Did Martin Luther have a definition for "sola scriptura"?

[Judas_Thaddeus]

I wasn’t aware that Paul spoke and wrote his letters in German.

Pug, you might find this interesting, as well.

There is the reason for the translation - to make it German.

It is similar to the use of “until” in Matthew 1:25, * “…but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus.”*
Some protestants misunderstand the until as meaning that Joseph actually did “know” her after Christ’s birth, but this is a misreading of the usage.

Words mean things, and word usages can vary from language to language. Rarely is a translation a direct word for word, not only because words in the first language may not have a counterpart in the second language, but also because of usage and idioms peculiar to one language and culture and not the other.

Judas, again, if you want to argue that Luther’s translation was inaccurate, that he improperly translated into German, that’s fine. But he did not “add” anything in the German, whether the word was actually in the Greek or not.

Jon

The word “until” is of far less significance, being a preposition, while “alone” is an adjective/adverb, and changes the
meaning of Romans 3:28. If it was a simple matter of language, NOBODY WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT! but
a problem with it they had,"…and you also tell me that the papists are causing a great fuss
because Paul’s text does not contain the word sola (alone), and
that MY ADDITION to the words of God is not to be tolerated."

"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.”
-(Open Letter)

 

[JonNC]

The word “until” is of far less significance, being a preposition, while “alone” is an adjective/adverb, and changes the
meaning of Romans 3:28. If it was a simple matter of language, NOBODY WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT! but
a problem with it they had,"…and you also tell me that the papists are causing a great fuss
because Paul’s text does not contain the word sola (alone), and
that MY ADDITION to the words of God is not to be tolerated."

"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.”
-(Open Letter)

And you don’t see the drips of sarcasm steadily falling from these words? He was quite angry about his translation being “borrowed”, while all the while it was also being criticized. It isn’t a simple matter reading the words, but knowing what was going on, understanding the context. Right or wrong, Luther believed that “allein” belonged, in the German, for the reasons he gave - the real reasons, not the sarcastic retorts. He never insisted that the Latin or Greek be changed - that would have been adding to scripture!

And the pope called him a wild boar.

Jon

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

And you don’t see the drips of sarcasm steadily falling from these words? He was quite angry about his translation being “borrowed”, while all the while it was also being criticized. ** It isn’t a simple matter reading the words, but knowing what was going on, understanding the context.**

But that’s why we have James, which Martin Luther discounted as Scripture (EVEN THOUGH he
found it to be a good read). We don’t alter Scripture to make it more clear, we read part of it, then
use the whole to define it.

…Right or wrong**,**…

…and he was wrong…

Luther believed that “allein” belonged, in the German, for the reasons he gave - the real reasons, not the sarcastic retorts. He never insisted that the Latin or Greek be changed - that would have been adding to scripture!

Real reasons sure, still not good ones. And he never insisted that the Greek or Latin be changed, GREAT! He still added a word.

And the pope called him a wild boar.

And a tipsy monk also, but the Pope had hope (pardon the rhyme) that Luther would see the error
of his ways, but (at least as far as I know) he never did, and now there is a religion based on him.

 

[pablope]

And I have provided you this from the Formula of Concord, Solid Declaration:

bookofconcord.org/sd-ruleandnorm.php

But you are welcome to seek out his Latin preface to see if Chemnitz and the other writers of the FoC were being honest in their assessment.

Jon

That is what I was saying Jon…no direct statement from Luther himself…but an “extraction”…maybe an extrapolation is the more accurate description…from Luther’s various writings…it was a conclusion made from many writings…a development of a description of the practice…If I amy put it this way.

But the question is…how do you know Chemnitz conclusionj or extrapolation is correct and without error? Do you believe Chemnitz was guided by the HS when he came with his conclusion?

 

[JonNC]

=Judas Thaddeus;11274206]But that’s why we have James, which Martin Luther discounted as Scripture (EVEN THOUGH he
found it to be a good read).

Actually, he accepted it as authoritative. He says so.

We don’t alter Scripture to make it more clear, we read part of it, then
use the whole to define it.

You don’t? Then why is the NAB on the USCCB website instead of the DRB? The NAB is a rewriting of English scripture to make it clearer to the modern ear.

