Martin Luther added the word "alone"?

[1stChristian]

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

 

[ralphinal]

In a way, I could care less about the OT that he wanted removed. I mean we have less than the Orthodox. But, when you start taking out the NT works, you start altering what the Church was inspired to write and include. In other words, you are defying the Holy Spirit.

 

[1stChristian]

In a way, I could care less about the OT that he wanted removed. I mean we have less than the Orthodox. But, when you start taking out the NT works, you start altering what the Church was inspired to write and include. In other words, you are defying the Holy Spirit.

Yes, I agree, what audacity this man had especially calling the Epistle of James “A book of straw”, “Throw it overboard” he said and overboard it went. How can one ever do this to the Word of God?
Don’t Protestants comprehend this? Or is this ignored also…

 

[ralphinal]

Yes, I agree, what audacity this man had especially calling the Epistle of James “A book of straw”, “Throw it overboard” he said and overboard it went. How can one ever do this to the Word of God?
Don’t Protestants comprehend this? Or is this ignored also…

Well, Calvin and Zwingli want Revelations in the trash as well.

It is amazing that sola scriptura included only thisa scriptura and thata scriptura but get ridda thosa scriptura over there.

 

[1stChristian]

Well, Calvin and Zwingli want Revelations in the trash as well.

It is amazing that sola scriptura included only thisa scriptura and thata scriptura but get ridda thosa scriptura over there.

Ha, yes…

 

[pnewton]

Again, this whole debate is meandering from the wrong that Luther committed. Indeed, it is reinforcing his errors. Namely, that debates about theology is not the subject of an honest translator. Do I think he was crazy? No. I do believe he was a dishonest propagandist when it came to translating his Bible. His scholarship has no more credibility than the JW’s New World Translation.

 

[MDK]

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.”)

Peter, hello to my fellow Catholic. Couple of things here, if you’ll bear with me. Please understand when I use the phrase “Catholics do” or “Catholics don’t” it pertains to those following what the Church teaches, and not simply all Catholics who call themselves such, from which some go down the cafeteria line of selective doctrine and dogma. I did such with hope that some things will be detected in context and understood as such, which any reasonable person seeking to take it as was intended would be able to do. As we know, the Church uses the entirety of oral and written Tradition as it was intended and handed down, so we don’t exclude any in favor of another.

To apply the same sort of meaning to your use of “claims about Lutherans” would provide the proper context to use the two quotes of mine that you use. It does not automatically apply to all people who call themselves Lutheran, because there could be cafeteria Lutherans as well. One has to use context here too. I stand by my quotes, so long as they are interpreted as they were meant. One quote is focusing primarily on Luther’s teachings, and less about those who follow those teachings. The reason being, the greater fault typically lies with the deceiver, than the deceived. Furthermore, one does not have to be a Lutheran to be misguided by this kind of teaching. I feel sad for those who are deceived by his false teachings. The second quote is about the Lutherans who strictly adhere to and promote Luther’s teachings, such as the one being discussed on this thread. False assumptions beget false interpretations. If one holds that “salvation by faith alone” must absolutely be true without question, and Scripture is the Word of God and can’t contradict, then other Scriptural passages are often likewise misinterpreted to support this first false premise.

 

[TriuneUnity]

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.)

I agree with Augustine’s take on this passage:

“Not so our father Abraham. This passage of scripture is meant to draw our attention to the difference. We confess that the holy patriarch was pleasing to God; this is what our faith affirms about him. So true is it that we can declare and be certain that he did have grounds for pride before God, and this is what the apostle tells us. It is quite certain, he says, and we know it for sure, that Abraham has grounds for pride before God. But if he had been justified by works, he would have had grounds for pride, but not before God. However, since we know he does have grounds for pride before God, it follows that he was not justified on the basis of works. So if Abraham was not justified by works, how was he justified?” The apostle goes on to tell us how: What does scripture say? (that is, about how Abraham was justified). Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (Rom. 4:3; Gen. 15:6). Abraham, then, was justified by faith. Paul and James do not contradict each other: good works follow justification

