Martin Luther added the word "alone"?

[TriuneUnity]

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.

Paul wasn’t speaking of justification, though. He is making up for Christ’s suffering by suffering himself. He is suffering for the Church, in prison. The context is not connected to salvation.

 

[MDK]

Actually, the Greek provides…

…to embrace the gospel Paul wrote to it?

Lots of words there that tell us you still have it wrong. Please pull the log out of your eye, and you’ll see what the situation is. Sacred Scriptures simply don’t support what you want it to, unless… you change it like Martin Luther did to suit his own purposes.

You still don’t understand what I wrote, and you won’t understand Sacred Scriptures in this matter until you do. Not, that I made it up, because I didn’t. However, what I’ve told you is correct.

The Catholic Church understands, protects the meaning and teaches properly what Holy Spirit inspired author and Catholic St. Paul taught.

 

[MDK]

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.

You will always have a problem then, because Catholics have preserved the way oral and written Tradition were intended. We don’t dare substitute our own meanings in place of Holy Spirit inspired authors. How did Martin Luther’s mental condition affect his renderings? You will have a problem unless and until you take the log out of your eye, and see as God intended us to see.

 

[ralphinal]

Paul wasn’t speaking of justification, though. He is making up for Christ’s suffering by suffering himself. He is suffering for the Church, in prison. The context is not connected to salvation.

He was making up that which was lacking. What was lacking in the sufferings of Christ? If Christ’s death was sufficient, there could be nothing lacking, right?

Is there a difference between justification and salvation?

 

[MDK]

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.

By your first sentence, I think you’re possibly still very confused about Catholics, if you’re referring to how Catholics view faith and works. However, regarding the second sentence, you’re getting closer… keep it up. I would say also, that they have a weak faith in the beginning by not acting on it, possibly lukewarm.

 

[MDK]

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?

Catholics don’t run to part of Scriptures to the exclusion of other parts, nor do we run from anything in the Sacred Scriptures that were brought into the world through the Holy Spirit inspired Catholic authors of the NT. We take the whole of Oral and Written Tradition together. Through the Catholic Church, the pillar and ground of truth, the Oral Tradition and proper rendering of Written Tradition are brought to us. There are valid and good reasons why Luther was excommunicated from the the Church built by Christ, and it was because Luther was teaching heresy. Luther no longer belonged in the Church, and due to his heresies, could no longer be allowed to be a Catholic. We argue for a strong faith, but are not fooled into thinking we are justified by faith alone, and that we need not act on our faith to confirm it and make faith perfect. The only place in the entire Sacred Scriptures that faith alone appears is in James, and he argues against it. Please take a look at James 2:21-26. Does it not discuss justification, or did Luther change those words too, in your version?

“21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. 24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? 25 And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way? 26 For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead.”

 

[moondweller]

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”.

If James, in saying that, was actually denying faith in Christ alone for salvation/justification, then your reply might have validity. But James never makes that statement. Instead, in context, he’s talking about works only as a demonstration of faith, not an added means for salvation/justification. “Show me your faith without works…” is the proposition and the context.

But the faith by which God saves/justifies a sinner is still divinely revealed to be in Christ alone, not the demonstration of it.

James must be understood in the very restricted sense in which he was making his argument. Though it is true that salvation faith should be demonstrable through subsequent works (such as by those in Matt. 25:31ff), works, however, do not of necessity demonstrate true faith (see Matt. 7:21-23).

James is not at all teaching salvation by faith plus works in his Epistle, but that a man of true faith should practice it outwardly in life. Especially toward those in the community of believers.

What YOU must not forget, “water,” is that James was in full agreement with Paul’s gospel/teaching which he took to the Gentiles (Gal. 2:9). And the core of Paul’s teaching regarding justification is found in Rom. 4:5. And this he wrote to the church at Rome. And in all of his Epistles he never deviates from it.

