Faith Alone

[anrmenchaca47]

I have been reading this awesome book by Henry g. Graham and he mentions that Luther added “alone” at the end of " we are justified by faith" so I looked at the KJV but I can’t find it. I think its in Romans 3:28. Can anyone tell me what verse its in. I am making a comparison to the NAB just because. thanks.

 

[The_Wizard]

Actually, Ephesian 2: 8-9

 

[po18guy]

Actually, it is in Romans 3:28, but in the “Luther Bibel” of 1545.

Roemer 3:28
Luther Bibel 1545 (LUTH1545)
28 So halten wir nun dafür, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben.

“Allein” is the German for “alone.”

 

[penury]

I have been reading this awesome book by Henry g. Graham and he mentions that Luther added “alone” at the end of " we are justified by faith" so I looked at the KJV but I can’t find it. I think its in Romans 3:28. Can anyone tell me what verse its in.

Check out this list of awesome verses that teach the same concept.

Anyone familiar with the principles of translation will know that from one language to the other, you don’t go word for word. (Tiny example: in Russian, you don’t put “a” in front of a noun; so if I translate a Russian text into English, should I leave out the “a” because the original doesn’t contain it? ) You translate the sense of the text; in some cases, that might mean adding a word (or deleting, as the case may be). Matter of fact, at times you might have to use TOTALLY different words: “6 of one and half a dozen of the other” in French is expressed as “bonnet white, white bonnet.” “Barking up the wrong tree” is “You’re seeking mid-day at midnight.”

And it gets kind of tedious having to repeat this: “by faith alone” is shorthand for “by grace alone” (the full version is “by grace alone through faith alone,” grace being the agent, faith being the conduit or instrument whereby the free gift of salvation is apprehended).

Read this to better understand what Luther was doing when he added “alone”. Note especially " ‘apart from works" means “apart from the merit of works,” not "apart from the presence of works.’ "

 

[You]

Luther added the word “alone” (allein in German) to Romans 3:28 controversially so that it read: “thus, we hold, then, that man is justified without the works of the law to do, alone through faith”[5] The word “alone” does not appear in the original Greek text,[6] but Luther defended his translation by maintaining that the adverb “alone” was required both by idiomatic German and the apostle Paul’s intended meaning.[7]

Luthers 1545 Translation of the Bible into German
adding the word ‘alone’ to Romans 3:28

28 So halten wir es nu / Das der Mensch gerecht werde / on des Gesetzes werck / alleine durch den Glauben.

alleine = alone

Luthers Bible

http://enominepatris.com/biblia/bilder/biblia1545.gif
Click on this image on the homepage to reach the index then find below;
**Epistel Sanct Paulus zu den Römern

Capitel 3 : 28**

 

[You]

Check out this list of awesome verses that teach the same concept.

Anyone familiar with the principles of translation will know that from one language to the other, you don’t go word for word. (Tiny example: in Russian, you don’t put “a” in front of a noun; so if I translate a Russian text into English, should I leave out the “a” because the original doesn’t contain it? ) You translate the sense of the text; in some cases, that might mean adding a word (or deleting, as the case may be). Matter of fact, at times you might have to use TOTALLY different words: “6 of one and half a dozen of the other” in French is expressed as “bonnet white, white bonnet.” “Barking up the wrong tree” is “You’re seeking mid-day at midnight.”

And it gets kind of tedious having to repeat this: “by faith alone” is shorthand for “by grace alone” (the full version is “by grace alone through faith alone,” grace being the agent, faith being the conduit or instrument whereby the free gift of salvation is apprehended).

Read this to better understand what Luther was doing when he added “alone”. Note especially " ‘apart from works" means “apart from the merit of works,” not "apart from the presence of works.’ "

Luther defended his translation by maintaining that the adverb “alone” was required both by idiomatic German and the apostle Paul’s intended meaning.???

Not by Faith Alone: The Martin Luther Paradox

Martin Luther

Martin Luther struggled greatly with James’ “not by faith alone” (Jam. 2:24). In fact, he once offered his doctor’s cap to anyone who could reconcile it with Romans 3:23 and scoffed at his friend, Philip Melanchthon, for attempting it.

To Martin Luther, James was an epistle of straw that had “nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it.”

Here’s our two verses:

Romans 3:28: Therefore we conclude that a man is justifed by faith apart from the works of the Law.
James 2:24: You see then that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.
You can see that, on the surface, these two verses do contradict. “Faith apart from works” cannot be reconciled in any way with “by works and not by faith alone.”

