Proof that sola scriptura is not true

[WayneTalbot]

The concept that one is saved by faith alone is well supported in multiple places in Scripture, I don’t think that you can place that one solely at the door of Martin Luther saying it was because he added a word.

No where in the scripture is the post 16th Century European Doctrine of Sola Fide found. No where. Absolutely no where. Not in The Holy Bible. Now, it may appear in post 16th Century “versions” of The Holy Bible, but only because those particular bibles were edited and modified to fit the needs of that particular sect.

I would disagree that “no where, absolutely no where” is the doctrine of Sola Fide, being saved by faith alone, to be found in pre-16th century scripture.
Can I ask, would you accept that the Catholic approved New Jerusalem Bible is one that you would trust as being not edited or modified to fit the needs of a particular sect?
If so, I offer these following passages; there are many more, but these should do as starters.

Ephesians 2:8-10
Because it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith; not by anything of your own, but by a gift from God; not by anything that you have done, so that nobody can claim the credit. We are God’s work of art, created in Christ Jesus for the good works which God has already designated to make up our way of life.

Key Words: By grace, through faith, not anything of your own, a gift from God, not anything you have done.

Romans 4:2-3
If Abraham had been justified because of what he had done, then he would have had something to boast about. But not before God: does not scripture say: Abraham put his faith in God and this was reckoned to him as uprightness?

Key Words: justified not by what he had done, put his faith in God.

Romans 4:6
David, too, says the same: he calls someone blessed if God attributes uprightness to that person, apart from any action undertaken:

Key Words: God attributes uprightness, apart from action undertaken.

Romans 5:1-2
So then, now that we have been justified by faith, we are at peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ; it is through him, by faith, that we have been admitted into God’s favour in which we are living, and look forward exultantly to God’s glory.

Key Words: justified by faith, through Him, by faith, we have been admitted into God’s favour.

The issue of “saved by faith alone” is not one resolved simply by looking for those words in Scripture. It largely comes down to an understanding of being justified, and whether it means “imparted righteousness” as the Catholic Church claims, or whether it is “imputed righteousness”, as believed by most non-Catholic Christians.
The difference is important: if imparted, then God makes us righteous. If imputed, then God declares us to be righteous. If imparted, then there is no assurance of salvation since God perhaps does not make us righteous immediately. If imputed, there is indeed assurance of salvation since the legal declaration of our righteousness is the divine statement about our status, not about our practice.
Romans 3:21-26 is our starting point, again quoting from the Catholic approved New Jerusalem Bible.
God’s saving justice was witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, but now it has been revealed altogether apart from law:
God’s saving justice given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe.
No distinction is made: all have sinned and lack God’s glory,
and all are justified by the free gift of his grace through being set free in Christ Jesus.
God appointed him as a sacrifice for reconciliation, through faith, by the shedding of his blood, and so showed his justness; first for the past, when sins went unpunished because he held his hand; and now again for the present age, to show how he is just and justifies everyone who has faith in Jesus.
Verse 26 says that everyone who has faith in Jesus is justified, the real issue is just what that means.

The doctrine of Sola Fide does have its basis in Scripture, including the version approved by the Catholic Church.

 

[WayneTalbot]

Comparison of the scripture that tells us that we are “not” saved by faith alone:

James 2:24​

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
You see that a man is justified by works
and not by faith alone.

… multiple references deleted to save space.

bible.cc/james/2-24.htm

Catholic apologists often quote James 2:24 to make this point, but can you quote any other passage that corroborates this interpretation?

Let us have a closer look at the context. James 2:14 says “How does it help, my brothers, when someone who has never done a single good act claims to have faith? Will that faith bring salvation?”. James then goes on to say in 2:15-17 “If one of the brothers or one of the sisters is in need of clothes and has not enough food to live on, and one of you says to them, ‘I wish you well; keep yourself warm and eat plenty,’ without giving them these bare necessities of life, then what good is that? In the same way faith, if good deeds do not go with it, is quite dead.”

This can reasonably be interpreted that James is talking about those who “claim to have faith” (direct quote), but whose actions show their faith to be “quite dead”. He is saying that faith without works will not gain you salvation, not because works are needed, but because true faith always evinces works, and without such works, your faith is dead and thus cannot save you.

This interpretation is supported by the fact that James type of reference occurs only once (no matter how many Bible versions you quote), but the reference to “faith alone” occurs multiple times, and is heavily stressed by Paul, often accpeted as the most knowledgeable of the disciples.

