Question for Lutherans

[mattp0625]

First, the “insertion” of the word “allein” in Romans 3:28 is translation, not interpretation (see Luther’s Open Letter on Translating). This is evident in the fact that no English translation of the Bible that I am aware of contains the word " alone" in Romans 3:28. It isn’t necessary in English.

Second, here are just 3 examples of Church Fathers using the phrase faith alone:

“They said that he who adhered to faith alone was cursed; but he, Paul, shows that he who adhered to faith alone is blessed.” -Chrysostom

“Man clings to Christ by faith alone.” Cyril of Alexandria

“Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not a dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love” - Augustine

Does this mean that the Fathers would have sided with Luther in 1525? I don’t know, but I’ll bet they would not have sided with what was being taught in central Europe at the time.

Jon

First - What happened to sola scriptura here?

Second - what does that have to do with the book of Romans which is the lynchpin of Sola Fide? The words simply are not there. It is an insertion.

Third- clings to Christ by faith? Great. I still don’t see the words we are “saved by faith alone”. It’s still a 16th century invention

Similarly, Augustine’s high view of scripture does not equal sola scriptura.

 

[JonNC]

=mattp0625;13973794]First - What happened to sola scriptura here?

Not sure what you mean?

Second - what does that have to do with the book of Romans which is the lynchpin of Sola Fide? The words simply are not there. It is an insertion.

It is not the lynchpin. That’s not how doctrine works.

Third- clings to Christ by faith? Great. I still don’t see the words we are “saved by faith alone”. It’s still a 16th century invention

That no where does Paul add something to faith means, clearly, that only by faith do we come to juistification.

Similarly, Augustine’s high view of scripture does not equal sola scriptura.

Where did I say it did?

Jon

 

[steve_b]

Umm, no. Here is a link to Luther’s Open Letter on Translating.

The letter is, essentially, in two parts. The first is a sarcastic response to the criticisms regarding his translation, while at the same time he is convinced it is being stolen by the “Bungler from Dresden”.
Within that first part is a response to this frankly tiresome accusation that Luther claimed authority.

Quote:
Secondly, you might say that I have conscientiously translated the
New Testament into German to the best of my ability, and that I
have not forced anyone to read it. Rather I have left it open,
only doing the translation as a service to those who could not do
it as well. No one is forbidden to do it better. If someone does
not wish to read it, he can let it lie, for I do not ask anyone to
read it or praise anyone who does! It is my Testament and my
translation - and it shall remain mine. If I have made errors
within it (although I am not aware of any and would most certainly
be unwilling to intentionally mistranslate a single letter)…

This does not sound like someone who is claiming authority.

Jon

His attitude about not changing his own errors, when challenged by competent authority that clearly out ranks him, shows he puts his own authority over all other authority.
J:

The second part is the actual explanation for his translation. In small part:

Quote:
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

If THAT was the explanation, then that would mean he thought he’s the ONLY one in all of Germany who could write, speak, and think in proper German. Really?
D:

Luther is not claiming some special authority in his sarcasm. In fact, he does quite the opposite in his letter.

Of course he is. Luther’s adding “alone” to faith, in Romans, was directly refuted by James . There is only one place in all of scripture where “by faith alone” legitimately appears. Not is in front of it James 2:24. That’s why Luther called the epistle of James the epistle of straw.

That’s not sarcasm on his part.

 

[mattp0625]

Not sure what you mean?

It is not the lynchpin. That’s not how doctrine works.

That no where does Paul add something to faith means, clearly, that only by faith do we come to juistification.

Where did I say it did?

Jon

Outside of 2 Tim 3 where either “prime” or “sole” as well as “alone” and “authority” are also inserted, Augustine is widely known to be used as another justification.

 

[JonNC]

Outside of 2 Tim 3 where either “prime” or “sole” as well as “alone” and “authority” are also inserted, Augustine is widely known to be used as another justification.

Okay, I wish you respond in line with our dialogue. How does this respond to my previous post?

Jon

 

[steido01]

The RCC did not, and does not, insert the word “alone” into its interpretation of the book of Romans. Only one person did that.

So you disagree with Pope Benedict, a brilliant polyglot, church scholar, and native German-speaker while teaching in his official capacity as leader of your communion and seated at Rome?

Gee, I guess if I make a great fuss about this, you’ll just have to tell me and Benedict that; “mattp0625 will have it so, and he sits a theologian above all theologians, including the Pope.”

I jest here. Truly, I do. But only to prove the point. Surely you realize the model of your argument?