 

[moondweller]

Catholics don’t run to part of Scriptures to the exclusion of other parts, nor do we run from anything in the Sacred Scriptures that were brought into the world through the Holy Spirit inspired Catholic authors of the NT. We take the whole of Oral and Written Tradition together. Through the Catholic Church, the pillar and ground of truth, the Oral Tradition and proper rendering of Written Tradition are brought to us. There are valid and good reasons why Luther was excommunicated from the the Church built by Christ, and it was because Luther was teaching heresy. Luther no longer belonged in the Church, and due to his heresies, could no longer be allowed to be a Catholic. We argue for a strong faith, but are not fooled into thinking we are justified by faith alone, and that we need not act on our faith to confirm it and make faith perfect. The only place in the entire Sacred Scriptures that faith alone appears is in James, and he argues against it. Please take a look at James 2:21-26. Does it not discuss justification, or did Luther change those words too, in your version?

“21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. 24 Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? 25 And in like manner also Rahab the harlot, was not she justified by works, receiving the messengers, and sending them out another way? 26 For even as the body without the spirit is dead; so also faith without works is dead.”

See my post #46. As I said, Catholics run to James, but James, in context, runs from them.

Luther was not the only Catholic at that time who understood Paul’s teaching on faith alone. He was, perhaps, the most vocal at first. You might want to read a good history book on it. Will Durant’s “The Reformation” is certainly a popular one.

 

[MDK]

See my post #46. As I said, Catholics run to James, but James, in context, runs from them.

Luther was not the only Catholic at that time who understood Paul’s teaching on faith alone. He was, perhaps, the most vocal at first. You might want to read a good history book on it. Will Durant’s “The Reformation” is certainly a popular one.

I read your post 46, and find you still remain off the mark, with misinterpretations of Scripture. By your misinterpretations, you seek to tell us we’re incorrect. The opposite is true. It’s like the foolish and rebellious child telling his father that he’s wrong or stupid. When the child grows up, they find what the truth actually was.

When you remind us that Luther had been a Catholic, you remind us also that Luther had been excommunicated. He was excommunicated specifically because he did not understand nor teach Catholic doctrine authentically, but twisted Scriptures to his own destruction. That you are willing to be a disciple of Luther indicates your path as well, and willingness to blindly follow the blind. Have you studied Luther’s mental conditions during that time? While he wrote some very compassionate things about the mentally ill, I believe these also hold a clue to his own need to bend and twist God’s word toward him and make it work for him. If we look at what he did and why, then this has to be a legitimate part of the discussion, because I believe it gives us clues to what happened.

To assume that I don’t know the history because I don’t agree with you, is simply ignorant and quite honestly a foolish assumption. It is because I know history about the Reformation (more accurately Deformation) that I have yet another reason to be grateful to be in the Catholic faith. I also know other history, like the history of the Church built by Jesus. Are you familiar with the history of the Church built by Christ? I could never leave the Church built by Christ, His Body, for a false man-made church built by a an excommunicated heretic. That there were other heretics like Luther does not mean Luther was correct. Like Satan persuaded angels to leave Heaven and follow him, Luther persuaded weak and heretic leaning people from the true Church of Christ. Like the smoke of Satan, Luther’s teachings still mislead many today.

Like I said before, and will continue to say, we Catholics use the entire Oral and Written Tradition, as taught by Christ and the Holy Spirit. Catholics don’t run to part of Scriptures to the exclusion of other parts, nor do we run from anything in the Sacred Scriptures that were brought into the world through the Holy Spirit inspired Catholic authors of the NT.

Contrarily, the disciples of Luther dissect the Scriptures and from one false interpretation will try then to force the others to fit in with that. This is not correct, and is actually twisting God’s Holy Word.

I’ve already showed you the way. If you would rather follow an excommunicated heretic, who bent God’s Holy Word to suit his mental state, then you use your freedom of will to do what I would never desire for anyone.

 

[Peter_J]

Hi moondweller,

I have to give you credit, first of all, that you’ve clearly studied these questions extensively.

However, I think the main verse that presents a problem for the Lutheran explanation is not James 2:17 but rather James 2:24 “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

 

[moondweller]

Hi moondweller,

I have to give you credit, first of all, that you’ve clearly studied these questions extensively.