 

[anthony022071]

bringyou.to/apologetics/a21.htm

< FACT: 1 Timothy 3:15 calls the Church the “pillar and foundation of Truth.” Yet, Scripture alone is never called this; nor is Scripture ever considered authoritative when apart from the Church, which is guided by this same Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21 & 2:1-3).

So, now we’ve come full circle. In Matthew 23, Jesus proclaims that the scribes and Pharisees have the authority to teach and guide because they are the successors of Moses for the Jewish people; and that the Jews should “do and observe all the things whatsoever they tell you.”

One therefore must assume that this same authority was also possessed by those who held the “chair of Moses” before them – the ones who decided which Old Testament books were Divinely-inspired, etc.

So, it therefore follows that if the Jewish leaders who “held the chair of Moses” – leaders who didn’t even possess the Holy Spirit (as our bishops did and do) …If these Jewish leaders were Divinely-guided to define a canon of the Old Testament in c. 200 B.C. (the Septuagint), how much more so could the Catholic Christian bishops at Carthage in 397 A.D. count on the Spirit of Truth!

So, the Christian Bible is a product of the Church, not the other way round! And Scripture itself testifies to this, the same Scripture which testifies that Christian truth comes to us in two ways: through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (2 Thess 2:15).

Now, obviously, this Christian truth (aka, the Gospel) cannot be added to or subtracted from …but is confined to the Revelation we have from the Apostles. However, it is maintained, preserved, and continually defined and proclaimed correctly under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, Who will be with us always; and Who will prevent our appointed shepherds from leading the entire Church astray.

But, it is a mistake to view the Christian message as a simple written record preserved by human means and dependent on human intelligence. Rather, this Truth is something alive and dynamic, supported consistently and infallibly down through the ages upon its “pillar and foundation,” the Church. >

 

[WayneTalbot]

Where in The Holy Bible does it state that we are saved through “faith alone”?

Satan believes in Jesus, is he “saved”?

The proper translation is not “believe in”, but “believe on”, meaning to place one’s faith in. Satan believed in Jesus, because he knew He existed, but Satan did not believe on Jesus, because he rebelled against God and would not place his faith in God.

As you have correctly noted, changing just one word can entirely change the meaning.

James 2:

Faith Without Works Is Dead

14 What does it profit, my brethren,
if someone says he has faith but does not have works?
Can faith save him?

(And if “that’s” not enough for ya’, here’s the rest of the teaching):

15
If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food,

You seem to place no significance on verse 14:
James is not referring to faith, he is referring to those who “says he has faith” or “claim to have faith” (New Jerusalem Bible). This is a very different issue, and omitting the significance of verse 14 changes the context and interpretation.

For as the body without the spirit is dead,
so faith without works is dead also.

Precisely the point, faith without works cannot save you, because “faith without works is dead” and dead faith cannot save you. The passage does not say that faith cannot save you without works, it says that faith without works is dead, and it is the “dead faith” that cannot save you, not the absence of works.

 

[WayneTalbot]

Yes I did…“in” the post.

Romans 3:28

My apologies, I missed it.

 

[2ndGen]

The doctrine of Sola Fide does have its basis in Scripture, including the version approved by the Catholic Church.

Can I ask, would you accept that the Catholic approved New Jerusalem Bible is one that you would trust as being not edited or modified to fit the needs of a particular sect?

Yes.

If so, I offer these following passages; there are many more, but these should do as starters.

Ephesians 2:8-10
Because it is by grace that you have been saved, through faith; not by anything of your own, but by a gift from God; not by anything that you have done, so that nobody can claim the credit. We are God’s work of art, created in Christ Jesus for the good works which God has already designated to make up our way of life.

Sorry, but I fail to see where it states that one is saved by faith “alone”. It says that one’s works alone don’t save. Notice how it states that it is by grace through faith that one is saved. Therefore, faith without grace can’t save you. And that proves my point (and James’) that one needs faith AND grace to be saved.

Romans 4:2-3
If Abraham had been justified because of what he had done, then he would have had something to boast about. But not before God: does not scripture say: Abraham put his faith in God and this was reckoned to him as uprightness?

James clarifies that… 21Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

23And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.

24Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

 

[2ndGen]

Romans 4:6
David, too, says the same: he calls someone blessed if God attributes uprightness to that person, apart from any action undertaken:

Unfortunately, you only took a “fragment” of a verse and not the entire verse. Also, if we read the verses that come before and after this, we get an accurate portrayal of what Paul is saying:

5But to him that worketh not,
but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly,
his faith is counted for righteousness.

6Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

7Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven,
and whose sins are covered.

8Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

Verse 7 goes on to quote David from Psalms 32:1;

Verse 8 is speaking of God’s mercy (which is the theme of this particular passage), not of salvation.

Romans 5:1-2
So then, now that we have been justified by faith, we are at peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ; it is through him, by faith, that we have been admitted into God’s favour in which we are living, and look forward exultantly to God’s glory.

Nothing there about “faith alone” saving. Just faith bringing us into God’s “favor”. If you’re trying to imply that by being in God’s “favor” we are considered “saved”, then guess what…Mary was saved before Jesus was conceived in her as she was praised by Gabriel as the “favoured”.

Luke 1: 30
And the angel said unto her,
“Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.”

So, if we are to believe that being in God’s favour means that we are “saved”, then Mary was “saved” before Jesus’ conception!

The issue of “saved by faith alone” is not one resolved simply by looking for those words in Scripture.

Hmmm…does the same apply to The Immaculate Conception? The Sacraments of Confession? Etc…?

Romans 3:21-26 is our starting point, again quoting from the Catholic approved New Jerusalem Bible.

That’s fine. When I debate with Protestants, I use the King James Version!

The doctrine of Sola Fide does have its basis in Scripture, including the version approved by the Catholic Church.

Honestly, just about every verse and fragment of a verse that you used I corrected when I used them in the context of the passages that they were used.

When we take 1/2 a sentence and try to use that as a contributing element for a belief, how can that be considered honest?

I can use the devil’s quotes to prove that Jesus failed if I creatively left out 1/2 of his sentences too.

I’m a firm believer in quoting passages,
not verses and definately not fragments of verses.

That way, one is starting the exchange from solid ground and not from the edge of a cliff.

When one takes a fragment of a verse here and add it onto another verse from a completely different book, one could create any doctrine or belief that one wants to.

Kind of like what Martin Luther did when he added the word “alone” to the word “faith” to create a new term never used in the discussion of salvation. It wasn’t a doctrine revealed, it was created.

 

[WayneTalbot]

You will like me to school you on “negation of quantifiers” to clarify??

No, I would just like you to respond to my plain language interpretation.

Let us make sure we understand each other…you asked “All God breathed things are insufficient – what is included here?” I answered, “what ever you believe to be God Breathed”.

Let me know if we are on the same page so far.

Still not.
If the syllogism is founded on the truth or otherwise of the Major Premise, then it seems reasonable to me that we should at least have a common understanding of its meaning.
If it means “whatever I believe” to me, and “whatever you believe” to you, how can we agree on whether or not it is true?

 

[2ndGen]

Catholic apologists often quote James 2:24 to make this point, but can you quote any other passage that corroborates this interpretation?

Let us have a closer look at the context. James 2:14 says “How does it help, my brothers, when someone who has never done a single good act claims to have faith? Will that faith bring salvation?”. James then goes on to say in 2:15-17 “If one of the brothers or one of the sisters is in need of clothes and has not enough food to live on, and one of you says to them, ‘I wish you well; keep yourself warm and eat plenty,’ without giving them these bare necessities of life, then what good is that? In the same way faith, if good deeds do not go with it, is quite dead.”

This can reasonably be interpreted that James is talking about those who “claim to have faith” (direct quote), but whose actions show their faith to be “quite dead”. He is saying that faith without works will not gain you salvation, not because works are needed, but because true faith always evinces works, and without such works, your faith is dead and thus cannot save you.

This interpretation is supported by the fact that James type of reference occurs only once (no matter how many Bible versions you quote), but the reference to “faith alone” occurs multiple times, and is heavily stressed by Paul, often accpeted as the most knowledgeable of the disciples.

One scripture that is true that proves my point should be enough. Not only that, I quoted an entire passage.

 

[2ndGen]

This interpretation is supported by the fact that James type of reference occurs only once (no matter how many Bible versions you quote), but the reference to “faith alone” occurs multiple times, and is heavily stressed by Paul, often accpeted as the most knowledgeable of the disciples.

You would’ve done much better to quote the scriptures that state that the term faith alone is used. The only time that it’s used is when it’s stated that faith alone “doesn’t” save.

