Protestant interpretations...

[plain_me]

Oh, also, in case you didn’t notice, I didn’t dispute any penning. But thanks for the extra tid bits.

Poor choice of word. I’m sorry. I was saying that the evidence points to the fact that Mark was written (penned) in Greek.

 

[Jason_1977]

A welcome contribution, thanks!

I also noticed the lack of response to this by Jason. I probably wouldn’t have taken note if he hadn’t pointed out a lack of response to his former post. So, what say ye, Jason?

The great reformer Martin Luther…never felt good about the Epistle of James…Luther went to far when he put James in the appendix to the New Testament.

(Radmacher E.D. general editor. The Nelson Study Bible. Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, 1997, p. 2107)

HERE IT IS AGAIN…

 

[plain_me]

Also Plain, I wasn’t broad brushing, I didnt say protestants, I said fundamentals…that’s a specific group of protestants. I knew what I meant. And Yes, fundamentals are 99.9999% sola scriptura. Are you arguing for the sake of arguing? (Are you a teenager? I have to know, because it’s beginning to feel like it.)

I just spent 2 1/2 years in a Fundamentalist Bible College. I guess as long as you know what you mean then we should be satisfied? You seemed to be speaking to the protestants on the board as if they fit into your category of a Fundamentalist. Sorry for the miscommunication.

And I was born in 1978, but I sure wish I knew then what I know now! “Then” as in when I was a teenager. Should I feel insulted? Maybe flattered?

 

[Jason_1977]

I just spent 2 1/2 years in a Fundamentalist Bible College. I guess as long as you know what you mean then we should be satisfied? You seemed to be speaking to the protestants on the board as if they fit into your category of a Fundamentalist. Sorry for the miscommunication.

And I was born in 1978, but I sure wish I knew then what I know now! “Then” as in when I was a teenager. Should I feel insulted? Maybe flattered?

Luther wanted to remove the Epistle of James, Esther, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation.

Calvin and Zwingli also both had problems with the Book of Revelation, the former calling it “unintelligible” and forbidding the pastors in Geneva to interpret it, the latter calling it “unbiblical”.

Many non-Catholic Christians like to accuse Catholics of “adding” Books to the Bible at the 16th c. Council of Trent. This is absolutely, 100% false. This Council, among other things, simply affirmed the ancient accepted books in the face of Protestant tinkering. How could Luther have relegated the deuterocanonical books to an appendix if they hadn’t already been accepted in the first place? The Gutenberg Bible was printed in 1454 – and it included the deuterocanonical Books. How could the Church have “added” them at the Council of Trent that began 91 years later? Most Protestant Bibles included the deuterocanonical Books until about 1815, when the British and Foreign Bible Society discontinued the practice! And note that Jews in other parts of the world who weren’t around to hear the Council of Jamnia’s decision in A.D. 100 include to this day those “extra” 7 books in their canon.

The Orthodox Russian and other branches of the Eastern Orthodox Church have a New Testament identical with the Catholic. In Syria the Nestorians possess a Canon almost identical with the final one of the ancient East Syrians; they exclude the four smaller Catholic Epistles and Apocalypse. The Monophysites receive all the book. The Armenians have one apocryphal letter to the Corinthians and two from the same. The Coptic-Arabic Church include with the canonical Scriptures the Apostolic Constitutions and the Clementine Epistles. The Ethiopic New Testament also contains the so-called “Apostolic Constitutions”.