 

[You]

For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law. douay-R

In a curious or perhaps ironic twist it is very difficult to find online german bibles from Luthers time; as usually it is the Pope who was blamed for making it difficult for people to read the bible.

 

[penury]

Luther defended his translation by maintaining that the adverb “alone” was required both by idiomatic German and the apostle Paul’s intended meaning.???

I’m assuming Luther was going by all of Paul’s teachings; again, please refer to what I wrote above:

Check out this list of awesome verses that teach the same concept.

I always get a chuckle out of the anti-Luther hysteria. Catholics often like to quote that guy who says (and I’m paraphrasing) “People don’t hate Catholicism, but they hate what they think Catholicism is.” IOW, people hate a strawman RCism. The same could be said about Luther: people hate what they think Luther said/did. But the fact is, if you read him, you’ll find he STILL very much believed in works, but not as the means of justification; rather, as the proof of regeneration (and no, I can’t quote you the exact texts, because I read voraciously and it’s been a while since I hit on those texts [on the internet, no less]). Which is of course exactly what James means in his oft-quoted “works passage.”

When I finally went and read the 95 Theses, I couldn’t understand what all the ruckus was about, because those are still patently RC.

 

[po18guy]

Check out this list of awesome verses that teach the same concept.

Anyone familiar with the principles of translation will know that from one language to the other, you don’t go word for word. (Tiny example: in Russian, you don’t put “a” in front of a noun; so if I translate a Russian text into English, should I leave out the “a” because the original doesn’t contain it? ) You translate the sense of the text; in some cases, that might mean adding a word (or deleting, as the case may be). Matter of fact, at times you might have to use TOTALLY different words: “6 of one and half a dozen of the other” in French is expressed as “bonnet white, white bonnet.” “Barking up the wrong tree” is “You’re seeking mid-day at midnight.”

And it gets kind of tedious having to repeat this: “by faith alone” is shorthand for “by grace alone” (the full version is “by grace alone through faith alone,” grace being the agent, faith being the conduit or instrument whereby the free gift of salvation is apprehended).

Read this to better understand what Luther was doing when he added “alone”. Note especially " ‘apart from works" means “apart from the merit of works,” not "apart from the presence of works.’ "

So, for over 1,500 years, the greatest theologians of all time missed it, but old Martin’s eye caught their error? “Alone” is not a concept that is restricted to the German language. James 2:24 is rather clear on the subject, and I most certainly trust James, who wrote scripture, over Luther, who did not.

See also: Jakobus 2:24
Luther Bibel 1545 (LUTH1545)
24So sehet ihr nun, daß der Mensch durch die Werke gerecht wird, nicht durch den Glauben allein. (NOT through faith/belief alone).

It is easy to see why Luther wanted to tear James out of the bible. He simply disagreed with it. Had he been permitted to, he would have torn out Hebrews and Revelation, as well.

What we see here is the very foundation of Luther’s rebellion: personal preference.

 

[E.E.N.S]

I have my doubts as to the “necessity” of allein(alone) being in Luther’s German translation, but if any German scholar could enlighten me as to why it isn’t in later German translations, for example:

So halten wir es nun, daß der Mensch gerecht werde ohne des Gesetzes Werke, allein durch den Glauben. (Luther’s version - 16th century)

Denn wir urteilen, daß ein Mensch durch Glauben gerechtfertigt wird, ohne (Eig. außerhalb, getrennt von) Gesetzeswerke. (Elberfelder’s version - 19th century)

Does anyone have access to another 16th century German translation (non-Luther), so we can compare?

 

[You]

I’m assuming Luther was going by all of Paul’s teachings; again, please refer to what I wrote above:<<–
Please refer to what Luther wrote - a prize of his hat to anyone who could reconcile Romans 3:28 to James not by faith alone.

I always get a chuckle out of the anti-Luther hysteria. Catholics often like to quote that guy who says (and I’m paraphrasing) “People don’t hate Catholicism, but they hate what they think Catholicism is.” IOW, people hate a strawman RCism. The same could be said about Luther: people hate what they think Luther said/did. But the fact is, if you read him, you’ll find he STILL very much believed in works, but not as the means of justification;** rather, as the proof of regeneration** (and no, I can’t quote you the exact texts, because I read voraciously and it’s been a while since I hit on those texts [on the internet, no less]). Which is of course exactly what James means in his oft-quoted “works passage.”