Now when you hear this statement, that justification comes not from works, but by faith, remember the abyss of which I spoke earlier. You see that Abraham was justified not by what he did, but by his faith: all right then, so I can do whatever I like, because even though I have no good works to show, but simply believe in God, that is reckoned to me as righteousness? Anyone who has said this and has decided on it as a policy has already fallen in and sunk; anyone who is still considering it and hesitating is in mortal danger. But God’s scripture, truly understood, not only safeguards an endangered person, but even hauls up a drowned one from the deep. My advice is, on the face of it, a contradiction of what the apostle says; what I have to say about Abraham is what we find in the letter of another apostle, who set out to correct people who had misunderstood Paul. James in his letter opposed those who would not act rightly but relied on faith alone; and so he reminded them of the good works of this same Abraham whose faith was commended by Paul. The two apostles are not contradicting each other. James dwells on an action performed by Abraham that we all know about: he offered his son to God as a sacrifice. That is a great work, but it proceeded from faith. I have nothing but praise for the superstructure of action, but I see the foundation of faith; I admire the good work as a fruit, but I recognize that it springs from the root of faith. If Abraham had done it without right faith it would have profited him nothing, however noble the work was. On the other hand, if Abraham had been so complacent in his faith that, on hearing God’s command to offer his son as a sacrificial victim, he had said to himself, “No, I won’t. But I believe that God will set me free, even if I ignore his orders,” his faith would have been a dead faith because it did not issue in right action, and it would have remained a barren, dried-up root that never produced fruit.” John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., WSA, Part 3, Vol. 15, trans. Maria Boulding, O.S.B., Expositions of the Psalms 1-32, Exposition 2 of Psalm 31, 2-4 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2000), pp. 364-365.

 

[moondweller]

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?

Psycho babble. If he went to confession multiple times a day it only proved he took what was taught to him concerning sin very seriously. That being that sins only up to the time of baptism are sovereignly forgiven; subsequent sins, he was taught, must be dealt with through your sacrament of penance/reconciliation.

Why would you call one’s frequent visits to the confessional a “sickness induced loop?” I often wonder why I don’t see every day long lines of Catholics waiting to enter the confessional. Is it they don’t take sin that seriously? Or maybe they don’t want to be labeled by other Catholics as “obsessive compulsive or manic depressive” caught up in a “sickness induced loop.”

It is true that the Pauline doctrine of salvation/justification through faith alone is extremely liberating to one who takes sin seriously. That was the whole reason for the Law (including the Decalogue):Gal 3:22-24 “But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. But before faith came, we were kept in custody under law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the Law has become our tutor {to lead us} to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.” (period)Paul wrote this to the Galatians who also needed to be liberated from religious bondage through faith in Christ alone. And he warns them:Gal 4:31 - 5:1 "So then, brethren, we are not children of a bondwoman, but of the free woman. It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.After much struggle with personal sin induced by the condemnation of law (see 2 Cor. 3:6-11, especially the Decalogue), the words of Paul finally resonated with Luther:Rom 1:16-17 "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it {the} righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, "BUT THE RIGHTEOUS SHALL LIVE BY FAITH."Similar to Luther’s struggle with sin under law was Paul’s, recorded in Romans chapter seven. The solution for both men was the same. Not the religious system they were born into, but the One who had the power to completely forgive and liberate according to grace through faith alone:Rom 7:24-25a “Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!”

How is faith alone contrary to Paul’s teaching? Both Paul and Luther looked to Christ alone, by faith, for their salvation, justification and liberation.

 

[moondweller]

Again, is there a difference between justification and sanctification?