As for Protestantism, the Anglicans and Calvinists always kept the entire New Testament But for over a century the followers of Luther excluded Hebrews, James, Jude, and Apocalypse, and even went further than their master by rejecting the three remaining deuterocanonicals, II Peter, II and III John. The trend of the seventeenth century Lutheran theologians was to class all these writings as of doubtful, or at least inferior, authority. But gradually the German Protestants familiarized themselves with the idea that the difference between the contested books of the New Testament and the rest was one of degree of certainty as to origin rather than of instrinsic character. The full recognition of these books by the Calvinists and Anglicans made it much more difficult for the Lutherans to exclude the New Testament deuteros than those of the Old. One of their writers of the seventeenth century allowed only a theoretic difference between the two classes, and in 1700 Bossuet could say that all Catholics and Protestants agreed on the New Testament canon. The only trace of opposition now remaining in German Protestant Bibles is in the order, Hebrews, coming with James, Jude, and Apocalypse at the end; the first not being included with the Pauline writings, while James and Jude are not ranked with the Catholic Epistles.

 

[plain_me]

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The Word was set before the foundation of the world. The Word became flesh and dwelt among men.

This is the single mosst important issue I see with a majority of Catholics, including the ones in my family; they do not know Scripture. They read it on occasion but because they have been told and conditioned in my opinion, that they cannot or maybe do not need to interpret because they can only know from the Church which is correct rather than the Holy Spirit, which is what Scripture teaches. There is nowhere in Scripture that says a church interprets scipture, but there it does say the Holy Spirit will lead and guide one individual to the truth concerning the things of God.

Though I can’t remember the citation, I’m pretty certain that the RCC teaches that the Holy Spirit was given to the authoritative church in order to leas and guide the individuals. This may help in understanding the mindset. Is this correct, Jason?

 

[plain_me]

my point? Read the text, you’re a smart guy, you were just having a 2TIM conversation but I know what’s 2 pages over from that text you were citing.

Also, here ya go…

Martin Luther Taught Certain Books of the Bible Were Questionable
Martin Luther had different views of various books of the Bible. Specifically, he had a fairly low view of the Books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation.

The Catholic Encyclopedia claims:

As for Protestantism, the Anglicans and Calvinists always kept the entire New Testament But for over a century the followers of Luther excluded Hebrews, James, Jude, and Apocalypse (Reid, George J. Transcribed by Ernie Stefanik Canon of the New Testament. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume III Copyright © 1908 by Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat, November 1, 1908. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York).

Martin Luther himself was the obvious reason why, as he wrote,

Up to this point we have had the true and certain chief books of the New Testament. The four which follow have from ancient times had a different reputation. In the first place, the fact that Hebrews is not an epistle of St. Paul, or of any other apostle (Luther, M. Prefaces to the Epistle of the Hebrews, 1546).

Regarding the New Testament Book of Hebrews Martin Luther stated,

It need not surprise one to find here bits of wood, hay, and straw (O’Hare, p. 203).

He also wrote,

St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw…for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it" (Luther, M. Preface to the New Testament, 1546).

and

In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works…Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching (Luther, M. Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, 1546).

Interestingly the Epistle of James is the only place in the Bible to actually use the term ‘faith alone’:

You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone (James 2:24).

One would have to assume that the fact that James 2:24 contradicted Martin Luther’s sola fide teaching would have been a major reason that he discounted this book of the Bible.

Protestant scholars have recognized that Martin Luther handled James poorly as they have written:

The great reformer Martin Luther…never felt good about the Epistle of James…Luther went to far when he put James in the appendix to the New Testament.

(Radmacher E.D. general editor. The Nelson Study Bible. Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, 1997, p. 2107)

Martin Luther taught,

Concerning the epistle of St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy of St. Peter’s second epistle…Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of faith (Luther, M. Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, 1546).

To me, Jude does not sound that similar to 2 Peter, but if even it is, should it be discounted? Maybe Martin Luther discounted it because it warns people:

…to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3).

And this, sadly, is not something that Martin Luther really did (though he did sometimes make some efforts towards that).

Perhaps none of Martin Luther’s writings on the Bible are as harsh as what he wrote about “The Revelation of Jesus Christ” (Revelation 1:1). Specifically he wrote,

About this book of the Revelation of John…I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic…I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it. Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly-indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important-and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep…My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it" (Luther, M. Preface to the Revelation of St. John, 1522).

