Can we drop "alone" from faith and grace?

[aidanbradypop]

Here’s the best reasoning for why we shouldn’t be too upset about “faith alone”

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html

For my dear Catholic friends, skip over the naughty bits where you see Luther getting rather testy and go to the part where Origin, Basil, John Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria used the same phrasing.

…

My $.02:

“Faith alone” is comforting - for no amount of good works can possibly justify our salvation. We can only offer God bits of dross made of His own creation - that will never suffice.

Morning Ben

The ECFs were mostly talking about simply trying to work youself to heaven rather than believing and do as Christ commanded. Even St. Paul speaks about that. We cannot work or buy our way to heaven without believing, however, if we believe we must produce fruit of our faith aka works aka charity.

 

[JonNC]

By virtue (for lack of a better word) of his lack of authority, Martin Luther added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28, and HE EVEN ADMITS TO IT:

I’m not even going to bring up the rest of Martin Luther’s arrogance, I will just direct people to the writings of this Lutheran prophet who felt he had the right to write the Bible however he wishes:
bible-researcher.com/luther01.html

Did you read the whole letter on translation? Alas, even finish the paragraph?

I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text – if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation. But it is the nature of our language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed, the other denied, we use the word allein [only] along with the word nicht [not] or kein [no]. For example, we say “the farmer brings allein grain and kein money”; or “No, I really have nicht money, but allein grain”; I have allein eaten and nicht yet drunk"; “Did you write it allein and nicht read it over?” There are countless cases like this in daily usage.

You are quite welcome to misconstrue sarcasm as being arrogance. Please, however, do not expect it to go unchallenged.
If Luther’s use of “allein” is an addition to the text, then any translation is.

Jon

 

[steido01]

Morning Ben

The ECFs were mostly talking about simply trying to work youself to heaven rather than believing and do as Christ commanded. Even St. Paul speaks about that. We cannot work or buy our way to heaven without believing, however, if we believe we must produce fruit of our faith aka works aka charity.

I don’t think any Lutherans would disagree with what you wrote above.

I think that’s precisely the point the Lutherans on this board are trying to make: “Faith Alone” does not mean works are not necessary. Instead, it means precisely what you and Pope Benedict noted - that faith is naturally accompanied by good fruit (works).

We just note that no amount of works will save us - it’s the faith alone which produces good works.

 

[MaryT777]

Here’s the best reasoning for why we shouldn’t be too upset about “faith alone”

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html

For my dear Catholic friends, skip over the naughty bits where you see Luther getting rather testy and go to the part where Origin, Basil, John Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria used the same phrasing.

…

My $.02:

“Faith alone” is comforting - for no amount of good works can possibly justify our salvation. We can only offer God bits of dross made of His own creation - that will never suffice.

I don’t believe adding words even “alone” to scripture for any reason. It’s not necessary.

Mary.

 

[JonNC]

I don’t think any Lutherans would disagree with what you wrote above.

I think that’s precisely the point the Lutherans on this board are trying to make: “Faith Alone” does not mean works are not necessary. Instead, it means precisely what you and Pope Benedict noted - that faith is naturally accompanied by good fruit (works).

We just note that no amount of works will save us - it’s the faith alone which produces good works.

And it is the grace alone through faith, not the good works, that save us.

I had a curious conversation with a fellow Lutheran once, who refused to confess the Athanasian Creed because of the last part which says, *At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give an account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. *
Her point was it sounded like a contradiction of faith alone. It is not, because one who has saving faith must have good works. The only way to do good in God’s eyes is through faith.
Again, the good works don’t save us, the faith that made the good works possible does. And all of it is because of grace.

Jon

 

[steido01]

By virtue (for lack of a better word) of his lack of authority, Martin Luther added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28, and HE EVEN ADMITS TO IT:

I’m not even going to bring up the rest of Martin Luther’s arrogance, I will just direct people to the writings of this monk who felt he had the right to write the Bible however he wishes:
bible-researcher.com/luther01.html

Welcome to the forums. Please know that “Luther bashing” is about as helpful as a protestant calling a Roman Catholic a “Pope worshiper” or “Mary worshiper.” There’s really no place for it, and it’s not particularly charitable. We can disagree rationally without devolving to ad hominem attacks.

Now, as any translator will explain, words are rich: there are unwritten meanings, connotations and implications that accompany each and every one. When one translates a text, this must be taken into account. Sometimes, an additional word must be added or removed to preserve the original and correct meaning.