Yes. Justification gives a man a right standing (that of righteousness) before God:Rom 3:22 "…even {the} righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;Sanctification is different. Those who are justified are then “set apart” in Christ.1 Cor 1:2 "To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified (set apart) in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their {Lord} and ours:Sanctification is both objective and subjective. The believer, upon belief in Christ, is positionally sanctified (set apart) in Him by God (1 Cor. 1:30), and experientially sanctified (set apart) during his walk of faith while still on earth, being transformed by the renewing of his mind (example: Rom. 12:1-2). The believer will be ultimately sanctified (set apart) when the body of his humble state will be transformed into conformity with the body of His glory (Phil. 3:20-21).The writer of Hebrew states:Heb 2:11 "For both He who sanctifies (sets apart) and those who are sanctified (set apart) are all from one {Father;} for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren,

 

[MDK]

Psycho babble. If he went to confession multiple times a day it only proved he took what was taught to him concerning sin very seriously. That being that sins only up to the time of baptism are sovereignly forgiven; subsequent sins, he was taught, must be dealt with through your sacrament of penance/reconciliation.

Why would you call one’s frequent visits to the confessional a “sickness induced loop?” I often wonder why I don’t see every day long lines of Catholics waiting to enter the confessional. Is it they don’t take sin that seriously? Or maybe they don’t want to be labeled by other Catholics as “obsessive compulsive or manic depressive” caught up in a “sickness induced loop.”

Is your use of the phrase “Psycho babble” perhaps wishful thinking, or due to inability to see clearly from blindly clinging to false doctrine from a known heretic?

Your indoctrination is so firm in Luther, you’re so loyal and deeply into the false teachings…, that perhaps if you stood back, you could have the chance to see what one writes as it was intended, instead of as you misinterpret for any number of reasons. If you develop a habit of interpreting correctly as it was intended, then you’ll eventually be in communion with Catholicism.

One who takes sin very seriously and who understands the Sacrament would understand Luther’s behavior as disordered. Washing hands is needed. However, one who continually washes their hands repetitively without getting them dirty is ostensibly doing this just for cleanliness? Perhaps not, but we have to look at the behavior to see whether it would be considered disordered.

Being Catholic, I don’t believe in misrepresenting at will, as you seem willing to do with my words. For instance, I didn’t “call one’s frequent visits to the confessional a “sickness induced loop?”” as you misrepresented. My actual quote was “The idea of salvation by faith alone gets one out of that sickness induced loop, does it not?” and which clearly referred to my previous two sentences noting his obsessive compulsive type of disordered behavior, and not anything like healthy ideal behavior of going to confession as needed and without delay as often as truly needed.

You say you “don’t see every day long lines of Catholics waiting to enter the confessional.” Presuming you’re aware that the lines are typically inside the respective Churches, does this mean you go into Catholic Churches during times of confession on a regular basis to make some kind of objective observation of the lines? We Catholics take sin seriously as to realize the need for forgiveness as Jesus established. We also know that it’s not proper or healthy to run to confession multiple times each day to address each venial sin if one has committed such. There are multiple things wrong with that kind of behavior.

 

[ralphinal]

Yes. Justification gives a man a right standing (that of righteousness) before God:Rom 3:22 "…even {the} righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;Sanctification is different. Those who are justified are then “set apart” in Christ.1 Cor 1:2 "To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who have been sanctified (set apart) in Christ Jesus, saints by calling, with all who in every place call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, their {Lord} and ours:Sanctification is both objective and subjective. The believer, upon belief in Christ, is positionally sanctified (set apart) in Him by God (1 Cor. 1:30), and experientially sanctified (set apart) during his walk of faith while still on earth, being transformed by the renewing of his mind (example: Rom. 12:1-2). The believer will be ultimately sanctified (set apart) when the body of his humble state will be transformed into conformity with the body of His glory (Phil. 3:20-21).The writer of Hebrew states:Heb 2:11 "For both He who sanctifies (sets apart) and those who are sanctified (set apart) are all from one {Father;} for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren,

Thanks. Now, is there a difference between being justified, being sanctified, and being saved?