Another reason Martin Luther may not have been able to accommodate this Revelation of Jesus Christ is because he clearly violated this warning,

For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book (Revelation 22:18-19).

Martin Luther took away from this book through his comments about it, and this is the same Martin Luther who (as shown previously in this article) added words to the Bible that were not there.

Like I said, Luther had some issues with James, but I have never seen any proof that he actually left it out of or even attempted to leave it out of his German translation. I’ve heard others say he did, but I’ve never seen any real evidence. It seems to me to be hearsay. And I also realized that arguing for or against Luther is a rabbit trail that doesn’t pertain to the original topic.

I will say that if the quotations from Luther are accurate (and they certainly do sound like his tone) then I would strongly disagree with some of them. Especially the one about not being able to see or know Christ in Revelation. But I can do that since he’s not authoritative for me.

 

[Jason_1977]

Though I can’t remember the citation, I’m pretty certain that the RCC teaches that the Holy Spirit was given to the authoritative church in order to leas and guide the individuals. This may help in understanding the mindset. Is this correct, Jason?

CATECHISM #76:

“In keeping with the Lord’s Command, the Gospel was handed on in 2 ways:
-Orally By the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the holy spirit. - In writing, by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same holy spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing.”…(continued in apostolic succession…)

 

[plain_me]

I’ll make it easy for you. I can even cite the statement that Martin Luther DID place the book of James in an appendix thereby removing it from the bible & just schlepping it in the back of the book.

The great reformer Martin Luther…never felt good about the Epistle of James…Luther went to far when he put James in the appendix to the New Testament.

(Radmacher E.D. general editor. The Nelson Study Bible. Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, 1997, p. 2107)

I want to pass over this, but I’d like to encourage you not to go on hearsay. Where’s the citation? Is there a footnote citation?

With that, I lay Luther to rest…

 

[Jason_1977]

Like I said, Luther had some issues with James, but I have never seen any proof that he actually left it out of or even attempted to leave it out of his German translation. I’ve heard others say he did, but I’ve never seen any real evidence. It seems to me to be hearsay. And I also realized that arguing for or against Luther is a rabbit trail that doesn’t pertain to the original topic.

I will say that if the quotations from Luther are accurate (and they certainly do sound like his tone) then I would strongly disagree with some of them. Especially the one about not being able to see or know Christ in Revelation. But I can do that since he’s not authoritative for me.

Now for someone who humbled himself by admitting that he took the ‘Word of GOD’ from the Catholic Church, he still proceeded to ‘modify’ it without having any authority to do so.
Luther is the one who, on his own ‘authority’, removed 7 books from their rightful place in the Old Testament, and placed them in an appendix. They had references in them which did not agree with ‘his’ teaching, mainly 2 Maccabees and Purgatory. He also wanted to remove the last four books of the New Testament, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation, and he succeeded in removing them from their rightful place and put them into an additional unnumbered appendix.
Here is a quote from a Lutheran scholar:
Heinrich Bornkamm’s LUTHER AND THE OLD TESTAMENT, Trans. by Eric W. and Ruth C. Gritsch. Edited by Victor I Gruhn. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969. page 189:
“He did not make his distaste evident through his arrangement for printing, although he characterized the last four writings of the New Testament (Hebrews, James, Jude, Revelation) as inferior by not numbering them in the Table of Contents, just as the Old Testament Apocrypha, and by separating them from the main writings of the New Testament by a clear space.(394)”
The footnote, number 394, reads as follows: “394 From the New Testament of September, 1522, to the last edition of the Bible in 1546…”
So what do we know? Luther included the four books, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation, in his NT, but only in an unpaginated appendix, clearly separated from the rest of the NT. We know that this continued from the first printing of Luther’s NT until he died in 1546, and then his Bible was reconfigured by his followers.

 

[plain_me]

Luther wanted to remove the Epistle of James, Esther, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation.

