Some help for our Protestant friends

[JonNC]

Brian Millar states:

That we are saved by grace through faith, is Catholic teaching. It always has been. The reformers said “no,” we are saved by grace through faith “alone.” So Jon NC, if you agree that Catholic teaching is closer to Biblical truth, than that of the “reformers,” then why are you not Catholic? Why do you continue to practice Lutheranism when the man who is held as an icon, if not the founder of your religion, actually added the word “alone” to his German translation of the Bible to facillitate leading his followers into error? Why are you not Catholic?

Hi Brian,

Luther’s reason for putting “alone” after faith was because it better stated the scripture in German. But once again, the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of justification cleared some of this up, that the two expressions are closer to each other than some of us want to think.

Why do you refuse to see that good works are a part of the gift of faith if you understand that they are His good works, done through you? This concept is also Catholic teaching. Your acts of charity can be no more seperated from your faith than your actions can be seperated from the love you would profess for your spouse or your child. In 1Corinthians, Saint Paul explains love as if it were a verb. Faith is explained the same way. That’s why love is the greatest of these three, “faith, hope and love.” In order to be the faith of salvation, faith must not be “alone”, but rather it must be acting in love. This is the message found in the 2nd chapter of James and it is the ancient, consistent and constant teaching of Catholic Church

I don’t refuse to see that good works is an important part of the gift of faith. And if you read my link to the Formula of Concord, you know that of Lutherans. As I said, for Lutherans, myself included, good works are part of sanctification, that growing in grace that all who are justified go through. It is not faith alone in the way we act on our justification (ie., we can’t just sit around having faith, that’s OSAS), it is grace through faith “alone” that brings us to it. Once justified, we then are **obligated by necessity **to act on our justification: doing good works, confessing our sins, partaking in the sacrament.

If my beliefs more closely reflect a Catholic view, then I will have to consider your question, “whya re you not Catholic” a little more closely.

Jon

 

[leslierx82]

There is no such thing as faith “alone”. Faith is a multifaceted aspect of one’s spiritual nature. It is simply one word, dictated by man to refer to the entirety of our relationship with all that is spiritual, physical, and emotional, i.e., God, whose being cannot even be fathomed by mankind. Since we can never fully understand God, we can never be fully aware of our relationship with Him, hence “faith” is a mere invention of Man to describe that which we do not understand. It involved every aspect of our lives, our existence. Since faith is an all-inclusive word, it must be used to described an all-inclusive event, therefore cannot exist in singularity…“alone”.

 

[Teflon93]

Hi Brian,

Luther’s reason for putting “alone” after faith was because it better stated the scripture in German. But once again, the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of justification cleared some of this up, that the two expressions are closer to each other than some of us want to think.

Jon

Do you happen to have a reference for that, Jon? My understanding is that Luther’s addition was an obvious mistranslation of the Greek, and was not in the German translation he, ahem, borrowed (the impossibility of producing a translation in the six weeks or so he supposedly did so being manifest).

 

[JonNC]

Do you happen to have a reference for that, Jon? My understanding is that Luther’s addition was an obvious mistranslation of the Greek, and was not in the German translation he, ahem, borrowed (the impossibility of producing a translation in the six weeks or so he supposedly did so being manifest).

I will try to find it.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Do you happen to have a reference for that, Jon? My understanding is that Luther’s addition was an obvious mistranslation of the Greek, and was not in the German translation he, ahem, borrowed (the impossibility of producing a translation in the six weeks or so he supposedly did so being manifest).

"…if the translation is to be clear and vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.”

Luther’s Open Letter on Translating.

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html

You may not agree with his reasoning, and the polemics in the full writing are certainly best left in the 1500’s, but there it is.
I might add that I have never seen “alone” in English Bibles (of course I’ve not seen them all).

