Martin Luther added the word "alone"?

[1stChristian]

What surprises me is the audacity of this man that could cooly change by a stroke of a pen a doctrine of the Apostle of God, St. Paul, who wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
But this was the outcome of the Protestant standpoint, individual judgment: no authority outside oneself. However ignorant, however stupid, however unlettered, you may cut out and carve out a Bible and a religion for yourself. No pope, no council, no church shall enlighten you or dictate or hand down the doctrines of Christ.
And the result we have seen in the corruption of God’s Holy Word.
What gets me is their deliberate excision from that Sacred volume of some of the inspired books that were suffered to remain. It is on consideration of such points as these that pious persons outside the Catholic fold would do well to ask themselves this question:
Which Christian body really loves and reveres Scripture most? Which has proved by it’s actions, it’s love and veneration?
And which seems most likely to incur the anathema, recorded by St. John, that God will send upon those who shall take away from the words of the Book of life?

 

[MDK]

It is true that what Luther was doing was a biblical translation. As I stated in the original thread, however, a translation, by its nature as a translation is never word for word but is giving the meaning of the original text in the language to which it is being translated to. A commentator is doing much the same thing except he is not translating the text. Otherwise, different biblical versions would all have the same verbage, but it doesn’t, because each translator is going for the best meaning to the words.

When Paul says we justified by faith apart from works, in essence he is saying we are justified by faith apart from everything else, hence alone. In order for Luther to be adding words to the Bible, he would need to be adding words to the original Greek text.

Do you think it’s possible you’re missing something critical here? I’ll give you a clue…, Paul didn’t simply say “we justified by faith apart from works.” As recorded in Romans 3:28, “For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law.” Please note it says “works of the law” and not simply “works.” If you study what that means, Paul is talking about circumcision, etc. Works of the law is a typical Hebraic expression for the law of the Jews, like circumcision, dietary laws, etc. We were freed from those, were we not?

 

[Peter_J]

What surprises me is the audacity of this man that could cooly change by a stroke of a pen a doctrine of the Apostle of God, St. Paul, who wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
But this was the outcome of the Protestant standpoint, individual judgment: no authority outside oneself. However ignorant, however stupid, however unlettered, you may cut out and carve out a Bible and a religion for yourself. No pope, no council, no church shall enlighten you or dictate or hand down the doctrines of Christ.
And the result we have seen in the corruption of God’s Holy Word.
What gets me is their deliberate excision from that Sacred volume of some of the inspired books that were suffered to remain. It is on consideration of such points as these that pious persons outside the Catholic fold would do well to ask themselves this question:
Which Christian body really loves and reveres Scripture most? Which has proved by it’s actions, it’s love and veneration?
And which seems most likely to incur the anathema, recorded by St. John, that God will send upon those who shall take away from the words of the Book of life?

Sigh. I’m just not going to respond to that one.

 

[TriuneUnity]

2:17 “Indeed you are called a Jew and rest on the Law…” You do not think this is the Mosaic Law? He goes on to discuss circumcision, part of the Mosaic Law, but not the Natural Law.

3:21But now the righteousness of God apart from the Law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets"
The Natural Moral Law and the Prophets?

Rom 3:12-16: For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

Is Paul speaking of kosher laws, fabric laws, and circumcision here? No, of course not. He is speaking of the moral law. The Gentiles did not receive the Jewish custom regulations. The Mosaic Law includes the moral Law of the decalogue. So even if the entire chapter were nothing about Mosaic rituals, and the Law of Sinai, it would still include the natural Law.

Paul indicts both Jew and Gentile; so when we come to 3:28, and it states we are justified apart from works of the Law, it encompasses both external ritual and the moral Law “written on the conscience.”

 

[TriuneUnity]

One could make the argument that every thing is a “work” as defined by Paul, but then that arument is circular in the extreme and does nothing but beg the question.

Except that Paul in other places states that faith is a gracious gift, which would exclude it being a work. The fact that he sets faith and works in opposition shows this.

Another possibility, and would be in accord to Catholic thinking, is that “works” used by Paul has a narrow usage. Specifically referring in the first part of Romans to works of The Law. The whole passage is aimed at Judaizers who attempted to combine a form of following Mosaic law with Christianity. There is nothing in a pure translation that prevents (or mandates) this interpretation.