But, if what you’re saying is true, I’m sure you’ll have the verses for me.

 

[jcrichton]

So, in passing, what are we to make of Ananias’ role in the teaching of Paul? Note that this is not essential to our discussion, but it does show how meaning is often “read into” Scripture, rather than derived from it. Only God is specifically mentioned in relation to Paul’s instruction, though Ananias and the other disciples can be theorised. Would just a few days of human instruction have been sufficient for Paul to have begun preaching, or would it have required Divine revelation for him to have acquired the considerable knowledge he demonstrates in such a short period of time?

***Hi, WayneTalbot!

I am having a similar dialogue on the issue of Paul’s transformation… you touch on the human aspect (knowledge), but have you considered the spiritual aspect as well? Paul did not simply just preached Jesus as the Son of God; he made a complete turnabout… those who first heard of him were amazed that the one who persecuted the Way (Church) just a few days before was now professing, with conviction, the Gospel of Chirst.

Spirituality cannot be taught! Faith cannot be taught!

---

This surely refutes the notion that Paul “only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop”.

***Sounds convincing… but were the Apostles defining themselves as Bishops and Priests at that time or did that definition came later?

---

For a Catholic apologist to offer this as “a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles” is simply absurd.

Again, as I said earlier, this does not disprove the case for ordination, but it does demonstrate that the Church (whatever its definition in this context) is capable of grave error in the interpretation of Scripture.

---

So are you saying that since Jesus was no longer in the physical realm of Paul and Ananias He was incapable of restoring Saul’s sight? Is it, perhaps, that you think that Jesus sent Saul to Ananias because there was no water around so that Saul could wash away the scales from his eyes?

Could it not be your interpretation that is absurd? Could it not be that you are in grave error, seeking, as the Pharisees, the legalism of the letter of the Law and rejecting Christ, God Himself?

Could you not interpret this particular portion of the passage as Jesus requiring Saul to become a member of His Body by soliciting the services of a Bishop (if that is the function of Ananias at that particular time) who welcomes him into the fold of the Church and thusly making his membership visible and authoritative? Did you missed the part of humble obedience to Christ’s command?

Please remember that it is the Early Church, that Jesus did not leave an unabridged “Manual of Christ’s Church” with the Apostles, and that the Holy Spirit enlightened those chosen to serve the Church and revealed what was needed for the Church to function as the Church developed.

Marn atha!

Angel***

 

[2ndGen]

My apologies, I missed it.

No worries mate!

 

[anthony022071]

Precisely the point, faith without works cannot save you, because “faith without works is dead” and dead faith cannot save you. The passage does not say that faith cannot save you without works, it says that faith without works is dead, and it is the “dead faith” that cannot save you, not the absence of works.

And what,according to James,makes for a dead faith? A faith which lacks works! And a dead faith,a faith without works,is the kind of faith that protestants advocate. Unless people understand that they must practice works of charity and mercy to back up their faith,because it is God’s will and command,they will not likely do so.

 

[2ndGen]

.

Satan believes in Jesus, is he “saved”?

The proper translation is not “believe in”, but “believe on”, meaning to place one’s faith in.

With all due respect, is this a Protestant teaching?

Satan believed in Jesus, because he knew He existed, but Satan did not believe on Jesus, because he rebelled against God and would not place his faith in God.

You don’t think that Satan knew that Jesus was The Messiah? That He was The Son of God? Don’t “believers” rebel against God also?

As you have correctly noted, changing just one word can entirely change the meaning.

James 2:
14 What does it profit, my brethren,
if someone says he has faith but does not have works?
Can faith save him?

You seem to place no significance on verse 14:
James is not referring to faith, he is referring to those who “says he has faith” or “claim to have faith” (New Jerusalem Bible). This is a very different issue, and omitting the significance of verse 14 changes the context and interpretation.

You seem to fail to see that I offered up the rest of the passages in support of verse 14. He also goes on to say “Can faith save him?” illustrating that this person did in fact have faith, but that wasn’t enough. He didn’t say “Can his profession of faith save him?” No…he clearly confirmed that this person who claimed to have faith proved that he didn’t because he had no works as we would go on to see in verse 15…here he goes on to explain how the person who professes to have faith, proves that he has faith…by his works.

Again, I dont’ take one verse and give it a unique meaning, then give the next verse another unique meaning, then take the verse after that one and give it it’s own unique meaning. The verses are to be taken altogether and used in that sense.