Jon

 

[Emerite]

I have difficulty understanding and find contradictory the “saved by faith alone” theory of salvation. How could a person who says he accepts Christ as his Savior, but turns away from God in sin (theft, murder, adultery, etc.) be granted eternal life in Heaven?" Or, is it that by falling into serious sin, he actually “rejects” Christ the Savior and is thus not considered saved? And if Christ had saved the entire world by his sacrifice on the cross, why do we even have the Ten Commandments? The Catholic Church, in its Cathechism by Cardinal Ratzinger (the present Pope Benedict XVI) does believe that a non-Catholic, living a good Christian life and believing he’s correct in his method of salvation, without the realization of the real truths of the Catholic Church, should merit salvation. The Catechism further states that salvation is not guaranteed to one who knows (i.e., realizes) that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, and refuses to enter or remain in the Catholic Church. In my 70 years on this earth, I’ve never found anything in the Church that appears to be contradictory, lacking in truth or illogical, and can only affirm my baptism and faith in Catholicism. I do, however, pray for Christian unity.

 

[Atemi]

Luther’s Open Letter on Translating.

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html

You may not agree with his reasoning, and the polemics in the full writing are certainly best left in the 1500’s, but there it is.
I might add that I have never seen “alone” in English Bibles (of course I’ve not seen them all).

Jon

Yes.

Even Catholic translators have added words to their translations when they think it best suits what the text is saying. There are no pure word for word translations.

Luther thought “alone” best translated the text in question into German. Many early fathers have also taught that men are justified by “faith alone,” so Luther was not asserting anything novel on that front.

Anyone that would insist that Luther was proposing a novel idea here just is not aware of the history of the thought and term.

…

 

[Church_Militant]

Yes.

Even Catholic translators have added words to their translations when they think it best suits

what the text is saying. There are no pure word for word translations.
:yawn:

Luther thought “alone” best translated the text in question into German. Many early fathers have also taught that men are justified by "faith alone,

" so Luther was not asserting anything novel on that front.This is wrong. It most certainly was a novel doctrine and remains an novel error to this day. I defy you to produce substantiation of your assertion that the ECFs wrote any such thing. I strongly suspect that a simple examination of the context will prove you have again misrepresented the ECFs in an effort to validate the errors that you have espoused, just as you did with the Didache sometime ago. (SPLIT: “The Didache teaches almost nothing your Catechism teaches today.”)

Anyone that would insist that Luther was proposing a novel idea here just is not aware of the history of the thought and term.

Again, your own wishful thinking that is not supported the ECFs.

 

[Atemi]

Again, your own wishful thinking that is not supported the ECFs.

Like I said, anyone that would insist that Luther was proposing a novel idea here just is not aware of the history of the thought and term.

Knocking Luther for what respected theologians had done before him shows a deep bias and double standard that should not have place in our apologetic as Christians.

…

 

[po18guy]

Yes, Sola Fide is flawed. Many Protestants who have " crossed the Tiber " to Rome now understand that a kind of rampant individualism seems to infect Americans; and that flakes over into Theology. Maybe starting with the rugged individualism of pioneer life and the Puritan ethos of unadorned living.

We’ve all heard of the thousands of Protestant denominations. I would like to see them listed numerically by nation of origin. America has certainly sprouted more than its share, in the 1800s alone! Someone with a cool Mac graphics program could probably whomp one up in a half hour or so, but not I! When you begin the threads on the other “solas”, I will watch with interest.

As to sola fide:

Revelation 20:12-15 (New International Version) “And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.”

Also:

Matthew 25:31-45 (New International Version) "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his throne in heavenly glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. "Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ "Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 3hen did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

"The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’

What? Nothing, not one word about faith or scripture? Christ says that the only scripture that matters at the end of time is the book of life!

Faith, of course! But faith does not exist in a vacuum. It must lead to corporal works of mercy, or it is dead. How Christ-like the church that emulates the teaching of our Lord and Savior Himself!

Christ’s peace.

 

[Church_Militant]

Like I said, anyone that would insist that Luther was proposing a novel idea here just is not aware of the history of the thought and term.

Knocking Luther for what respected theologians had done before him shows a deep bias and double standard that should not have place in our apologetic as Christians.

Note the repeated assertion without any substantiation.

Just because you say so makes it so. :dts:

(Luther said the same thing… )

 

[Teflon93]

Luther’s Open Letter on Translating.

beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html

You may not agree with his reasoning, and the polemics in the full writing are certainly best left in the 1500’s, but there it is.
I might add that I have never seen “alone” in English Bibles (of course I’ve not seen them all).