It is mandated by the fact that the preceding 3 1/2 chapters indicts all of mankind, Jew and Gentile. This demonstrates that Paul is speaking more broadly than the Old Covenant regulations. It incorporates the entire Law given to mankind on his conscience. As for his comments to the Jews:

Rom. 3:17-24: But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God and know his will and approve what is excellent, because you are instructed from the law; and if you are sure that you yourself are a guide to the blind, a light to those who are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of children, having in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— you then who teach others, do you not teach yourself? While you preach against stealing, do you steal? You who say that one must not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? You who boast in the law dishonor God by breaking the law. For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.”

Does Paul mention anything here about fabric laws, or how to properly butcher an animal? They are all moral precepts that the Jews have violated. These are all the laws that mankind cannot be justified through due to his inability to keep them. Hence, the instrumental cause of justification is faith. Faith alone.

 

[1stChristian]

Sigh. I’m just not going to respond to that one.

Peter, as a Catholic, why would you say “sigh…I am not going to even answer that one”. This is all true.

 

[MDK]

Paul indicts both Jew and Gentile; so when we come to 3:28, and it states we are justified apart from works of the Law, it encompasses both external ritual and the moral Law “written on the conscience.”

This is why it’s important to be Catholic, so one listens to the Church Jesus built which is the pillar and ground of truth which protects and supports both oral and written Tradition. “Works of the law” is a stock phrase for the Jewish circumcision, dietary laws, etc. Therefore, what it means is that we are not held to the Jewish law of circumcision, dietary laws, etc to be justified. Indeed, we were freed from these things that had been requirements for the Jews, were we not?

This truth is obviously not in conflict with the rest of Sacred Scriptures. Contrast your interpretation and your good buddy Martin Luther’s. How do you reconcile 1 James 2:24 “Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?”

It is obvious to anyone who seeks truth, and will admit and speak the truth, that Martin Luther did change not only a word in Scripture, but changed the meaning as well. Luther’s translation was not in fidelity to God, but in fidelity to his own personal belief.

 

[MDK]

Except that Paul in other places states that faith is a gracious gift, which would exclude it being a work. The fact that he sets faith and works in opposition shows this.

Faith is indeed a gift, and we are saved by God’s grace. Where you start driving off the road is claiming that faith is in opposition to works. Actually, works confirm faith. In other words, if you really have faith, you will act in accordance. Even regarding earthly things, if you said you believed in your job, but didn’t show up for it, what would your company do? Do you recall 2 James 2:20, which says “But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” Indeed, as we Catholics claim, faith and works are an intimate pair. We may also say, what good is works without faith?.. what do you really have? If we remove faith and works, resulting in one being dead and the other meaningless, how can we separate them and have both live and be meaningful? How then, can faith and works be in opposition?

 

[RobHom]

It is true that what Luther was doing was a biblical translation. As I stated in the original thread, however, a translation, by its nature as a translation is never word for word but is giving the meaning of the original text in the language to which it is being translated to. A commentator is doing much the same thing except he is not translating the text. Otherwise, different biblical versions would all have the same verbage, but it doesn’t, because each translator is going for the best meaning to the words.

True…and “subjectively so”…based upon the particular whim and agenda of the translator. In the case of Luther…his “agenda” was very clear…no?

When Paul says we justified by faith apart from works, in essence he is saying we are justified by faith apart from everything else, hence alone. In order for Luther to be adding words to the Bible, he would need to be adding words to the original Greek text.

