Can we drop "alone" from faith and grace?

[MaryT777]

Give Luther a break on that one. People of his time were an earthy folk, and hyperbole was common. Far nastier things were said about both sides -by both sides- during those times.

Ok I will

 

[JonNC]

A papist and donkey are the same thing? Horror of the nastiness of that statement if he did indeed say that. Geez. Give me a break on that one.

It was nasty and harsh. And there is really no excuse for a Christian to speak that way about other Christians. Of course, he was pretty angry at how he had been treated, some of the things said about him, and in this case, that there was a Catholic translator he calls The Scribbler from Desden" who is stealing his translatation and using it as his own. Even so…

Jon

 

[MaryT777]

Happy to be of help.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Since you chose to answer in this manner, I guess you agree that Luther was driven by pride (capital sin sort of pride not pride in your family sort of pride) to which I would then ask, is that ever acceptable?

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

Oh, sure, but not any more so than you or I in our worst times, or Pope Leo X in his. IOW, Luther was a man, a sinful man, whose sins are all out there for us to read because he was a prolific writer. He also believed in confession. He also wrote some wonderful and moving things, that even Catholics can appreciate. He wrote enough about faith and Christian love to impress some recent popes.

Jon

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Oh, sure, but not any more so than you or I in our worst times, or Pope Leo X in his. IOW, Luther was a man, a sinful man, whose sins are all out there for us to read because he was a prolific writer. He also believed in confession. He also wrote some wonderful and moving things, that even Catholics can appreciate. He wrote enough about faith and Christian love to impress some recent popes.

I can admire Luther on some level, even shun Catholic Church history here and there, but Luther became too much of a rebel. I liked the part where he only wanted to put an end to the paying for indulgences, but despite all the good he did, he still broke away from Christ’s established Church and decided to found his own based on his own beliefs apart from the Catholic Church.

 

[concretecamper]

Oh, sure, but not any more so than you or I in our worst times, or Pope Leo X in his. IOW, Luther was a man, a sinful man, whose sins are all out there for us to read because he was a prolific writer. He also believed in confession. He also wrote some wonderful and moving things, that even Catholics can appreciate. He wrote enough about faith and Christian love to impress some recent popes.

Jon

I agree that he was no different to any man. But if his pride was a reason he continued…can that be justified?

 

[MaryT777]

I can admire Luther on some level, even shun Catholic Church history here and there, but Luther became too much of a rebel. I liked the part where he only wanted to put an end to the paying for indulgences, but despite all the good he did, he still broke away from Christ’s established Church and decided to found his own based on his own beliefs apart from the Catholic Church.

I wonder if he got in too deep and didn’t know what to do to get back out of the schism he created. I think he’d be Catholic today but then I am biased !

 

[JonNC]

I agree that he was no different to any man. But if his pride was a reason he continued…can that be justified?

I think what drove Luther more than anything was his faith. Now, you can say he was in some ways misguided or incorrect, but Luther was a man of faith. Pope Benedict seemed to have that same view.
So, I am not willing to cast stones at Luther, or any of the players of his era (well, maybe Tetzel. ). We look back with our 20th/21st century eyes. We see their anti-Judaism and cringe. We see the way they talked to and about each other, and the executions by many different groups and can’t believe they did these things in the name of Christ.
But we were not there, and were not influenced by the times. I’m willing to let God judge their hearts.

Jon

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

I wonder if he got in too deep and didn’t know what to do
to get back out of the schism he created. I think he’d be
Catholic today but then I am biased !

I think if more fair discussion available today was made so back in Luther’s time he might
have returned to being Catholic, yet you make a good point, he got too deep. Sometimes
one can be too proud to admit he was wrong, thereby carry on in his error, and that might
have very well been the case of Martin Luther.

 

[MaryT777]

I think if more fair discussion available today was made so back in Luther’s time he might
have returned to being Catholic, yet you make a good point, he got too deep. Sometimes
one can be too proud to admit he was wrong, thereby carry on in his error, and that might
have very well been the case of Martin Luther.

I concur.

 

[JonNC]

I think if more fair discussion available today was made so back in Luther’s time he might
have returned to being Catholic, yet you make a good point, he got too deep. Sometimes
one can be too proud to admit he was wrong, thereby carry on in his error, and that might
have very well been the case of Martin Luther.

Is it prideful on our part to speculate about someone else’s pride?

Jon

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Is it prideful on our part to speculate about someone else’s pride?
Jon

Maybe, just maybe, but Luther’s
attitude revealed by history kinda
makes speculation more rather an *
observ*ation.

 

[steido01]

Translations are never perfect, I will admit to that, but you must consider not the supposed connotation Luther was revealing, but the doctrine of which he was inserting.