Take Luther - he essentially created the written German language and normalized its otherwise splintered and various dialects. His translation was the source for Hoch Deutsche for nearly 500 years! All he is “admitting to” is that German is a different language than Latin or Greek. Did you read your link? Try paragraph 3:

First of all if I, Dr. Luther, had expected that all the papists together were capable of translating even one chapter of Scripture correctly and well into German, I would have gathered up enough humility to ask for their aid and assistance in translating the New Testament into German. However, because I knew (and still see with my own eyes) that not one of them knows how to translate or speak German, I spared them and myself the trouble. It is evident, however, that they are learning to speak and write German from my German translation, and so they are stealing my language from me, a language they had little knowledge of before this. Yet they do not thank me for this, but instead they use it against me. However, I readily grant them this, for it tickles me to know that I have taught my ungrateful pupils, even my enemies, how to speak.

 

[steido01]

And it is the grace alone through faith, not the good works, that save us.

Right. My brief, hastily-written response wasn’t exactly clear…

I had a curious conversation with a fellow Lutheran once, who refused to confess the Athanasian Creed because of the last part which says, *At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give an account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. *
Her point was it sounded like a contradiction of faith alone. It is not, because one who has saving faith must have good works. The only way to do good in God’s eyes is through faith.
Again, the good works don’t save us, the faith that made the good works possible does. And all of it is because of grace.

I trust you set her straight!

 

[JonNC]

I don’t believe adding words even “alone” to scripture for any reason. It’s not necessary.

Mary.

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

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Did you read the whole letter on translation? Alas, even finish the paragraph?
You are quite welcome to misconstrue sarcasm as being arrogance. Please, however, do not expect it to go unchallenged.
If Luther’s use of “allein” is an addition to the text, then any translation is.
Jon

I skimmed through that section before and saw that, but was unaffected by that.

Translations are not perfect, but Luther’s insertion of “allien” had an intended purpose. James tells us the importance of works, so naturally he wanted to remove that, yet by the wishes of other people, he did not. Yes he later regretted having anything against James I think, but he still devised a way to put an end to works and forcibly apply his own doctrine by changing Scripture.

Martin could have accepted the Church’s position on
this false rendering, but no, he continues in his pride:

But I will return to the subject at hand. If your papist wishes to make a great
fuss about the word sola (alone), say this to him: “Dr. Martin Luther will have
it so, and he says that a papist and a donkey are the same thing.”

 

[ffg]

I think where the difference in viewpoint comes is that for us, faith is the only way we access justification. Works do not add to justification. OTOH, that doesn’t mean that we need not act on what we are taught. On the contrary, out of grateful joy for the regeneration we receive through Christ Jesus, we by necessity must do what He has commanded, to care for our fellow man.

Jon

Thanks for the response. I think some of the lost connection in these conversations are minds not on the same wave length.

I’ve used this parable quite a bit, but am curious how you see the parable of the 10 virgins. (Matthew chapter 25)

Key 1 - The parable has 10 folks who had the faith, 5 were not prepared (works) and when they came to the door to see the Lord after acting, well, he “did not know them”.

By your response, I could gather that because they had the faith, they need to do what is taught as a response to the gift of faith. But when they were caught not prepared, their works to follow faith were not accepted by the Lord.

Key 2 - Faith in the parable doesn’t exist. They are on their way to see a known.

In this case the preparation (and lack thereof) is cause to the result (entrance or not).

I find this parable taught by Jesus to be a clear example as to why our actions on earth are quite linked to our future result.

 

[JonNC]

=Judas Thaddeus;11046370]I skimmed through that section before and saw that, but was unaffected by that.

Unaffected? Judas, that is the central point of the letter. He is explaining, without the sarcasm and polemics against the papacy, why he translates Romans 3:28 as he does.

Translations are not perfect, but Luther’s insertion of “allien” had an intended purpose. James tells us the importance of works, so naturally he wanted to remove that, yet by the wishes of other people, he did not. Yes he later regretted having anything against James I think, but he still devised a way to put an end to works and forcibly apply his own doctrine by changing Scripture.

He naturally wanted to remove what, an implication that works are important? You misunderstand Luther, if that is what you think. While Luther certainly believed that works do not save, he was a firm supporter of the necessity of good works by the regenerate. Lots of posts by me and other Lutherans with Luther quotes on threads about this topic.
As for James, I have asked this question numerous times. I have heard notion that he wanted to “remove” James, but I haven’t seen a source for this, much less a list of the names of people who talked him out of it. So, if you have a source, please link it.

Martin could have accepted the Church’s position on
this false rendering, but no, he continues in his pride:

The Catholic Church really had no say over his translation, since it chose to excommunicate him. As for pride, there was plenty of it to go around - in the Vatican and Wittenburg - in those days.

Jon

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Welcome to the forums. Please know that “Luther bashing” is about as helpful as a protestant calling a Roman Catholic a “Pope worshiper” or “Mary worshiper.” There’s really no place for it, and it’s not particularly charitable. We can disagree rationally without devolving to ad hominem attacks.

I will not call a Lutheran a “Luther Worshiper”, the comparison is rather weak. I am not talking about Lutherans, but Luther himself. The comparison you offer is Roman Catholics, not the original source of the Roman Catholic Church. I am going at the root, the parallel you make is simply plucking leaves.