 

[mattp0625]

Okay, I wish you respond in line with our dialogue. How does this respond to my previous post?

Jon

It’s a similar stretching of Augustine to imply something he didn’t say in order to support the solas

 

[steido01]

The quote from Chesterton about Luther is found in (Chesterton, G.K., “Luther’s Bonfire” Published in “The Heart of Catholicism: Essential Writings of the Church from St. Paul to John Paul II” compiled and edited by Theodore F. James, Ph.D. Our Sunday Visitor Publishing Division, 1997.)
BTW, Pope Benedict was influenced directly by Chesterton in his social teaching, though no one doubts who was the scripture scholar. The context of the Chesterton quote was that GKC was contrasting St. Thomas Aquinas with Luther, who essentially burned St. Thomas’ influence in half of Europe. GKC was of course supporting the move to restore Thomas (just like some people today strive to restore Chesterton, who was cast aside around 1960). I don’t think the quote reflects Chesterton’s view of Luther so much as defending Thomas.

Thank you for the context. I figured there was more to this. I haven’t read much more than Orthodoxy, but what I have read of Chesterton is generally more pro-Chesterton’s views than anti-Chesterton’s opponents’.

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;13973835]Jon

His attitude about not changing his own errors, when challenged by competent authority that clearly out ranks him, shows he puts his own authority over all other authority.

Hi Steve,
I think it safe to assume that he felt the line of authority had be broken by his excommunication.

If THAT was the explanation, then that would mean he thought he’s the ONLY one in all of Germany who could write, speak, and think in proper German. Really?

But that’s not he says.
He says:

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.

He’s saying he is led in his translating into German by what common Germans speak. It isn’t what her think the language should be. He wanted to translate into the German that was spoken by the common German.

Of course he is. Luther’s adding “alone” to faith, in Romans, was directly refuted by James . There is only one place in all of scripture where "by faith alone" legitimately appears. Not is in front of it James 2:24. That’s why Luther called the epistle of James the epistle of straw.

That’s not sarcasm on his part

.
I won’t dispute that Luther seems to misunderstand James. James is clear that a faith that lacks works is dead. But even the Catholic church does not teach that we come to justification by our own works, considering that it is at Baptism where justification begins. Luther’s mistake, IMO, is that he didn’t see that James is saying essentially the same thing Paul says in Galatians 5:6, that we are justified by faith that works through love.

BTW, the reference to the “book of straw”: this is Luther’s personal view of James when compared to Paul, and one he apparently abandons in later writings.

Jon

 

[Tomster]

And who has given out that book? How can the Small Cathechism, written in 1529, contain a list of books where one of them is written in 1577, 48 years after the publication and 31 years after the death of Luther?

Dr. Martin Luther’s Small Catechism
Copyright, 1943 by Concordia Publishing House
St. Louis, Missouri
Slightly revised 1965
Copyright renewed 1971
Over 1.2 million in print since 1963

The first leaf of the book states:
A Short Explanation of Dr. Martin Luther’s Small Catechism - A Handbook of Christian Doctrine.

The book contains 331 questions and answers regarding the normative Lutheran doctrine you accept. There is no imprimatur on it from any body of Lutheran bishops though. It is easy to understand why.

 

[steido01]

Dr. Martin Luther’s Small Catechism
Copyright, 1943 by Concordia Publishing House
St. Louis, Missouri
Slightly revised 1965
Copyright renewed 1971
Over 1.2 million in print since 1963

The first leaf of the book states:
A Short Explanation of Dr. Martin Luther’s Small Catechism - A Handbook of Christian Doctrine.

The book contains 331 questions and answers regarding the normative Lutheran doctrine you accept. There is no imprimatur on it from any body of Lutheran bishops though. It is easy to understand why.

You’re parading editor’s notes as if they’re doctrine. They were not written by Reformers. They were written about 450 years later to help people like you understand Lutheran theology better.

That edition you have is a great book for studying my brand of Lutheranism (what is commonly called “Confessional Lutheranism”), as it’s published by the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. It was approved by proper LCMS authorities and scholars prior to publication.

It is not a proper tool for understanding Father K’s church, which holds certain confessions to be more of a useful history-framing artifact than a binding confession. Our communions have never shared fellowship.

Again, “Lutheranism” is a word that is bigger than one church. Kind of like how “Catholic” can mean Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, Polish National Catholic, American Catholic, etc.

 

[MaryT777]

Hi Steve,
I think it safe to assume that he felt the line of authority had be broken by his excommunication.