Here is what the Douay-Rheims contains:

**26 Through the forbearance of God, for the showing of his justice in this time; that he himself may be just, and the justifier of him, who is of the faith of Jesus Christ. 27 Where is then thy boasting? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. 28 For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law. 29 Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also. 30 For it is one God, that justifieth circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

Below is the Catholic “interpretation”…

28 “By faith”… The faith, to which the apostle here attributes man’s justification, is not a presumptuous assurance of our being justified; but a firm and lively belief of all that God has revealed or promised. Heb. 11. A faith working through charity in Jesus Christ. Gal. 5. 6. In short, a faith which takes in hope, love, repentance, and the use of the sacraments. And the works which he here excludes, are only the works of the law: that is, such as are done by the law of nature, or that of Moses, antecedent to the faith of Christ: but by no means, such as follow faith, and proceed from it. **

You will note that “no-where” in Romans 3:28 does the word “alone” appear. Please note that the Douay-Rheims Bible is directly translated from the Latin Vulgate…which well predates Luther and all other reformers… Here is some information you may find interesting…on more than one level: drbo.org/intro.htm

But in order to get the complete “gist” of it all…one must read the entire chapter…and take it in its context. Using a “snippet” of scripture to justify anything…is wrong. It is mis-use of scripture…and its deceitful as well.

In some ways…Luther did not “translate” the Bible…he attempted to re-write it to conform to his ideals. Or you could say he “edited” it to conform…which is wrong as well.

 

[pnewton]

Except that Paul in other places states that faith is a gracious gift, which would exclude it being a work. The fact that he sets faith and works in opposition shows this.

You demonstrate the point I was trying to make. I was looking at the test as a translator. You are not referring to separate documents for interpretation. No doubt Luther did the same thing. This is how one reads one’s own bias into translating instead of just trying to bring out the basic meaning.

 

[pnewton]

Rom 3:12-16: For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law…,
Is Paul speaking of kosher laws, fabric laws, and circumcision here? Since it is the Mosiac Law the Gentile do not have, this must have refered to the Mosaic Law.

by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves,

even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the** law is written on their hearts**, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.*

Is Paul speaking of kosher laws, fabric laws, and circumcision here? This on the other hand is the moral law of God. One can tell by the qualifying clause attached to them.

I was only responding to the statement you made in post 18

…but his context in the preceding 3 1/2 chapters is not the Mosaic Law,

True, the natural law is referred to and these cases are made clear by the context. Thus all mankind it brought under condemnation. However, the vast majority of the first chapters (and every case that is not qualified) seems to refer to the Mosaic Law.

But the point is not which time should be considered which, but rather that when a translator makes those decisions for the reader and adds a word to support his idea, he is adding to the word of God and making himself the divine interpreter for his readers.

 

[water]

Relevant Radio has an interesting topic on Luther yesterday.
“alone” was mentioned.

 

[moondweller]

Do you think it’s possible you’re missing something critical here? I’ll give you a clue…, Paul didn’t simply say “we justified by faith apart from works.” As recorded in Romans 3:28, “For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law.” Please note it says “works of the law” and not simply “works.” If you study what that means, Paul is talking about circumcision, etc. Works of the law is a typical Hebraic expression for the law of the Jews, like circumcision, dietary laws, etc. We were freed from those, were we not?

Actually, the Greek provides no definite article and should read,"For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart of from works of law."In respect to justification, Paul dismisses ALL works, IOW, the whole notion of the pursuit of merit. Paul brings it home right away in the following verses:Rom 4:4 "Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,"The ONLY works ever prescribed by God are found in the Mosaic Law, which included the Decalogue. A covenant of works made with national Israel at Mt. Sinai. It must be duly noted that no Gentile was ever under that covenant.

Paul teaches elsewhere that the covenant made with Israel was temporary, only “UNTIL” the “seed” (being Christ) should come to whom the promise had been made (Gal. 3:19). And he goes on to teach that BEFORE FAITH CAME (i.e., faith in Christ alone) we (Jews) were kept in custody under law ("upo nomon", no definite article, i.e., under the principle of law).

They were, by the principle of that Law (works), “shut up to “THE FAITH” which was later to be revealed” (Gal. 3:23).

The Law (Mosaic) was indispensable in that its purpose was to lead those under that covenant of works (Jews) to Christ, when He arrived, so that they would:“…be justified BY FAITH” (period!)He then states emphatically:“But now that FAITH has come we (Jews) are no longer under a tutor” (Gal. 3:25).and ALL (Jews and Gentiles) are sons of God THROUGH FAITH in Christ Jesus (vs. 26). IOW, through faith in Christ alone.

