Martin Luther's CHARACTER?

[donnyblake]

Luther added “by faith ALONE” - look up Luther’s Open Letter on Translating online and read it. The one on the Wittenburg Project is from a Lutheran source. The Catholic Church sent word to Luther that what he had done in his translation of the book of Romans into German was not acceptable. In Romans 3:28 he ADDED THE WORD “ALONE”.

Luther wrote back and said, “You go back and tell your papist that a papist and an *** are the same thing.” He stated that NO, the word ALONE/ SOLA was not there and that YES, he had added it. He stated “I, Dr. Luther WILL IT, and my will is enough.” He went on to say that he was a Doctor above all the papal doctors and “my opinion is just as good as the Thomists.” (he hated Thomas Aquinas).

Ask yourself what would happen if a Catholic Pope added a doctrine on these grounds. Every Protestant in the world would know it and yell bloody murder and yet they follow a man who did this without even investigating it. How better can we spread this to the Protestant masses? Thanks.

 

[Calvinator]

Luther added “by faith ALONE” - look up Luther’s Open Letter on Translating online and read it. The one on the Wittenburg Project is from a Lutheran source. The Catholic Church sent word to Luther that what he had done in his translation of the book of Romans into German was not acceptable. In Romans 3:28 he ADDED THE WORD “ALONE”.

Luther wrote back and said, “You go back and tell your papist that a papist and an *** are the same thing.” He stated that NO, the word ALONE/ SOLA was not there and that YES, he had added it. He stated “I, Dr. Luther WILL IT, and my will is enough.” He went on to say that he was a Doctor above all the papal doctors and “my opinion is just as good as the Thomists.” (he hated Thomas Aquinas).

Ask yourself what would happen if a Catholic Pope added a doctrine on these grounds. Every Protestant in the world would know it and yell bloody murder and yet they follow a man who did this without even investigating it. How better can we spread this to the Protestant masses? Thanks.

Have you ever read what Luther had to say about this issue?

 

[rr1213]

Did you read the rest of what Luther said in that letter or just the excerpts that you quoted?

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Luther added “by faith ALONE” - look up Luther’s Open Letter on Translating online and read it. The one on the Wittenburg Project is from a Lutheran source. The Catholic Church sent word to Luther that what he had done in his translation of the book of Romans into German was not acceptable. In Romans 3:28 he ADDED THE WORD “ALONE”.

Luther wrote back and said, “You go back and tell your papist that a papist and an *** are the same thing.” He stated that NO, the word ALONE/ SOLA was not there and that YES, he had added it. He stated “I, Dr. Luther WILL IT, and my will is enough.” He went on to say that he was a Doctor above all the papal doctors and “my opinion is just as good as the Thomists.” (he hated Thomas Aquinas).

Luther was translating as best he could using colloqial german of the era, his translation of pistei was done using 4 words…

I personally would like you to share where it is these “Luther comments” your stating came from, no offense but for what reason should one take your word as truth on what Luther said

 

[donnyblake]

I posted my source quite clearly. What are your refutations or justifications to what Luther said? Please post sources too. We’ll be waiting. Thanks.

 

[HailMary]

Yes, Luther had that problem of changing things as old as the bible and the teachings of the Church and he invented this heresy of Sola Fide because he could not feel forgiveness after the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

 

[rr1213]

I posted my source quite clearly. What are your refutations or justifications to what Luther said? Please post sources too. We’ll be waiting. Thanks.

Well, then, you probably also read Luther’s explanation of his translation. In essence, it had to do with the proper rendering of the Latin and/or Greek into 16th Century German…and he had no confidence that the Catholic translators were capable of properly doing so. Luther wrote, and probably spoke, in a manner which we would consider to be very bombastic today but which was acceptable as a means of written advocacy in his time. This style, especially the common use of insults, is off-putting when we read it today, but it does not mean that Luther was without good reason to translate as he translated. Look below at some of his explanation from his letter which you did not quote:

   "I also know that in Rom. 3, the word "solum" is not present in
   either Greek or Latin text - the papists did not have to teach me
   that - it is fact!  The letters s-o-l-a are not there.  And these
   knotheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same
   time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text -
   if the  translation is to be clear and accurate, it belongs there.
   I wanted to speak German since it was German I had spoken in
   translation - not Latin or Greek.  But it is the nature of our
   language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed,
   the other denied, we use the word "solum" only along with the word
   "not" (nicht) or "no" (kein).  For example, we say "the farmer
   brings only (allein) grain and no money"; or "No, I really have no
   money, but only (allein) grain"; I have only eaten and not yet
   drunk"; "Did you write it only and not read it over?"  There are a
   vast number of such everyday cases.