However, I think the main verse that presents a problem for the Lutheran explanation is not James 2:17 but rather James 2:24 “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

This too must be understood in the restricted context in which James expressed it:James 2:18 "But someone may {well} say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works."The “You see” in verse 24 connects it to the original proposition of demonstrating one’s true faith in Christ alone. You can’t just lift 2:24 out of its intended context, as if it’s a doctrinal statement in and of itself. Else you’re doing exactly what MDK says Catholics do not do: “Catholics don’t run to part of Scriptures to the exclusion of other parts.” When, in fact, Catholics do exclude Paul and run to James to build there doctrine of justification. But in right context, James is not in disagreement with Paul on justification through faith (in Christ) alone. What James wants from his readers is an outward demonstration of their faith in Christ, the faith by which God justified them. He uses Abraham and Rahab as examples. His goal is the avoidance of an inactive profession of faith. Which, no doubt, was one of their problems.

 

[moondweller]

Have you studied Luther’s mental conditions during that time?

Catholicism tries to portray Luther as mentally unstable (Catholic Encyclopedia), but that’s hardly the case when one examines his writings during what must have been a very stressful time for him. It’s easy just to say someone is mentally ill. Especially when one is bucking the established system. Sheesh, Christ’s opponents even accused Him of having a demon. Was Rosa Parks mentally off balance by refusing to sit in back of the bus?

As I said, MDK, you might want to read a good history book on those times. Not just make prejudicial statements contrary to the known facts.

 

[ralphinal]

First, if memory serves, there were four NT books that Luther wanted out. Revelation was one. James, Jude and Hebrews were the others. Why?

Revelation was “too difficult and revealed nothing.”

Luther saw James as refuting this new theology that he created.

What about the other two?

Because they, too, went against his new theology.

There is an old Protestant saying: Idle hands are the Devil’s workshop.

Works show that we have faith. If you do nothing, you have no faith. Sorry, game over.

Jesus says that we are judged based on what we do for the least of our brothers.

But, there is more to it than that. When we serve others, our faith grows. When we do God’s work, we feel his presence more. This is the important part. It is through giving that we receive, through pardoning that we are pardoned. Everything in the NT is a give and take: if I forgive, I will be forgiven, if I do not forgive, why should I expect the same? We are called to serve.

Now, before you tell me that Luther never taught that we did not have to feed the hungry and all that, please look at history. Which church has the best track record of caring for the poor?

 

[ralphinal]

Catholicism tries to portray Luther as mentally unstable (Catholic Encyclopedia), but that’s hardly the case when one examines his writings during what must have been a very stressful time for him. It’s easy just to say someone is mentally ill. Especially when one is bucking the established system. Sheesh, Christ’s opponents even accused Him of having a demon. Was Rosa Parks mentally off balance by refusing to sit in back of the bus?

As I said, MDK, you might want to read a good history book on those times. Not just make prejudicial statements contrary to the known facts.

Actually, there is ample evidence that Luther had a specific form of OCD. The first time I had heard this was from a Lutheran, btw. This is evident in is theology and his writings.

 

[ralphinal]

Again, is there a difference between justification and sanctification?

 

[MDK]

Catholicism tries to portray Luther as mentally unstable (Catholic Encyclopedia), but that’s hardly the case when one examines his writings during what must have been a very stressful time for him. It’s easy just to say someone is mentally ill. Especially when one is bucking the established system. Sheesh, Christ’s opponents even accused Him of having a demon. Was Rosa Parks mentally off balance by refusing to sit in back of the bus?

As I said, MDK, you might want to read a good history book on those times. Not just make prejudicial statements contrary to the known facts.

As one who reveres God’s Word, including the 8th Commandment against bearing false witness, I refuse to do to you, what you do to Catholics. I suggest that you be please be more careful. Suggest you do a little more reading the truth, and a little less falsely accusing.

I didn’t first learn about his illness from a Catholic, but from one sympathetic to Martin Luther. It has nothing to do with Catholicism, as I’ve never heard this from any Catholic Priest, Bishop, Cardinal or the Pope (BTW which are all validly and licitly ordained). Luther was obsessive compulsive and manic depressive. For instance, he used to go to confession multiple times a day. The idea of salvation by faith alone gets one out of that sickness induced loop, does it not?