What Paul wrote to correct those Galatians correlates perfectly with what he wrote, doctrinally, to the Romans."For we maintain that a man (Jew or Gentile) is justified BY FAITH apart from works of law.“Arguing that God is not only the God of the Jews (who were under the covenant of law/works), but the God of Gentiles also (who were never were under that covenant of works). The good news (gospel) now preached to both Jews and Gentiles is that"He will justify the circumcision (Jews) BY FAITH and the uncircumcision (Gentiles) THROUGH FAITH” (Rom. 3:30).With the only works ever prescribed by God having ended with the coming of Christ (to Whom it pointed), FAITH (alone) remained.

Faith alone is Paul’s message. It’s been the Apostolic message from the beginning. It’s men who drifted from it. The Law ended with the coming of Christ and faith alone remained. He justifies Jews by faith and Gentiles through faith alone (Rom. 3:30). Read that passage. Notice it ends with a period: “…through faith,” PERIOD. End of sentence!!!Rom 4:4-5 "Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor (grace), but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,"The Catholic, in horror, runs to James. But James argues only for the practical side of faith (“show me…”), not the doctrinal.

Luther, a Roman Catholic himself, merely reflected in his interpretation what Paul himself clearly taught centuries earlier in his Epistle to his church. Isn’t it time for the Roman church, like Luther, to embrace the gospel Paul wrote to it?

 

[Nam_Man]

Dear Moon,

You are starting to make sense to me, keep talking.

In respect to justification, Paul dismisses ALL works, IOW, the whole notion of the pursuit of merit. Paul brings it home right away in the following verses:

Rom 4:4 “Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,”

 

[water]

Did Paul ever do any works?

 

[water]

Luther, a Roman Catholic himself, merely reflected in his interpretation what Paul himself clearly taught centuries earlier in his Epistle to his church. Isn’t it time for the Roman church, like Luther, to embrace the gospel Paul wrote to it?

No wonder the Book of James gave him problem. I am glad he didn’t “remove” the book.

Hmm…who stopped him from removing it if he seemed to act as his own authority adding “alone” to Bible.

Don’t forget “faith without works is dead”.

 

[ralphinal]

Hebrews Chapter 11, Paul defines what faith means. If you read it, you see that faith is more than accepting God into your hearts. According to Paul, faith and works are connected. Period. This is what James is saying. I cannot say, and you cannot either, that I can beleive that Jesus is God, pray to him, and worship him, and never get off my fat bottom and still get to heaven. Christianity is an action word. It is a verb not a noun.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Hebrews Chapter 11, Paul defines what faith means. If you read it, you see that faith is more than accepting God into your hearts. According to Paul, faith and works are connected. Period. This is what James is saying. I cannot say, and you cannot either, that I can beleive that Jesus is God, pray to him, and worship him, and never get off my fat bottom and still get to heaven. Christianity is an action word. It is a verb not a noun.

Anything added to the work of Christ for the purposes of salvation is false. However, in principle, I agree that a person who simply accepts Christ and never actually does anything (whether that be works, going to the sacraments, etc.) will probably lose faith eventually.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Is Paul speaking of kosher laws, fabric laws, and circumcision here? Since it is the Mosiac Law the Gentile do not have, this must have refered to the Mosaic Law.

Paul is making the distinction between Jews and Gentiles. He does this by stating that the Jews received the Law both written and delivered by Moses and the Prophets. The Gentiles did not have this. He is not referring to a separate Law, but to the same Law, revealed to the Jews.

I was only responding to the statement you made in post 18
True, the natural law is referred to and these cases are made clear by the context. Thus all mankind it brought under condemnation. However, the vast majority of the first chapters (and every case that is not qualified) seems to refer to the Mosaic Law.

I wouldn’t quibble over this, honestly. It’s largely interchangeable. My disagreement is Catholics who try to insist that when Paul states we are justified by faith apart from works of law, he is somehow only referring to Jewish custom and ritual and not to the whole of the Law of God.

 

[ralphinal]

Anything added to the work of Christ for the purposes of salvation is false. However, in principle, I agree that a person who simply accepts Christ and never actually does anything (whether that be works, going to the sacraments, etc.) will probably lose faith eventually.

Then why does Paul say that his sufferings make up that which was lacking in the sufferings of Christ?

Oh, you are right, an inactive faith will leave.