But that’s not he says.
He says:

He’s saying he is led in his translating into German by what common Germans speak. It isn’t what her think the language should be. He wanted to translate into the German that was spoken by the common German.

.
I won’t dispute that Luther seems to misunderstand James. James is clear that a faith that lacks works is dead. But even the Catholic church does not teach that we come to justification by our own works, considering that it is at Baptism where justification begins. Luther’s mistake, IMO, is that he didn’t see that James is saying essentially the same thing Paul says in Galatians 5:6, that we are justified by faith that works through love.

BTW, the reference to the “book of straw”: this is Luther’s personal view of James when compared to Paul, and one he apparently abandons in later writings.

Jon

Perhaps he abandons it in later writings as he thinking was becoming more Catholic again? Just a thought

and JMO

Mary.

 

[GKC]

Thank you for the context. I figured there was more to this. I haven’t read much more than Orthodoxy, but what I have read of Chesterton is generally more pro-Chesterton’s views than anti-Chesterton’s opponents’.

I’ve read him, collected him and studied him for …oh, a long time now. In my experience, it’s variable, with the context and intent. ORTHODOXY - Chesterton’s personal views. HERETICS (which preceded ORTHODOXY and is not a parallel sort of book), Chesterton’s views of some folks and things he’s found unsatisfactory. So it goes.

 

[Tomster]

You’re parading editor’s notes as if they’re doctrine. They were not written by Reformers. They were written about 450 years later to help people like you understand Lutheran theology better.

That edition you have is a great book for studying my brand of Lutheranism (what is commonly called “Confessional Lutheranism”), as it’s published by the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. It was approved by proper LCMS authorities and scholars prior to publication.

It is not a proper tool for understanding Father K’s church, which holds certain confessions to be more of a useful history-framing artifact than a binding confession. Our communions have never shared fellowship.

Again, “Lutheranism” is a word that is bigger than one church. Kind of like how “Catholic” can mean Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, Polish National Catholic, American Catholic, etc.

Sorry, I’m not parading editor’s notes, just the title of a book.

Your brand of Lutheranism? How many brands of Lutheranism are there?

Proper LCMS authorities and scholars? Really! How does one become a “proper” authority in Lutheranism? The least those proper authorities could have done is place their imprimatur on the book together with their proper names.

So, a proper tool for you is not a proper tool for Father K.'s church. (Father K. said he doesn’t belong to a church, but a tradition. You guys need to talk about that. Oops, sorry. Your communions never shared fellowship.)

Certain confessions being more of a history-framing artifact than a confession? I guess that any Lutheran can then determine for himself, so long as he is either a proper authority or scholar, which confession can be more of a history-framing artifact than a confession. You know, one man’s confession is another’s history-framing artifact.

Can you really see where you are going with all of this?

 

[commenter]

Thank you for the context. I figured there was more to this. I **haven’t read much **more than Orthodoxy, but what I have read of Chesterton is generally more pro-Chesterton’s views than anti-Chesterton’s opponents’.

An all-but-unforgivable lack.
I must forgive it because I was likely older than you are when I got deep into his writing.
My suggestion is to keep up your reading in your own Faith Tradition, esp the Bible - but in terms of Catholics, don’t waste time on Catholic Answers Forums, or reading/listening to other Catholics of the past or present, till you read some more of GKC.

 

[GKC]

An all-but-unforgivable lack.
I must forgive it because I was likely older than you are when I got deep into his writing.
My suggestion is to keep up your reading in your own Faith Tradition, esp the Bible - but in terms of Catholics, don’t waste time on Catholic Answers Forums, or reading/listening to other Catholics of the past or present, till you read some more of GKC.

I’ll buy that.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Sorry, I’m not parading editor’s notes, just the title of a book.

Your brand of Lutheranism? How many brands of Lutheranism are there?

Proper LCMS authorities and scholars? Really! How does one become a “proper” authority in Lutheranism? The least those proper authorities could have done is place their imprimatur on the book together with their proper names.

So, a proper tool for you is not a proper tool for Father K.'s church. (Father K. said he doesn’t belong to a church, but a tradition. You guys need to talk about that. Oops, sorry. Your communions never shared fellowship.)

Certain confessions being more of a history-framing artifact than a confession? I guess that any Lutheran can then determine for himself, so long as he is either a proper authority or scholar, which confession can be more of a history-framing artifact than a confession. You know, one man’s confession is another’s history-framing artifact.

Can you really see where you are going with all of this?