…and he was wrong…

Now, this is something we can talk about; whether or not he was right to translate Roman 3:28 as he did. We don’t need to question his motives, or cast stones. Just discuss the theology.

Real reasons sure, still not good ones. And he never insisted that the Greek or Latin be changed, GREAT! He still added a word.

Well, here you, back to misstatements again. Go back to “he was wrong”.

And a tipsy monk also, but the Pope had hope (pardon the rhyme) that Luther would see the error of his ways, but (at least as far as I know) he never did, and now there is a religion based on him.
​

A tipsy monk. Incorrect on both counts. He was an Augustinian friar, not a monk. And if you are going to accuse someone of something, I suggest you produce the evidence.
So, do you want to discuss Romans 3:28, or do you just want to throw insults at a man dead 450 years?

Jon​

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Actually, he accepted it (James) as authoritative. He says so.

I’ll believe you (not to mention happy to be wrong) if you pull up a quote from Luther on this. I honestly recalled him rejecting it as Scripture but still good to read, not written by James nevertheless has good Christian values in it.

You don’t? Then why is the NAB on the USCCB website instead of the DRB? The NAB is a rewriting of English scripture to make it clearer to the modern ear.

I’m still waiting for an example or two on where the NAB is radically different from the DRB.

Now, this is something we can talk about; whether or not he was right to translate Roman 3:28 as he did. We don’t need to question his motives, or cast stones. Just discuss the theology.

Okay here’s something: The Bible was put together in such a perfect way, perfect balance of Faith and Works, then Luther thought, “I can make better!”

A tipsy monk. Incorrect on both counts. He was an Augustinian friar, not a monk. And if you are going to accuse someone of something, I suggest you produce the evidence.

Okay, friar, thanks for enlightening. As for the tipsy bit, perhaps it wasn’t meant to be literal, maybe not.
Here is what the Pope Leo did say, “Luther is a drunken German. He will feel different when he is sober.”

So, do you want to discuss Romans 3:28, or do you just want to throw insults at a man dead 450 years?
Jon

I kinda want to do both, discuss Romans 3:28 and hurl insults at the
man in whose name many refuse and fight the Roman Catholic Church.
I mean really, the Reformation was going to happen one way or another,
but it happened through Luther, now there’s like 30,000 denominations,
a hand full cults, and many have been thrown into the confused debate
over Faith and Works. Those are Luther’s fruits as I see it, rotten even
before falling off of the branches.

 

[JonNC]

=Judas Thaddeus;11275713]I’ll believe you (not to mention happy to be wrong) if you pull up a quote from Luther on this. I honestly recalled him rejecting it as Scripture but still good to read, not written by James nevertheless has good Christian values in it.

“…I will say nothing of the fact that many assert with much probability that this epistle is not by James the apostle, and that it is not worthy of an apostolic spirit; although, whoever was its author, it has come to be regarded as authoritative.”

I’m still waiting for an example or two on where the NAB is radically different from the DRB.

You don’t see a dramatic difference? Ok.

Okay here’s something: The Bible was put together in such a perfect way, perfect balance of Faith and Works, then Luther thought, “I can make better!”

Where? You put this in quotes. Please site a source.

Okay, friar, thanks for enlightening. As for the tipsy bit, perhaps it wasn’t meant to be literal, maybe not.
Here is what the Pope Leo did say, “Luther is a drunken German. He will feel different when he is sober.”

lol My guess is that was an ethnic remark, not one specifically accusing Luther as one who drinks too much.

I kinda want to do both, discuss Romans 3:28 and hurl insults at the man in whose name many refuse and fight the Roman Catholic Church.

So, insults will solve that?

I mean really, the Reformation was going to happen one way or another, but it happened through Luther, now there’s like 30,000 denominations,

Virtually none of those “30,000” denominations have their roots in Lutheranism. Most come our of the Reformed tradition.

a hand full cults, and many have been thrown into the confused debate over Faith and Works. Those are Luther’s fruits as I see it, rotten even before falling off of the branches.

I will leave to your hatred of a man long dead.

Jon

 

[Pug]

Pug, you might find this interesting, as well.