Calvin and Zwingli also both had problems with the Book of Revelation, the former calling it “unintelligible” and forbidding the pastors in Geneva to interpret it, the latter calling it “unbiblical”.

Many non-Catholic Christians like to accuse Catholics of “adding” Books to the Bible at the 16th c. Council of Trent. This is absolutely, 100% false. This Council, among other things, simply affirmed the ancient accepted books in the face of Protestant tinkering. How could Luther have relegated the deuterocanonical books to an appendix if they hadn’t already been accepted in the first place? The Gutenberg Bible was printed in 1454 – and it included the deuterocanonical Books. How could the Church have “added” them at the Council of Trent that began 91 years later? Most Protestant Bibles included the deuterocanonical Books until about 1815, when the British and Foreign Bible Society discontinued the practice! And note that Jews in other parts of the world who weren’t around to hear the Council of Jamnia’s decision in A.D. 100 include to this day those “extra” 7 books in their canon.

The Orthodox Russian and other branches of the Eastern Orthodox Church have a New Testament identical with the Catholic. In Syria the Nestorians possess a Canon almost identical with the final one of the ancient East Syrians; they exclude the four smaller Catholic Epistles and Apocalypse. The Monophysites receive all the book. The Armenians have one apocryphal letter to the Corinthians and two from the same. The Coptic-Arabic Church include with the canonical Scriptures the Apostolic Constitutions and the Clementine Epistles. The Ethiopic New Testament also contains the so-called “Apostolic Constitutions”.

As for Protestantism, the Anglicans and Calvinists always kept the entire New Testament But for over a century the followers of Luther excluded Hebrews, James, Jude, and Apocalypse, and even went further than their master by rejecting the three remaining deuterocanonicals, II Peter, II and III John. The trend of the seventeenth century Lutheran theologians was to class all these writings as of doubtful, or at least inferior, authority. But gradually the German Protestants familiarized themselves with the idea that the difference between the contested books of the New Testament and the rest was one of degree of certainty as to origin rather than of instrinsic character. The full recognition of these books by the Calvinists and Anglicans made it much more difficult for the Lutherans to exclude the New Testament deuteros than those of the Old. One of their writers of the seventeenth century allowed only a theoretic difference between the two classes, and in 1700 Bossuet could say that all Catholics and Protestants agreed on the New Testament canon. The only trace of opposition now remaining in German Protestant Bibles is in the order, Hebrews, coming with James, Jude, and Apocalypse at the end; the first not being included with the Pauline writings, while James and Jude are not ranked with the Catholic Epistles.

Wow, dude! I haven’t even read this post (except for the first couple sentences) and I know that you need to get back on topic. You’ve ignored my questions in favor of running down this back alley. I don’t put any stock in Luther. I was merely attempting to protect his name from slander. If Luther did what you say he did it doesn’t effect me one whit. Move on. I’m sorry I released the dragon.

 

[Jason_1977]

Martin Luther removed seven books from the Old Testament. He did take away from the Words of GOD.
The entire books which he alone removed from their rightful place in Holy Scripture and placed in an appendix are, Baruch, Judith, Tobit, Wisdom, Sirach, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. Later, these books were removed entirely from Protestant bibles. As recounted above, he did the same with four books of the New Testament. These books had been in all Bibles for over 1100 years. Who had the authority to remove them? Did Martin Luther? Did any other single person?

 

[Jason_1977]

Martin Luther removed seven books from the Old Testament. He did take away from the Words of GOD.
The entire books which he alone removed from their rightful place in Holy Scripture and placed in an appendix are, Baruch, Judith, Tobit, Wisdom, Sirach, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. Later, these books were removed entirely from Protestant bibles. As recounted above, he did the same with four books of the New Testament. These books had been in all Bibles for over 1100 years. Who had the authority to remove them? Did Martin Luther? Did any other single person?

here is a list telling you the omitted verses…

LUKE 22:70​

K.J.V Then they said, "Are you the son of God? He said unto them, “You
said that I am.”
N.I.V They all asked, "Are you the son of God? He said, “You are right
in saying I am.”
L.B.V They all shouted “Then you claim you are the son of God. And He
replied YES I AM.”