Father K does not say he doesn’t belong to a church. He says that he belongs to the Church of Norway, in the Lutheran tradition.

Polemics is jolly good fun, but for it to work usefully you need to be earnest and honest in your understanding of others.

 

[commenter]

You’re parading editor’s notes as if they’re doctrine. They were not written by Reformers. They were written about 450 years later to help people like you understand Lutheran theology better.

That edition you have is a great book for studying my brand of Lutheranism (what is commonly called “Confessional Lutheranism”), as it’s published by the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. It was approved by proper LCMS authorities and scholars prior to publication.

It is not a proper tool for understanding Father K’s church, which holds certain confessions to be more of a useful history-framing artifact than a binding confession. Our communions have never shared fellowship.

Again, “Lutheranism” is a word that is bigger than one church. **Kind of like how “Catholic” can mean Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, Polish National Catholic, American Catholic, **etc.

I fully respect the Tradition and traditions of Lutheranism, and recognize compatible, but sometimes different ways they utilize authorities in the past, and present, most importantly the Bible. I deeply appreciate the work of the LCMS, which I am familiar with (esp re: prolife and religious liberty) and regret any lack of respect for the person of Luther; or for Fr. K’s church, which I don’t know much about. We need to affirm courtesy on this thread.

Your last sentence, however, draws from the Pool of Annoying Analogies, where I often draw from too. And when I do that, people forget the good ideas I expressed earlier.

 

[steido01]

Your brand of Lutheranism? How many brands of Lutheranism are there?

Two, mainly. That you don’t know this does not reflect well on your historical knowledge of the Reformation and Lutheranism.

Proper LCMS authorities and scholars? Really! How does one become a “proper” authority in Lutheranism? The least those proper authorities could have done is place their imprimatur on the book together with their proper names.

Concordia Publishing House is the proper authority when it comes to publishing in the LCMS. For a book to come from there, it must pass muster at one or both of the two seminaries and/or the Praesidium or its representatives/appointees. These are learned, ordained men who, like Pope Benedict, are versed in at least German, Hebrew, Latin and Greek. Some Aramaic. To become one of these called servants of the Word, a man must be rightly called and ordained, as the Augsburg Confession states in Article XIV.

So, a proper tool for you is not a proper tool for Father K.'s church. (Father K. said he doesn’t belong to a church, but a tradition. You guys need to talk about that. Oops, sorry. Your communions never shared fellowship.)

That’s right. Why would you expect otherwise? The Reformation in his country was different than the Reformation implemented by my people in Germany. They’ve been grouped together as “Lutherans” by your church, not by ours.

Certain confessions being more of a history-framing artifact than a confession? I guess that any Lutheran can then determine for himself, so long as he is either a proper authority or scholar, which confession can be more of a history-framing artifact than a confession. You know, one man’s confession is another’s history-framing artifact.

No, you misunderstand how the church, in general, operates and how Lutheran pastors wield their office. It’s not for any individual to declare doctrine. Not my pastor, not your pope, not Luther. It’s for the church of all times and all places to agree.

Can you really see where you are going with all of this?

I see where you want it to go, but it doesn’t go there. Square pegs don’t fit into round holes. Read up a bit on what Lutherans actually believe, instead of what you think they believe, and we can chat again. I don’t think this conversation is presently worth my time. I hope it is in the future.

 

[steido01]

An all-but-unforgivable lack.
I must forgive it because I was likely older than you are when I got deep into his writing.
My suggestion is to keep up your reading in your own Faith Tradition, esp the Bible - but in terms of Catholics, don’t waste time on Catholic Answers Forums, or reading/listening to other Catholics of the past or present, till you read some more of GKC.

Not bad advice. I’ve been moving steadily away from here, anyway. Educating online folk about what Lutheranism actually teaches is a fool’s errand. More time for books and kids this way. The former are growing on me and the latter are growing. Not enough time to be online.

I fully respect the Tradition and traditions of Lutheranism, and recognize compatible, but sometimes different ways they utilize authorities in the past, and present, most importantly the Bible. I deeply appreciate the work of the LCMS, which I am familiar with (esp re: prolife and religious liberty) and regret any lack of respect for the person of Luther; or for Fr. K’s church, which I don’t know much about. We need to affirm courtesy on this thread.

Your last sentence, however, draws from the Pool of Annoying Analogies, where I often draw from too. And when I do that, people forget the good ideas I expressed earlier.

Noted. Went for a relatable plank/speck analogy. Came across as a baseball bat. Will avoid.