Scriptures as the only correct sense. "The Holy Ghost is the simplest writer and speaker in heaven or earth; hence His words can not have more than one simplest meaning, which we call the written or literal sense (Zungensinn)." "The Scriptures must not have a twofold meaning, but must retain only the one expressed by the words" (Erl. Ed. 27, p. 259-262).64a
How the attempt has been made to get much capital for a freer position of Luther towards the Scriptures out of his expressions concerning James, Hebrews, the Apocalypse, etc., is well known. But it is scientific levity to do so. Careful research will ever find, that the books recognized by him as canonical, under all conditions were regarded by him as the authoritative Word of God, but that he differentiated between these and such which he did not without more ado accept as God's Word, simply because he did not regard them as canonical. It is a matter, therefore, of two entirely different spheres. For this reason it is not correct to ascribe to the former what is said of the latter. That Luther in his doubts over the canonicity of this or that book during the transition period from the Middle Ages to the Reformation did not stand alone, that the conception of canonical writings was not a firmly fixed conception as it largely is today, is clearly shown by Walther and Leipold, whilst Walther and Kawerau have also investigated the question of Luther's (and other's) final opinion of James.64a
What position did Luther take towards the writings recognized by him as canonical, did he merely assert their inerrancy in religious matters or also extend this to historical, physical, etc., matters? Walther in Rostock has shown that Luther's position here, too, was much more conservative than nearly all presentations care to admit.64a