DUET. 23:2​

K.J.V A BASTARD shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.
N.I.V No one born of a forbidden marriage may enter the assembly of the
Lord.
G.N.B No one born out of wedlock may be included among the Lord’s people.

HEBREW 12:8​

K.J.V Then you are BASTARDS, and not sons.
R.S.V Then you are illegitimate children and not sons.
G.N.B It means you are not real sons, but BASTARDS.
L.B.V It means that you are not God’s son at all.

JOB 13:15​

K.J.V Though he slay me yet I trust him.
R.S.V He will slay me, I have no hope.
G.N.B I’ve lost all hope so what if God kills me.
L.B.V God may kill me for saying this-in fact, I expect him to.

PSALMS 2:7​

K.J.V David said, "God said to me: You are my son, this day I have begotten
you.
N.I.V David said, "God said to me: You are my son today I have become your
father.
(The N.I.V revisers analyzed that the word begotten should not be attributed to
both David, and Jesus, while Jesus should be the only begotten son of God as
John 3:16 proclaims. Yet by this modification of this verse -as well as others-
they attract the attention of the people how the false pen of the SCRIBES
change the word of God as Jeremiah 8:8 proclaimed.)

LEVITICUS 15:20​

K.J.V And everything that she lies upon in her separation shall be unclean.
R.S.V And everything upon which she lies in her impurity shall be unclean.
L.B.V Anything she lies on sits on during that time shall be defiled.

BETWEEN ACTS 9:3 AND ACTS 22:9​

K.J.V They saw the light, but they heard not the voice.
N.I.V They saw the light, but they did not understand the voice.

(The reason behind the change in this verse is because of the contradiction
between Act. 9:3 and Act. 22:9 which they attempted to cover. We find that
modification in the N.I.V.)

ANOTHER ADDITION IN G.N.B.​

G.N.B The women went to Peter and his friends, and gave a brief account
of all they had been told.
R.S.V Does not exist
N.I.V Does not exist
K.J.V Does not exist

CHANGING RED INK TO BLACK​

JOHN 17:12​

K.J.V Those which you have given me I lost none but one. (red)
L.B.V Those which you have given me I lost none but one. (black)

JOHN 18:9​

K.J.V Those which you have given me I lost none. (red)
L.B.V Those which you have given me I lost none. (black)

REVELATION OF JOHN​

Almost 79 of the red Ink verses in the book of revelation were changed into
black !!

 

[plain_me]

Martin Luther removed seven books from the Old Testament. He did take away from the Words of GOD.
The entire books which he alone removed from their rightful place in Holy Scripture and placed in an appendix are, Baruch, Judith, Tobit, Wisdom, Sirach, and 1 and 2 Maccabees. Later, these books were removed entirely from Protestant bibles. As recounted above, he did the same with four books of the New Testament. These books had been in all Bibles for over 1100 years. Who had the authority to remove them? Did Martin Luther? Did any other single person?

Ok, now you’re making some false claims. Martin Luther was not the first person to reject the Deuterocanonical (Apochryphal) books of the OT. I don’t have the citations for you right now because I’m too tired to look them up, but it is a well known fact that Gregory the Great rejected them, Athanasius didn’t include them in his list of canonical books, and the list really could go on. sigh I’ll plan to get thos citations for you and post them tomorrow. For now, though, I’m going to bed.:yawn:

 

[Jason_1977]

This is known worldwide what Luther did. It’s fact. The only way you’d be able to see hard evidence of what he did is if you were to see one of HIS reformed bibles. After his death, Bibles were reassembled back to the way they should have been. It’s fact. I cited some books & scholars in there & there’s plenty of documentation to support it. I wouldn’t put much stock in Luther. If HE can remove books & get away with it, what will remain sacred?