If Luther was guilty of “inserting” new doctrine, then so are these Fathers of the Church (as Ben previously noted): Origin, Basil, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Bernard, Aquinas, Augustine, etc. - not to mention Pope Benedict XVI himself, as we have read! Sola Fide was by no means unfounded and, as the good Bishop Emeritus explained in that Audience from 2008, is acceptable to Catholicism. Scripture does not contradict itself; with that and the teachings of the ECFs in mind, it was plain to Luther that “alone” is the proper way to understand the passage.

 

[ffg]

You know, I think about the verse, “Not all you say Lord, Lord…”.
On key one, they receive this gift of faith, yet choose to reject grace by not doing the works He has prepared for us to do. Do they have a saving faith, or a dead faith? Does a dead faith, a faith that chooses to remain in sin unrepentant, save? No.

On 2, I think it is quite possible to have saving faith, and later reject grace. Was there faith? Yes. Lost? Yes.

Again, with the 5 who did good works, those good works are only the result of saving faith. It is the saving faith that save.

Jon

Interesting. Our definitions of faith probably vary, but unrelated to this discussion.

I’m curious as to how you come to a conclusion that the parable implies faith anywhere?

The focus and purpose of the parable is on preparation.

Building a back story is nice, but if it was true (or in the case of a story as it is, needed), it would have been mentioned.

 

[concretecamper]

steido01:

Quote:

Sola Fide was by no means unfounded and, as the good Bishop Emeritus explained in that Audience from 2008, is acceptable to Catholicism. Scripture does not contradict itself; with that and the teachings of the ECFs in mind, it was plain to Luther that “alone” is the proper way to understand the passage.

1. What bishop are you referring too? Is this a catholic bishop?
2. Sola Fide is not acceptable to Catholicism.
3. Scripture does not say we are saved by faith alone. In fact it say just the opposite so are you changing scripture?

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

If Luther was guilty of “inserting” new doctrine, then so are these Fathers of the Church (as Ben previously noted): Origin, Basil, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Bernard, Aquinas, Augustine, etc. - not to mention Pope Benedict XVI himself, as we have read! Sola Fide was by no means unfounded and, as the good Bishop Emeritus explained in that Audience from 2008, is acceptable to Catholicism. Scripture does not contradict itself; with that and the teachings of the ECFs in mind, it was plain to Luther that “alone” is the proper way to understand the passage.

None of those other people discounted works though as Luther did. None of them would
have altered Scripture as Luther did. None of them addressed the Epistle of James as the
“straw-epistle,” as Luther did. The True Scriptures does not contradict itself, but Luther’s did.

Yes, Faith is what saves you, not works, but Faith without works is dead, none of those
other people would deny that, but Luther would. At the end of the day, Luther was wrong,
and just because we catch Origin, Basil, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Bernard,
Aquinas, Augustine, etc. saying “Faith Alone” does not make him correct.

 

[JRKH]

Hi Mary,

In English it wasn’t. No English translation that I am aware of has “alone” in Romans 3:28. Why? The sense of the text in English doesn’t need it. Luther’s point is that in German, the German spoken by the people, it was necessary to make sense, as the quote I listed above shows. Translations are not transliterations.

Jon

Jon -
Some great stuff posted by folks on the why of Luther adding alone to the biblical text in German…and in a way you make my very point for me…

We are speaking English - not German…Therefore “alone” is not necessary either in the written translations or in speech…So why use it???

If Luther added it in order to be more clear in the German…Shouldn’t English speakers eliminate it (in conversations and discussion/debate) for the same reason - - clarity within the language being used?

Remember that my OP is speaking about the term being repetitive… not because I don’t believe in the necessity of faith.

Peace
James

 

[MaryT777]

Maybe, just maybe, but Luther’s
attitude revealed by history kinda
makes speculation more rather an *
observ*ation.

When you write volumes of material as any Church Father or Luther you are subject to thoughts on what you have written and why. Comes with the territory.

My own opinion,
Mary.

 

[aidanbradypop]

 

[JRKH]

ATTENTION EVERYBODY…

While I appreciate that something good has come out of the various posts re:Luther and his German translation…I want to caution everyone that Luther is NOT - I repeat NOT the subject of this thread - and a few of the comments began to border on a lack of charity.
Fortunately they didn’t cross the line and I am grateful for that…
But let’s be kind to one another folks…

The subject of this thread is the value of saying “Faith alone” in a conversation…

Jon’s comment on the reasoning behind Luther’s decision to put “alone” in the translation is a good one and fits nicely into the topic…
So as I said above…If Luther added it for the German reading audience for clarity…and it isn’t necessary in the English…then it seems counterproductive to leave it in the English - whether in writing or in conversation…

Peace
James