Yes, actually I do Jon, so thanks. He’s making a claim that if you want to say you have one method of payment, but not another, then Germans will choose to place that in a construction or something that puts an “alone” on the thing that they have because that is how Germans talked back then.

I also note that Luther used a commerce analogy as well as analogies that were not commerce.

I understand that you note that “until” causes confusion because some folks interpret it to be used only in situations that imply something different happening after. Luther would have to answer for us if he thought dropping the “only” construction would confuse people. He might have felt it would still be clear, but illiterate-sounding.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, actually I do Jon, so thanks. He’s making a claim that if you want to say you have one method of payment, but not another, then Germans will choose to place that in a construction or something that puts an “alone” on the thing that they have because that is how Germans talked back then.

I also note that Luther used a commerce analogy as well as analogies that were not commerce.

I understand that you note that “until” causes confusion because some folks interpret it to be used only in situations that imply something different happening after. **Luther would have to answer for us if he thought dropping the “only” construction would confuse people. ** He might have felt it would still be clear, but illiterate-sounding.

I agree here. In those highly tense times, he might not have admitted it, even if he thought so.

As an English speaker, I frankly see no need for it, and I actually consider the phrase “sola fide” to be too short and not descriptive enough. We say faith alone as Lutherans, but we also confess the salvific nature of the sacraments, and recognize the necessity of good works, and we see no contradiction in this at all.

On the comment about “until”, it seems that construct isn’t used as much as it once was. It is like the word “pray”. One has to look at the history of the usage to understand that when Catholics say they pray to the saints, they mean the are asking the saints to intercede. Again, not a usage one see much anymore, at least here in America.

Jon

 

[Pug]

I agree here. In those highly tense times, he might not have admitted it, even if he thought so.

As an English speaker, I frankly see no need for it, and I actually consider the phrase “sola fide” to be too short and not descriptive enough. We say faith alone as Lutherans, but we also confess the salvific nature of the sacraments, and recognize the necessity of good works, and we see no contradiction in this at all.

On the comment about “until”, it seems that construct isn’t used as much as it once was. It is like the word “pray”. One has to look at the history of the usage to understand that when Catholics say they pray to the saints, they mean the are asking the saints to intercede. Again, not a usage one see much anymore, at least here in America.

Jon

You note that usage can change, and I agree. That is why I had said “how Germans talked back then”. They might not talk the same now, so even if we figure out German now, that might not be helpful.

I wonder, based upon your comments, how many people in the USA know what “prithee” means? I figured I knew it from the KJV, but I just checked and it isn’t in there as an abbreviation, only as the whole thing. Must be Shakespeare then. I suspect a person who likes the KJV would easily understand “pray” in an older manner, as asking.

 

[steve_b]

If you want to argue that his translation is not accurate, that’s fine. We can have a discussion, and likely disagree about that. I’m good with that, and respect your view on it.

I speak English, so my Bible(s) do not have “alone” in Romans 3:28. However, by looking at the entirety of the NT, I know that **I am justified **by grace alone through faith alone, a faith that works through love.

Jon

There’s only one place in all of scripture where by faith alone ligitimately appears. An important word precedes it. It’s NOT.

[James 2:24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+2:24&version=RSVCE)
You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

So a person is justified

• by grace but not grace alone,
• through faith but not faith alone,
• and works but not works alone.

Paul didn’t have alone in those passages because none are alone.

 

[JonNC]

There’s only one place in all of scripture where by faith alone ligitimately appears. An important word precedes it. It’s NOT.

[James 2:24 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James+2:24&version=RSVCE)
You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.

So a person is justified

• by grace but not grace alone,
• through faith but not faith alone,
• and works but not works alone.

Paul didn’t have alone in those passages because none are alone.

He also didn’t put anything else with them in his passages.

As for grace alone, what else is there but grace?

Jon

 

[Ubenedictus]

He also didn’t put anything else with them in his passages.

As for grace alone, what else is there but grace?

Jon

I think trent spent a paragraph talking about the causes of justification and its says it isn’t just grace alone but the cause is the glory of God, the mercy of God, and the justice of God by which he makes us just. The cause can be traced beyond grace thus it seem the sola in ‘‘sola gratia’’, simply makes the teaching look permanently incomplete.