Please don’t compare Martin Luther with our Lord. Our Lord built His Church, and Martin Luther tried to discredit it and pull people away from it. You’ll notice however, that Luther was unsuccessful, and his disciples are as well. God is with His Church, and it will stand until the end of time.

 

[1stChristian]

First, if memory serves, there were four NT books that Luther wanted out. Revelation was one. James, Jude and Hebrews were the others. Why?

Revelation was “too difficult and revealed nothing.”

Luther saw James as refuting this new theology that he created.

What about the other two?

Because they, too, went against his new theology.

There is an old Protestant saying: Idle hands are the Devil’s workshop.

Works show that we have faith. If you do nothing, you have no faith. Sorry, game over.

Jesus says that we are judged based on what we do for the least of our brothers.

But, there is more to it than that. When we serve others, our faith grows. When we do God’s work, we feel his presence more. This is the important part. It is through giving that we receive, through pardoning that we are pardoned. Everything in the NT is a give and take: if I forgive, I will be forgiven, if I do not forgive, why should I expect the same? We are called to serve.

Now, before you tell me that Luther never taught that we did not have to feed the hungry and all that, please look at history. Which church has the best track record of caring for the poor?

There were actually 7 books he wanted out. Don’t forget Maccabees that explains purgatory. This is why Protestants don’t believe in it.

 

[Peter_J]

This too must be understood in the restricted context in which James expressed it:James 2:18 "But someone may {well} say, "You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works."The “You see” in verse 24 connects it to the original proposition of demonstrating one’s true faith in Christ alone. You can’t just lift 2:24 out of its intended context, as if it’s a doctrinal statement in and of itself.

I think you misunderstand me a little. My post wasn’t to say “Here, I’ll give you the Catholic take on the matter”, or something of that sort. Rather, I was looking at the Lutheran take on it, and asking how verse 24 fits in. (Absolutely, context is important.) Eh?

Else you’re doing exactly what MDK says Catholics do not do: “Catholics don’t run to part of Scriptures to the exclusion of other parts.”

I find it a little odd how Protestant posters sometimes like to point to a Catholic poster and say "See so-and-so said such-and-such, so … " – as though a statement made one Catholic poster is really made by all Catholic posters. (Well, okay I imagine Catholic posters are guilty of something similar, but that doesn’t make it right.) It seems especially ironic since the person you’re quoting also made some pretty ambitious claims about Lutherans. (E.g. “Like the smoke of Satan, Luther’s teachings still mislead many today.” and “Contrarily, the disciples of Luther dissect the Scriptures and from one false interpretation will try then to force the others to fit in with that.”)

When, in fact, Catholics do exclude Paul and run to James to build there doctrine of justification.

Come now, that’s just a silly generalization. Not unlike when some Catholics accuse Lutherans of disregarding James.

But in right context, James is not in disagreement with Paul on justification through faith (in Christ) alone. What James wants from his readers is an outward demonstration of their faith in Christ, the faith by which God justified them. He uses Abraham and Rahab as examples. His goal is the avoidance of an inactive profession of faith. Which, no doubt, was one of their problems.

Alright … convince me.

 

[ralphinal]

There were actually 7 books he wanted out. Don’t forget Maccabees that explains purgatory. This is why Protestants don’t believe in it.

Oh, I know. I was pointing out the New Testament books alone.

 

[Peter_J]

The “You see” in verse 24 connects it to the original proposition of demonstrating one’s true faith in Christ alone. You can’t just lift 2:24 out of its intended context, as if it’s a doctrinal statement in and of itself.

So if I understand you correctly, you understand verse 24 as ‘It is by works, and not by faith alone, that you see that a man is justified.’ ?

That’s interesting (really, I’m not being sarcastic). I don’t think I’ve heard that before.

I don’t know Greek, so I can’t read the original. But ironically, the KJV translates it as “Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.” (I’m claiming to prove anything here; it just interesting that the KJV agrees with the Catholic interpretation of that verse.)