   In all these phrases, this is a German usage, even though it is
   not the Latin or Greek usage.  It is the nature of the German
   tongue to add "allein" in order that "nicht" or "kein" may be
   clearer and more complete.  To be sure, I can also say "The farmer
   brings grain and no (kein) money, but the words "kein money" do
   not sound as full and clear as if I were to say, "the farmer
   brings allein grain and kein money."  Here the word "allein" helps
   the word "kein" so much that it becomes a clear and complete
   German expression.

   We do not have to ask about the literal Latin or how we are to
   speak German - as these asses do.  Rather we must ask the mother
   in the home, the children on the street, the common person in the
   market about this.  We must be guided by their tongue, the manner
   of their speech, and do our translating accordingly.  Then they
   will understand it and recognize that we are speaking German to
   them.

   For instance, Christ says: Ex abundatia cordis os loquitur. If I
   am to follow these asses, they will lay the original before me
   literally and translate it as: "Out of the abundance of the heart
   the mouth speaks."  Is that speaking with a German tongue? What
   German could understand something like that?  What is this
   "abundance of the heart?"  No German can say that; unless, of
   course, he was trying to say that someone was altogether too
   magnanimous, or too courageous, though even that would not yet be
   correct, as "abundance of the heart" is not German, not any more
   than "abundance of the house, "abundance of the stove" or
   "abundance of the bench" is German.  But the mother in the home
   and the common man say this: "What fills the heart overflows the
   mouth."  That is speaking with the proper German tongue of the
   kind I have tried for, although unfortunately not always
   successfully.  The literal Latin is a great barrier to speaking
   proper German."

iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-translate.txt

 

[donnyblake]

I think you just helped prove my case regarding Luther’s character, or lack thereof. Thanks and God Bless!

 

[rr1213]

I think you just helped prove my case regarding Luther’s character, or lack thereof. Thanks and God Bless!

I’ve done no such thing. As indicated by Luther, the reason he translated the passage as he did was to render it properly into 16th Century German. Luther may have been right or he may have been wrong as to the necessity to proceed in the manner he did. I don’t know because I don’t speak ancient Greek, Latin or 16th Century German, so I can’t properly judge. Do you speak those languages? I’ve given the explanation that Luther gave–which for some reason you omitted from your OP. You, on the other hand, have failed to offer any rejoinder to Luther’s explanation. Luther’s explanation does not call his character into question…it may call into question his abilities as a translator…that I don’t know.

 

[sandusky]

donnyblake:

Luther added “by faith ALONE” - look up Luther’s Open Letter on Translating online and read it. The one on the Wittenburg Project is from a Lutheran source. The Catholic Church sent word to Luther that what he had done in his translation of the book of Romans into German was not acceptable. In Romans 3:28 he ADDED THE WORD “ALONE”.

Luther wrote back and said, “You go back and tell your papist that a papist and an *** are the same thing.” He stated that NO, the word ALONE/ SOLA was not there and that YES, he had added it. He stated “I, Dr. Luther WILL IT, and my will is enough.” He went on to say that he was a Doctor above all the papal doctors and “my opinion is just as good as the Thomists.” (he hated Thomas Aquinas).

Ask yourself what would happen if a Catholic Pope added a doctrine on these grounds. Every Protestant in the world would know it and yell bloody murder and yet they follow a man who did this without even investigating it. How better can we spread this to the Protestant masses? Thanks.

Luther’s not the only one who added the word “alone.”

click here, and scroll down to point 4 for the others who did so as well.

 

[donnyblake]

Thanks for the further fuel for our fire:

Leaving aside the thorny theological issue of sola scriptura, we can agree on the following: a) Luther added the word “alone” to his translation of 3:28, and b) this word does NOT appear in the original text, as far as can be determined from the extant manuscripts.