 

[Jason_1977]

This is known worldwide what Luther did. It’s fact. The only way you’d be able to see hard evidence of what he did is if you were to see one of HIS reformed bibles. After his death, Bibles were reassembled back to the way they should have been. It’s fact. I cited some books & scholars in there & there’s plenty of documentation to support it. I wouldn’t put much stock in Luther. If HE can remove books & get away with it, what will remain sacred?

Never said he was the 1st.

 

[Jason_1977]

Never said he was the 1st.

I’m getting my second wind Plain…one thing I’ve learned is that the world may be always cruel, the world may be always blissful, but rarely is the world wrong.

 

[Ginger2]

my point?

Martin Luther Taught …

St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw…for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it" (Luther, M. Preface to the New Testament, 1546). …

Luther’s words are often taken out of context by Catholics. I am only going to address the above “quote” as it is one I already looked up in the past.

What Luther actually said was “compared to” the other epistles, James is an epistle of straw. Luther was stating that the other gospels were much stronger concerning their witness to Christ. He was not making a statement of doubt.

It’s interesting how you cut out the words “compared to” when “quoting” Luther.

Isn’t that the same thing you falsely accused me of doing?

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

Like I said, Luther had some issues with James, but I have never seen any proof that he actually left it out of or even attempted to leave it out of his German translation. I’ve heard others say he did, but I’ve never seen any real evidence. It seems to me to be hearsay. And I also realized that arguing for or against Luther is a rabbit trail that doesn’t pertain to the original topic.

I will say that if the quotations from Luther are accurate (and they certainly do sound like his tone) then I would strongly disagree with some of them. Especially the one about not being able to see or know Christ in Revelation. But I can do that since he’s not authoritative for me.

My experience with Catholics “quoting” Luther is it’s best to go read his words in their entirety for yourself. Every time I have checked his writing I have found his statements taken out of context, except for one time.

However, it is not uncommon for scholars to discuss the varying views, uncertainties and unanswered questions about the epistles and their authors.

This does not necessarily indicate a denial of their inspiration, rather an admission that we are not certain of every detail concerning these books.

As I have already demonstrated, Luther did not deny the inspiration of James. He merely compared it to other books in reference to their witness.
This is a valid observation. For instance, if you wanted to witness to someone who didn’t know Christ using the New Testament, which book would you be more likely to use:

A. John
B. James

The obvious answer is John. The very purpose in John writing his Gospel is so we may believe Jesus is the Messiah, and by believing we may have life in his name.

So, for this purpose, I agree James is an epistle of straw compared to the others.

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

Luther is the one who, on his own ‘authority’, removed 7 books from their rightful place in the Old Testament, and placed them in an appendix. …He also wanted to remove the last four books of the New Testament, Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation, and he succeeded in removing them from their rightful place and put them into an additional unnumbered appendix.
Here is a quote from a Lutheran scholar:…

We already know Luther did not remover the 7 extra apocrypha - He appended them the same as Jerome did. The RC didn’t have a problem with Jerome doing so, so I find it curious they have a problem with Luther keeping the Bible exactly as Catholics claim it had been for 1200 years.

I doubt your other claims are accurate, as well. Luther did not sit down and write the entire Bible all at once. Luther wrote one book at a time and released each book as it was completed.

And we have already determined Lutheran scholars cannot always be trusted to tell the truth, so why bother quoting them?

Ginger

 

[Ginger2]

Jason, It seems you don’t comprehend anything anyone says, but rather assume you have all the answers and continue to make false claims after they have been proven false.

I don’t understand this.

EXAMPLE:

jason:

Interestingly the Epistle of James is the only place in the Bible to actually use the term ‘faith alone’:

You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone (James 2:24).

{\
Luther:

" … Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever…Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!"

I am not a follower of Luther, but of Christ Jesus, but I must speak out against false accusations and slander. Your assertions are false.

Ginger