Quote:
For as the body without the spirit is dead,
so faith without works is dead also.

Precisely the point, faith without works cannot save you,

Then faith alone cannot save you either right? One needs works, plus grace AND faith.

Ergo, “Sola Fide” doesn’t exist.

:clapping:

 

[WayneTalbot]

Romans 4:6
David, too, says the same: he calls someone blessed if God attributes uprightness to that person, apart from any action undertaken:

Unfortunately, you only took a “fragment” of a verse and not the entire verse. Also, if we read the verses that come before and after this, we get an accurate portrayal of what Paul is saying:

5But to him that worketh not,
but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly,
his faith is counted for righteousness.

I did omit that verse, but meant nothing by it, but now that you offer it, what do you think this means? I’ll use the New Jesualem Bible if you don’t mind, the text is clearer (to me at least).

"If Abraham had been justified because of what he had done, then he would have had something to boast about. But not before God: does not scripture say: Abraham put his faith in God and this was reckoned to him as uprightness? Now, when someone works, the wages for this are not considered as a favour but as due; however, when someone, without working, puts faith in the one who justifies the godless, it is this faith that is reckoned as uprightness. "

The opening lines to me mean, Abraham could boast about his works, but not before God, therefore he was not justified by what he had done. I don’t get 4:5, do you know what it means?

Romans 5:1-2
So then, now that we have been justified by faith, we are at peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ; it is through him, by faith, that we have been admitted into God’s favour in which we are living, and look forward exultantly to God’s glory.

Nothing there about “faith alone” saving.

“Justified by faith” - what do you understand “justified” to mean, and how does that fit in with salvation?

Luke 1: 30
And the angel said unto her,
“Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God.”

So, if we are to believe that being in God’s favour means that we are “saved”, then Mary was “saved” before Jesus’ conception!

True, but no-one I know equates “found favour” with justified. Romans quoted above says “justified by faith”, it says nothing about “justified by finding favour”.

The issue of “saved by faith alone” is not one resolved simply by looking for those words in Scripture.

Hmmm…does the same apply to The Immaculate Conception? The Sacraments of Confession? Etc…?

Absolutely, agree entirely, but the issue is not simply whether it is found in Scripture, but whether it corroborates or contradicts Scripture, and if it comes from Tradition, showing the provenance.

Romans 3:21-26 is our starting point, again quoting from the Catholic approved New Jerusalem Bible.

That’s fine. When I debate with Protestants, I use the King James Version!

The doctrine of Sola Fide does have its basis in Scripture, including the version approved by the Catholic Church.

Honestly, just about every verse and fragment of a verse that you used I corrected when I used them in the context of the passages that they were used.

When we take 1/2 a sentence and try to use that as a contributing element for a belief, how can that be considered honest?

I can use the devil’s quotes to prove that Jesus failed if I creatively left out 1/2 of his sentences too.

I’m a firm believer in quoting passages,
not verses and definately not fragments of verses.

That way, one is starting the exchange from solid ground and not from the edge of a cliff.

When one takes a fragment of a verse here and add it onto another verse from a completely different book, one could create any doctrine or belief that one wants to.

Kind of like what Martin Luther did when he added the word “alone” to the word “faith” to create a new term never used in the discussion of salvation. It wasn’t a doctrine revealed, it was created.

I concur in general, but I don’t understand the specifics of what you are saying. Which verse have I truncated? I will untruncate (is that a word?) and show that I have not changed the meaning.

 

[Romulus]

If the syllogism is founded on the truth or otherwise of the Major Premise, then it seems reasonable to me that we should at least have a common understanding of its meaning.
If it means “whatever I believe” to me, and “whatever you believe” to you, how can we agree on whether or not it is true?

We’ll compare afterwards…with my meaning then yours…maybe we’ll agree…maybe we will not…we shall see.

 

[WayneTalbot]

Quote:
For as the body without the spirit is dead,
so faith without works is dead also.

Precisely the point, faith without works cannot save you,

Then faith alone cannot save you either right? One needs works, plus grace AND faith.

Ergo, “Sola Fide” doesn’t exist.

:clapping:

No, faith alone can save you.
Works are a product of faith, but it is the faith that saves.
Faith without works is dead, and dead faith cannot save you.
Faith is through grace, just as Scripture says.
First grace, then faith.

