. We ought not to allow the Spirit of freedom (as Paul calls him \[2 Cor 3:17\]) to be frightened off by the fabrications of the popes, but we ought to march boldly forward and test all that they do, or leave undone, by our believing understanding of the \[s\]criptures. We must compel the Romanists to follow not their own interpretation but the better one (44:135)

...

...

One thing, evidently, is that Luther has no truck with any appeals to merely formal authority – -- to "who said it." If one is to believe as one is supposed to believe, it can't be because some putative authority has said it, but only because, or insofar as, the truth itself so lays hold of one that one cannot deny it – -- not even, indeed, if God Godself were to say otherwise.

On the other hand, much of what Luther says could be taken as simply his variation on the common theme that propositions of faith are "self-authenticating."
The important difference from at least some other such variations, however, is the sharp contrast he draws between Christ as, in my terms, the primal source of authority and Christ's preachers as, mere (even if the primary) authorities authorized by that source. Because of this contrast, the only thing that can be said to be "self-authenticating," really, is Christ, not the propositions of faith that bear witness to him, all of which – -- even those of apostles! – require to be authorized by whether they do or do not "push" him.

Moreover, Luther does insist that "the word itself . . . must do enough for the heart, must so grasp and convince one" that one has good and sufficient reason to believe it – -- against anything said to the contrary, even by God. But what is this if not a way of saying that one is to believe, finally, because it's the only way one can make sense of – -- do full justice to – -- what one inelucatably believes, even when one does not believe that one believes it!?

...