The causes of this justification are:
the final cause is the glory of God and of Christ and life everlasting; the efficient
cause is the merciful God who washes and sanctifies[31] gratuitously, signing
and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our
inheritance,[32] the meritorious cause is His most beloved only begotten, our
Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies,[33] for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us,[34] merited for us justification by His most holy
passion on the wood of the cross and made satisfaction for us to God the
Father, the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the
sacrament of faith,[35] without which no man was ever justified finally, the
single formal cause is the justice of God, not that by which He Himself is just,
but that by which He makes us just, that, namely, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind,[36] and not only are
we reputed but we are truly called and are just, receiving justice within us,
each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to
everyone as He wills,[37] and according to each one’s disposition and
cooperation.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

There’s only one place in all of scripture where by faith alone ligitimately appears. An important word precedes it. It’s NOT.

James 2:24
You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone…

…

That’s a really good point, thank you for sharing!

 

[steve_b]

.

As for grace alone, what else is there but grace?

Jon

Our cooperation with grace, in order to do and be, what’s required of us. That’s what earned James the title of epistle of straw by Luther.

 

[steve_b]

JT:

Okay here’s something: The Bible was put together in such a perfect way, perfect balance of Faith and Works, then Luther thought, “I can make better!”

JNC:

Where? You put this in quotes. Please site a source.

Jon

Just thinking outloud, it may not be a quote but it’s sure an accurate paraphrase.

For example, Luther said pretty much that very thing.

"You also tell me that the Papists are causing
a great fuss because St. Paul’s text does not contain the word
sola (alone), and that my changing of the words of God is not to be tolerated. Secondly, you ask if the departed saints intercede for us. Regarding the first question, you can give the papists this answer from me - if you so desire.

On the first hand, if I, Dr. Luther, had thought that all the
Papists together were capable of translating even one passage of Scripture correctly and well, I would have gathered up enough humility to ask for their aid and assistance in translating the New Testament into German. However, I spared them and myself the trouble, as I knew and still see with my own eyes that not one of them knows how to speak or translate German. It is obvious, however, that they are learning to speak and write German from my translations. Thus, they are stealing my language from me - a language they had little knowledge of before this."
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-translate.txt

Luther was born in 1483. The first printed bible in the German language was in 1466, using the printing press invented by Gutenberg, a German who (inspite of Luther’s off the wall comments above) there were plenty of Germans who could speak and write the German language well and with Church assistance translate Latin into German . This German bible was known as the Mentel Bible. It was translated from the Latin Vulgate. Printed in Strassburg, and appeared in 18 editions. The problem was, Luther didn’t like 7 OT books nor James, Jude, Revelations and Hebrews. So he created his own bible with his own commentaries.

In terms of a time line, Luther was excommunicated ~1521. He wrote his translation after his excommunication. The quote above is as you know, from Luther’s letter on translating, written 1530.

 

[JonNC]

I think trent spent a paragraph talking about the causes of justification and its says it isn’t just grace alone but the cause is the glory of God, the mercy of God, and the justice of God by which he makes us just. The cause can be traced beyond grace thus it seem the sola in ‘‘sola gratia’’, simply makes the teaching look permanently incomplete.

The causes of this justification are:
the final cause is the glory of God and of Christ and life everlasting; the efficient
cause is the merciful God who washes and sanctifies[31] gratuitously, signing
and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our
inheritance,[32] the meritorious cause is His most beloved only begotten, our
Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies,[33] for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us,[34] merited for us justification by His most holy
passion on the wood of the cross and made satisfaction for us to God the
Father, the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the
sacrament of faith,[35] without which no man was ever justified finally, the
single formal cause is the justice of God, not that by which He Himself is just,
but that by which He makes us just, that, namely, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind,[36] and not only are
we reputed but we are truly called and are just, receiving justice within us,
each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to
everyone as He wills,[37] and according to each one’s disposition and
cooperation.