 

[2ndGen]

I did omit that verse, but meant nothing by it, but now that you offer it, what do you think this means? I’ll use the New Jesualem Bible if you don’t mind, the text is clearer (to me at least).

"If Abraham had been justified because of what he had done, then he would have had something to boast about. But not before God: does not scripture say: Abraham put his faith in God and this was reckoned to him as uprightness? Now, when someone works, the wages for this are not considered as a favour but as due; however, when someone, without working, puts faith in the one who justifies the godless, it is this faith that is reckoned as uprightness. "

The opening lines to me mean, Abraham could boast about his works, but not before God, therefore he was not justified by what he had done. I don’t get 4:5, do you know what it means?

And I say this respectfully, but the question you ask has already been addressed and stated clearly in James 2:24You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. Once again, this verse directly answers your question:
“a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.” Going elsewhere in scripture to disprove James 2: (the passage, not just verse 24) is literally fighting the scripture.

I accept James. All of it. I won’t allow post 16th Century Doctrines introduced by a dishonest person who changed words in the text of “his” own bible to change the meaning knowingly and brazingly affect what James teaches.

James truimphs Luther. James was an Apostle. Luther was an apostate ex-communicated Priest. I’ll place my bet on the one that Jesus chose personally.

“Justified by faith” - what do you understand “justified” to mean, and how does that fit in with salvation?

I’ll go to the root word for that definition which to me means that one (Biblically speaking) is qualified by God.

Absolutely, agree entirely, but the issue is not simply whether it is found in Scripture, but whether it corroborates or contradicts Scripture, and if it comes from Tradition, showing the provenance.

I live by this code. If my beliefs contradict scripture, then I bend my will to meet the scripture. If I dont’ understand it, I don’t work to bend the scripture to fit what I can accept. I’m the literal definition of a “Bible Believin’ Christian”.

Point blank, if James states that all the faith in the world without works is dead, then faith without works is dead…it’s nothing, and a dead faith doesn’t justify one with God because He is The God of the living, not the dead.

I concur in general, but I don’t understand the specifics of what you are saying. Which verse have I truncated? I will untruncate (is that a word?) and show that I have not changed the meaning

Your Romans quote that only used 1/2 of the complete verse.

 

[jcrichton]

IF YOU THINK THAT IT IS BEYOND THE ABILITY OR WILL OF MAN TO ADD OR DELETE OR ALTER WORDS FROM THE BIBLE, ALLOW ME TO SHOW YOU WHAT MARTIN LUTHER DID WHEN HE ADDED THE WORD “ALONE” TO ROMANS TO CREATE HIS DOCTRINE OF “SOLA FIDE”;

"Romans 3:28 states, “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law” (NKJV).

Martin Luther, in his German translation of the Bible, specifically added the word “allein” (English ‘alone’) to Romans 3:28-a word that is not in the original Greek.

Martin Luther reportedly said, “You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: ‘Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,’…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word ‘alone’ is not in the Latin or the Greek text”

(Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).

This passage strongly suggests that Martin Luther viewed his opinions, and not the actual Bible as the primary authority–a concept which this author will name prima Luther."

***Hi, 2ndGen!

This is a great bit of info… though I do tend to generalize… I’ve come across several non-Catholic Christians who seem to have memorized everything about Martin Luther but these bits of information–they are so miniscule, seemingly unimportant, but they convey the exact reflection of Luther’s reasoning: (my words) “I am what I am… I’m Luther the rewrite man!”

…still, for non-Catholic Christians to forgive his transgressions against insertion and omition of Sacred Writings (coincidentally there is Scriptural admonishion against such acts) says a lot about their capacity for forgiveness.

…I’ve mentioned in some of my post that I am not familiar with spiritual writings… are you aware of an internet site that would offer the excerpts you’ve quoted above?

Maran atha!

Angel***

 

[2ndGen]

No, faith alone can save you.

:“can” save you? “can” save you? Do I sense a little unsuredness there? It either does, or doesn’t (and Jesus says it doesn’t (scripture provided below)

Works are a product of faith, but it is the faith that saves.

Well, nobody ever claimed that works saved.

Faith without works is dead, and dead faith cannot save you.

You’ll note that I posted that as well…we concure.

Faith is through grace, just as Scripture says.
First grace, then faith.

You quoted it, the scripture states it, faith alone cannot save. You first need to have that grace before you can even have the faith. Can you have faith without grace? No. So, it is grace AND faith AND works that save. Not just “faith alone” as is incorrectly taught.