When I finally went and read the 95 Theses, I couldn’t understand what all the ruckus was about, because those are still patently RC.

If I remember correctly, this [bolded] is anathema.

 

[You]

I have my doubts as to the “necessity” of allein(alone) being in Luther’s German translation, but if any German scholar could enlighten me as to why it isn’t in later German translations, for example:

Does anyone have access to another 16th century German translation (non-Luther), so we can compare?

I looked. Very difficult. An almost contemporary translation by Zwingli, which even uses some of luthers translation-in-progress, was online - but not to view or read - they were selling it for 27,000 dollars, I think.

 

[penury]

If I remember correctly, this [bolded] is anathema.

Can you give a ref, please? (Maybe you’re thinking of Trent?) Mind you, he didn’t phrase it the way I did (I used “shorthand” terms), but he wrote extensively on the duty of the born-again Christian to then passionately seek after living righteously unto God (which of course is what Paul says in Romans 6, amongst other places).

 

[po18guy]

Can you give a ref, please? (Maybe you’re thinking of Trent?) Mind you, he didn’t phrase it the way I did (I used “shorthand” terms), but he wrote extensively on the duty of the born-again Christian to then passionately seek after living righteously unto God (which of course is what Paul says in Romans 6, amongst other places).

Any addition to an established bible must be viewed very circumspectly. The Jehovah’s Witnesses claim that adding the letter “a” to John 1:1 was necessary to convey the original scriptural intent. Since neither of them had the authority to do such, how is one better than the other - regardless of motive?

 

[penury]

Any addition to an established bible must be viewed very circumspectly.

:sad_yes: God’s Word is the most important document man has, so yes, foolish or mendacious changes are anathema. However, in light of the verses I already listed a link to above, I don’t think Luther’s little insert was anywhere even near approaching the ghastly distortions of Scripture committed by the JW’s.

Would you perchance have a reference for You’s “If I remember correctly, this [bolded] is anathema”?

 

[E.E.N.S]

Would you perchance have a reference for You’s “If I remember correctly, this [bolded] is anathema”?

I believe You is referring to the Council of Trent:

CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.

 

[Cruxis117]

Check out this list of awesome verses that teach the same concept.

I like the list on the bottom of your link which shows all of the verses that argue against Sola Fide. So, this doesn’t really help anyone.

Anyone familiar with the principles of translation will know that from one language to the other, you don’t go word for word. (Tiny example: in Russian, you don’t put “a” in front of a noun; so if I translate a Russian text into English, should I leave out the “a” because the original doesn’t contain it? ) You translate the sense of the text; in some cases, that might mean adding a word (or deleting, as the case may be). Matter of fact, at times you might have to use TOTALLY different words: “6 of one and half a dozen of the other” in French is expressed as “bonnet white, white bonnet.” “Barking up the wrong tree” is “You’re seeking mid-day at midnight.”

Well, then we can easily accept the insertion of the letter ‘a’ in John 1.1, right? I mean, as you’ve said in previous posts, all Luther did was put one word in. All the JWs did was put one letter in. But by putting that letter/word, you add to Scripture to support your own teaching.

And it gets kind of tedious having to repeat this: “by faith alone” is shorthand for “by grace alone” (the full version is “by grace alone through faith alone,” grace being the agent, faith being the conduit or instrument whereby the free gift of salvation is apprehended).

Right, we can accept this as far as initial justification. However, to stretch it out past that point is where we go against Scripture, per James 2:14-26, Galatians 5:6, Romans 2:6-8, etc.

 

[penury]

I believe You is referring to the Council of Trent

Thanks for that reference, EENS.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Thanks for that reference, EENS.

You are welcome.

 

[po18guy]

:sad_yes: God’s Word is the most important document man has, so yes, foolish or mendacious changes are anathema. However, in light of the verses I already listed a link to above, I don’t think Luther’s little insert was anywhere even near approaching the ghastly distortions of Scripture committed by the JW’s.

Would you perchance have a reference for You’s “If I remember correctly, this [bolded] is anathema”?

Had he not been restrained, your bible would have only 63 books. That is not a trifling change. As with many human events, I think that the movement which he spearheaded swept past him. He was shocked that Calvin and Zwingli interpreted scripture differently from him.