I also think the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification speaks to this:

.The Lutheran churches and the Roman Catholic Church have together listened to the good news proclaimed in Holy Scripture. This common listening, together with the theological conversations of recent years, has led to a shared understanding of justification. This encompasses a consensus in the basic truths; the differing explications in particular statements are compatible with it.

15.In faith we together hold the conviction that justification is the work of the triune God. The Father sent his Son into the world to save sinners. The foundation and presupposition of justification is the incarnation, death, and resurrection of Christ. Justification thus means that Christ himself is our righteousness, in which we share through the Holy Spirit in accord with the will of the Father.** Together we confess: By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works**.[11]

16.All people are called by God to salvation in Christ. **Through Christ alone are we justified, when we receive this salvation in faith. Faith is itself God’s gift through the Holy Spirit who works through word and sacrament in the community of believers and who, at the same time, leads believers into that renewal of life which God will bring to completion in eternal life. **

17.We also share the conviction that the message of justification directs us in a special way towards the heart of the New Testament witness to God’s saving action in Christ: it tells us that as sinners our new life is solely due to the forgiving and renewing mercy that God imparts as a gift and we receive in faith, and never can merit in any way.

You’ll have to tell me if this contradicts the Council of Trent.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Our cooperation with grace, in order to do and be, what’s required of us. That’s what earned James the title of epistle of straw by Luther.

Our cooperation with grace is not what justifies, but faith, which itself is a gift of grace.
Now, that doesn’t mean our cooperation isn’t a necessity, but since faith and justification are a result of grace, they are a gift.

What caused the comparison (epistle of straw is neither a title nor a name nor a description of the Epistle of James) was that James speaks little of Gospel, but primarily of law. While this speaking of the law is important to all Christians, and by the way Luther often preached from it throughout his life, he was Gospel oriented, so for him and in his opinion, he thought it compared poorly to Paul’s epistles. He was not the first to dispute the Epistle of James, as that dispute reaches all the back to Eusebius.

Jon

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Our cooperation with grace, in order to do and be, what’s required of us. That’s what earned James the title of epistle of straw by Luther.

I knew Luther belittled James somehow!

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;11279611]Just thinking outloud, it may not be a quote but it’s sure an accurate paraphrase.

For example, Luther said pretty much that very thing.

My comment was in comparison to the writers of the Latin and Greek. Luther’s German translation is still used in Germany today. Its a rather popular German translation, and good, as well.

Luther was born in 1483. The first printed bible in the German language was in 1466, using the printing press invented by Gutenberg, a German who (inspite of Luther’s off the wall comments above) there were plenty of Germans who could speak and write the German language well and with Church assistance translate Latin into German . This German bible was known as the Mentel Bible. It was translated from the Latin Vulgate. Printed in Strassburg, and appeared in 18 editions. The problem was, Luther didn’t like 7 OT books nor James, Jude, Revelations and Hebrews. So he created his own bible with his own commentaries.

The commentaries are irrelevant to the translation. Some of the NT ones only appeared with the first 1522 publication, including the one on James. His opinion of the books were his, and he was permitted to have them, just like any other Catholic prior to Trent.
His translation, however, included/includes all 73 books of a typical western Bible, plus the Prayer of Manasseh. In effect, Luther’s Bible in one book bigger than a Catholic one, but still smaller than an Orthodox one.

In terms of a time line, Luther was excommunicated ~1521. He wrote his translation after his excommunication.

Correct, and that makes the charges against Luther by some Catholics all the more odd. Here he is, excommunicated, no obligation to Rome, and yet he still sees to it that all the 73 books of the western Bible are translated and included, along with one extra. Not only that, he translates the NT Antilegomena, including St. James. He didn’t have to. No one could require him to. English speakers came along later and didn’t include the DC’s.

Further, of all protestant groups, Lutherans (and probably Anglicans) use the DC books the most, include them in lectionaries and hymnody. The LCMS publishing house (CPH) has printed an ESV version of the Dc’s with commentary.

I’ve said this before on this thread and other places, I’m not entirely convinced Luther was right in his opinions of the DC’s - I can say that because the confessions to exclude them or name a canon. But it seems to me the history ought to be offered fairly.

Jon

The quote above is as you know, from Luther’s letter on translating, written 1530.