 

[ralphinal]

Also, if Luther no longer needed confession as a result of this understanding, why did he include it in his sacraments?

 

[NDfan]

Yes, I agree, what audacity this man had especially calling the Epistle of James “A book of straw”, “Throw it overboard” he said and overboard it went. How can one ever do this to the Word of God?
Don’t Protestants comprehend this? Or is this ignored also…

1st Christian you need a little history lesson here my friend. To clarify Luther never changed the Bible to include Faith alone. Luther translated the entire Bible including the DCs so that the laity could read what the church had kept from them.

Luther wrote commentary on the Bible in which he stated Faith “alone” and used much of Romans as the basis for his argument. But no Bible whether it be a translation that does have the DCs or not does not state Faith alone. That verse doesn’t appear in scripture and no Protestant will argue that.

The work of James did present problems for Luther because he saw it as a contradiction to Romans when in fact the 2 works compliment one another. Luther heavily challenged that James should have been considered canonical because the authorship had come into question several times throughout history. The fact that James remains is a testament to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The same could be said for Revelations as many theologians wanted to dismiss that work challenging the Apostle John as being the real author. The argument that gets made over and over is that the writing style of Revelations is much different than John’s other works. But again Revelations remains.

Might I suggest that you not group all Protestants into one when speaking of Luther. Not all Protestants are followers of Luther.

PEACE

 

[MDK]

1st Christian you need a little history lesson here my friend. To clarify Luther never changed the Bible to include Faith alone. Luther translated the entire Bible including the DCs so that the laity could read what the church had kept from them. PEACE

Supporters of Luther have called what he did an “interpolation” of meaning to add the word “alone” into Rom. 3:28, by which he intended to emphasize his doctrine of justification. By this, he brought Paul into direct verbal conflict with James 2:24 “by works a man is justified, and not only by faith”. It is well known that Luther deemed it impossible to harmonize the two apostles in this article, and therefore characterized the Epistle of James as an “epistle of straw,” because he believed it had no evangelical character (“keine evangelische Art”).

(There’s a free history lesson for you, NDfan)

Catholics do not denigrate one inspired author in favor of another. The Catholic Church understands correctly what Paul intended and what James intended, and have faithfully protected such for almost 2,000 years.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Thanks. Now, is there a difference between being justified, being sanctified, and being saved?

Being justified = Standing before God as not-guilty, on account of the guiltlessness of Christ. Sanctified = growing in the grace, knowledge, and wisdom of Christ in one’s personal faith. Being made holy as a precursor to final holiness in heaven. Saved = The Day of Resurrection, when Christ returns, we are glorified, and dwell in the New Earth.

At least, that is how Lutherans would understand it.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Also, if Luther no longer needed confession as a result of this understanding, why did he include it in his sacraments?

Holy Absolution is a means of grace. Luther rejected the Roman Catholic use of it, but not the biblical use of it. That is to say, that Holy Absolution was instituted by Christ (John 20), and delivers forgiveness of sins for those who have faith in the message of the gospel.

 

[ralphinal]

Holy Absolution is a means of grace. Luther rejected the Roman Catholic use of it, but not the biblical use of it. That is to say, that Holy Absolution was instituted by Christ (John 20), and delivers forgiveness of sins for those who have faith in the message of the gospel.

Are you saying that Luther did not include confession in his little catachism?

 

[Peter_J]

(I’m claiming to prove anything here; it just interesting that the KJV agrees with the Catholic interpretation of that verse.)

Oops. That should be “I’m not claiming to prove anything here”. (Insert emoticon with two red cheeks.)

 

[TriuneUnity]

Are you saying that Luther did not include confession in his little catachism?

Oh, he certainly did, and we still practice it today. (Not as much as we should!). The message contained in Absolution is the gospel undistilled. It is pure grace. Luther eventually moved away from it being a sacrament, but not because he disagreed with it but because it lacked a visible element.

It is, however, the means that God uses to justify His people.