That Luther chose to insert this word suggests that he is substituting HIS judgment for Paul’s. Luther says, as you reference, “The text itself, and Saint Paul’s meaning, urgently require and demand it.” If this was St. Paul’s meaning, why would he himself not have inserted the word “alone”??? It’s not as though Romans was an off-the-cuff sort of letter, and not filled with new ideas for Paul–it is the carefully crafted culmination of much sober reflection.

So, Luther dismissed Paul’s intent and yielded to his own??? In what way is this the action of a responsible theologian?

Riddle me that? God Bless!

 

[Nella]

Luther added “by faith ALONE” - look up Luther’s Open Letter on Translating online and read it. The one on the Wittenburg Project is from a Lutheran source. The Catholic Church sent word to Luther that what he had done in his translation of the book of Romans into German was not acceptable. In Romans 3:28 he ADDED THE WORD “ALONE”.

Luther wrote back and said, “You go back and tell your papist that a papist and an *** are the same thing.” He stated that NO, the word ALONE/ SOLA was not there and that YES, he had added it. He stated “I, Dr. Luther WILL IT, and my will is enough.” He went on to say that he was a Doctor above all the papal doctors and “my opinion is just as good as the Thomists.” (he hated Thomas Aquinas).

Ask yourself what would happen if a Catholic Pope added a doctrine on these grounds. Every Protestant in the world would know it and yell bloody murder and yet they follow a man who did this without even investigating it. How better can we spread this to the Protestant masses? Thanks.

This is grossly biased.

 

[Calvinator]

Thanks for the further fuel for our fire:

Leaving aside the thorny theological issue of sola scriptura, we can agree on the following: a) Luther added the word “alone” to his translation of 3:28, and b) this word does NOT appear in the original text, as far as can be determined from the extant manuscripts.

That Luther chose to insert this word suggests that he is substituting HIS judgment for Paul’s. Luther says, as you reference, “The text itself, and Saint Paul’s meaning, urgently require and demand it.” If this was St. Paul’s meaning, why would he himself not have inserted the word “alone”??? It’s not as though Romans was an off-the-cuff sort of letter, and not filled with new ideas for Paul–it is the carefully crafted culmination of much sober reflection.

So, Luther dismissed Paul’s intent and yielded to his own??? In what way is this the action of a responsible theologian?

Riddle me that? God Bless!

Didn’t Chrysostom and Augustin (as well as others) interpret the passage the same way in which Luther did?

 

[bengal_fan]

Luther’s not the only one who added the word “alone.”

click here, and scroll down to point 4 for the others who did so as well.

so it sounds as though his CHARACTER is to merely stand upon giants who have gone ahead of him. that is a wise approach.

 

[sandusky]

so it sounds as though his CHARACTER is to merely stand upon giants who have gone ahead of him. that is a wise approach.

It would seem so; it would also seem that “faith alone” is not such a recent novelty; wouldn’t
you agree?

 

[donnyblake]

Augustine said “live faith that WORKS through love”. Faith without works is DEAD.

 

[rr1213]

Thanks for the further fuel for our fire:

Leaving aside the thorny theological issue of sola scriptura, we can agree on the following: a) Luther added the word “alone” to his translation of 3:28, and b) this word does NOT appear in the original text, as far as can be determined from the extant manuscripts.

That Luther chose to insert this word suggests that he is substituting HIS judgment for Paul’s. Luther says, as you reference, “The text itself, and Saint Paul’s meaning, urgently require and demand it.” If this was St. Paul’s meaning, why would he himself not have inserted the word “alone”??? It’s not as though Romans was an off-the-cuff sort of letter, and not filled with new ideas for Paul–it is the carefully crafted culmination of much sober reflection.

So, Luther dismissed Paul’s intent and yielded to his own??? In what way is this the action of a responsible theologian?

Riddle me that? God Bless!

You’re missing the point. It is a question of translation, not theology. In actuality, the English words “faith” and “alone” are not in the the Greek, Latin or German text either, are they? A good translation from one language to another language is seldom a word-for-word literal rendering…which would essentially end up as garbage. Ever use Babblefish to translate Chinese or something on the internet into English? Try it, you’ll see my point. Whether Luther was a good translator or not is a different question…and one that I am not competent to answer since I do not speak 16th Century German, let along ancient Greek or Latin.