Now, as any translator will explain, words are rich: there are unwritten meanings, connotations and implications that accompany each and every one. When one translates a text, this must be taken into account. Sometimes, an additional word must be added or removed to preserve the original and correct meaning.

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. I hear Luther embraced the Epistle of James in his later years, but a while before he did in fact discount it, yet because others insisted he not remove it, he added “allien” to Romans. It isn’t simply a matter of “one little word”, because one must understand the implications of Luther’s translation and what he intended for it.

Take Luther - he essentially created the written German language and normalized its otherwise splintered and various dialects. His translation was the source for Hoch Deutsche for nearly 500 years! All he is “admitting to” is that German is a different language than Latin or Greek. Did you read your link? Try paragraph 3:

Yes I read it, but that does not excuse him.

 

[concretecamper]

JonNC:

Quote:
…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

I’ve heard it all now.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[MaryT777]

I skimmed through that section before and saw that, but was unaffected by that.

Translations are not perfect, but Luther’s insertion of “allien” had an intended purpose. James tells us the importance of works, so naturally he wanted to remove that, yet by the wishes of other people, he did not. Yes he later regretted having anything against James I think, but he still devised a way to put an end to works and forcibly apply his own doctrine by changing Scripture.

Martin could have accepted the Church’s position on
this false rendering, but no, he continues in his pride:

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.

 

[JonNC]

Thanks for the response. I think some of the lost connection in these conversations are minds not on the same wave length.

I’ve used this parable quite a bit, but am curious how you see the parable of the 10 virgins. (Matthew chapter 25)

Key 1 - The parable has 10 folks who had the faith, 5 were not prepared (works) and when they came to the door to see the Lord after acting, well, he “did not know them”.

By your response, I could gather that because they had the faith, they need to do what is taught as a response to the gift of faith. But when they were caught not prepared, their works to follow faith were not accepted by the Lord.

Key 2 - Faith in the parable doesn’t exist. They are on their way to see a known.

In this case the preparation (and lack thereof) is cause to the result (entrance or not).

I find this parable to be a clear example as to why our actions on earth are quite linked to our future result.

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

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

He naturally wanted to remove what, an implication that works are important? You misunderstand Luther, if that is what you think. While Luther certainly believed that works do not save, he was a firm supporter of the necessity of good works by the regenerate. Lots of posts by me and other Lutherans with Luther quotes on threads about this topic.
As for James, I have asked this question numerous times. I have heard notion that he wanted to “remove” James, but I haven’t seen a source for this, much less a list of the names of people who talked him out of it. So, if you have a source, please link it.

(Wikipedia is not 100% reliable, that is true, but sources are provided):
Luther’s views on James
In his book Basic Theology, Charles Caldwell Ryrie countered the claim that Luther rejected the Book of James as being canonical.[7] In his preface to the New Testament, Luther ascribed to several books of the New Testament different degrees of doctrinal value: “St. John’s Gospel and his first Epistle, St. Paul’s Epistles, especially those to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and St. Peter’s Epistle-these are the books which show to thee Christ, and teach everything that is necessary and blessed for thee to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book of doctrine. Therefore, St. James’ Epistle is a perfect straw-epistle compared with them, for it has in it nothing of an evangelic kind.” Thus Luther was comparing (in his opinion) doctrinal value, not canonical validity.
However, Ryrie’s theory is countered by other Biblical scholars, including William Barclay, who note that Luther stated plainly, if not bluntly: “I think highly of the epistle of James, and regard it as valuable although it was rejected in early days. It does not expound human doctrines, but lays much emphasis on God’s law. …I do not hold it to be of apostolic authorship.”[8]

** Sola fide doctrine**
In The Protestant Spirit of Luther’s Version, Philip Schaff asserts that:
“ The most important example of dogmatic influence in Luther’s version is the famous interpolation of the word alone in Rom. 3:28 (allein durch den Glauben), by which he intended to emphasize his solifidian doctrine of justification, on the plea that the German idiom required the insertion for the sake of clearness. But he thereby brought Paul into direct verbal conflict with James, who says (James 2:24), “by works a man is justified, and not only by faith” (“nicht durch den Glauben allein”). It is well known that Luther deemed it impossible to harmonize the two apostles in this article, and characterized the Epistle of James as an “epistle of straw,” because it had no evangelical character (“keine evangelische Art”).[9]

 

[JonNC]

I’ve heard it all now.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

Happy to be of help.

Jon

 

[steido01]

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.

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.

 

[concretecamper]

JonNC:

Quote:
As for pride, there was plenty of it to go around - in the Vatican and Wittenburg - in those days.

Jon

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

 

[concretecamper]

JonNC:

Quote:

Originally Posted by concretecamper

I’ve heard it all now.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

Happy to be of help.

Jon

haha…touche

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android