 

[bengal_fan]

Augustine said “live faith that WORKS through love”. Faith without works is DEAD.

actually James says that and Augustine is merely quoting. the point is that faith results in works… not the two hand in hand together. if we have faith, there WILL BE works, but works in and of themselves do nothing for us. faith, in and of itself, is an impossibility… that is the point. you cannot have faith without works.

 

[sandusky]

donnyblake:

So, Luther dismissed Paul’s intent and yielded to his own??? In what way is this the action of a responsible theologian?

Riddle me that? God Bless!

It seems you didn’t read my link, so I’ll post it:

The Roman Catholic writer Joseph A. Fitzmyer points out that Luther was not the only one to translate Romans 3:28 with the word “alone.”

At 3:28 Luther introduced the adv. “only” into his translation of Romans (1522), “alleyn durch den Glauben” (WAusg 7.38); cf. Aus der Bibel 1546, “alleine durch den Glauben” (WAusg, DB 7.39); also 7.3-27 (Pref. to the Epistle). See further his Sendbrief vom Dolmetschen, of 8 Sept. 1530 (WAusg 30.2 [1909], 627-49; “On Translating: An Open Letter” [LuthW 35.175-202]). Although “alleyn/alleine” finds no corresponding adverb in the Greek text, two of the points that Luther made in his defense of the added adverb were that it was demanded by the context and that sola was used in the theological tradition before him.

Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):

Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).

Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).

Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).

Ambrosiaster, In Ep. ad Romanos 3.24 (CSEL 81.1.119): “sola fide justificati sunt dono Dei,” through faith alone they have been justified by a gift of God; 4.5 (CSEL 81.1.130).

John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).

Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).

Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.

Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).

To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):

Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).

Thomas Aquinas, Expositio in Ep. I ad Timotheum cap. 1, lect. 3 (Parma ed., 13.588): “Non est ergo in eis [moralibus et caeremonialibus legis] spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide, Rom. 3:28: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem, sine operibus legis” (Therefore the hope of justification is not found in them [the moral and ceremonial requirements of the law], but in faith alone, Rom 3:28: We consider a human being to be justified by faith, without the works of the law). Cf. In ep. ad Romanos 4.1 (Parma ed., 13.42a): “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b): “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).

See further:

Theodore of Mopsuestia, In ep. ad Galatas (ed. H. B. Swete), 1.31.15.

Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).

Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”). Migne Latin Text: Venire quippe debet etiam illud in mentem, quod scriptum est, In hoc cognoscimus eum, si mandata ejus servemus. Qui dicit, Quia cognovi eum, et mandata ejus non servat, mendax est, et in hoc veritas non est (I Joan. II, 3, 4). Et ne quisquam existimet mandata ejus ad solam fidem pertinere: quanquam dicere hoc nullus est ausus, praesertim quia mandata dixit, quae ne multitudine cogitationem spargerent [Note: [Col. 0223] Sic Mss. Editi vero, cogitationes parerent.], In illis duobus tota Lex pendet et Prophetae (Matth. XXII, 40): licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere Dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intelligatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur; tamen postea Joannes ipse aperuit quid diceret, cum ait: Hoc est mandatum ejus, ut credamus nomini Filii ejus Jesu Christi, et diligamns invicem (I Joan. III, 23) See De fide et operibus, Cap. XXII, §40, PL 40:223.

Source: Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361.

 

[Nella]

It seems you didn’t read my link, so I’ll post it:

Luther was absolutely correct. Romans 3:28 implicates by faith alone. We are saved by grace through faith. Not faith and works. When a car engine is running, there is always a fuel source (usually gasoline) and a by-product (usually carbon monoxide). This could be misconstrued to someone who does not understand the combustion process as there needing to be gasoline and carbon monoxide for combustion to initiate. But to those that realize the process, you need gasoline for combustion but in this case you will also have carbon monoxide as a result. Same with salvation. To be saved, you will always have to have faith and living in faith in the way Christ taught it will always also have works. The faith saves and the works show pr prove the proper faith.