Jon

Thanks for the link, Jon—Luther’s explanation isn’t very convincing to me (essentially that adding the word he admits isn’t there in the Latin or Greek is necessary in German to convey the full meaning of the passage), but it is useful to understand how he sought to justify it.

It should also be noted that the Bible had been translated into German before Luther, and the added word (“awei” if foggy memory serves) wasn’t in that version either.

The addition also served to correct the inconvenient fact for Luther that “faith alone” appears nowhere else in Scripture but James, where it is refuted. That is sufficient motive for me.

 

[Teflon93]

:yawn:
This is wrong. It most certainly was a novel doctrine and remains an novel error to this day. I defy you to produce substantiation of your assertion that the ECFs wrote any such thing. I strongly suspect that a simple examination of the context will prove you have again misrepresented the ECFs in an effort to validate the errors that you have espoused, just as you did with the Didache sometime ago. (SPLIT: “The Didache teaches almost nothing your Catechism teaches today.”)

Again, your own wishful thinking that is not supported the ECFs.

Although one could cherrypick the writings of the ECFs as one could Scripture to scratch out some plausible-sounding evidence of such a claim.

For example, Ambrosiaster from his “Commentary on Paul’s Epistles” related to 1 Corinthians:

“The Corinthians were called to be saints, which means that they could not deviate from the narrow path of sanctification. Paul linked them, as Gentiles, with the true Jews, because salvation is of the Jews, so that wherever there are Gentiles who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and wherever there are true Jews, both are united in him.”

To do so, one must merely ignore the preceding passage, where Ambrosiaster notes:

“He censures them for many things, but in spite of that he still says that they have been sanctified. However, they later began to behave badly, so that although the whole church was sanctified in Christ, some members of it had been deflected from the truth by the wicked teaching of the false apostles.”

Context, context, context.

Plus, you’d have to ignore Origen:

“Why did Paul write “to those called to be saints” as well as to those who are already “sanctified” and in the church? Surely this means that the letter is addressed not only to those who are already cleansed from their sins but also to those who still await cleansing, though they are among those whom God has called.” (Commentary on 1 Corinthians 1.1.7)

And Pelagius:

“Paul is writing to those who have preserved their sanctity, not to those who have lost it. The former he honors with his letter; the latter he admonishes with his authority.” (Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians I)

And so on.

(The above brought to you by the excellent “Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture” series and the timely arrival of volume “New Testament VII: 1-2 Corinthians”.)

 

[Atemi]

Note the repeated assertion without any substantiation.

Just because you say so makes it so. :dts:

(Luther said the same thing… )

That is because I am more than familair with the routine. If I substantiaiate my claim, that is when I am suddenly “taking everything out of context.”

Here is the RC scholar Fitzmyer on who have used the term “faith alone” to identify how men are justified:

"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.

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

…

 

[JonNC]

All,
My guess is we can all be here and post past each other on this issue, looking back on the almost 500 years of this controversy, when in fact the current dialogues indicate a closer unity in understanding than in any time since Luther.
On this thread my views were claimed by Brian (I think) of being “Catholic” views, followed by “why are you not Catholic?” I contend my views as stated are very “Lutheran”. Seems to me the confusion is in the fact that our views are not much different.
I can say that we are justified by grace alone through faith without the “alone” on the end, because I know I can in no way merit justification. I don’t need the “alone” to understand who did what for whom. By grace, I have faith, and am therefore justified. My responsibility is to then obey Christ’s teachings - all of them, including doing good works (sanctification). To do otherwise is to reject grace, and therefore Christ’s gift.

Jon

 

[kaycee]

:yawn:
This is wrong. It most certainly was a novel doctrine and remains an novel error to this day. I defy you to produce substantiation of your assertion that the ECFs wrote any such thing. I strongly suspect that a simple examination of the context will prove you have again misrepresented the ECFs in an effort to validate the errors that you have espoused, just as you did with the Didache sometime ago. (SPLIT: “The Didache teaches almost nothing your Catechism teaches today.”)

Again, your own wishful thinking that is not supported the ECFs.

The Didache teaches that those who endure in their Faith shall be saved.

Didache 16:12
Then all created mankind shall come to the fire of testing, and many shall be offended and perish; but they that endure in their faith shall be saved by the Curse Himself.

I think that is a clear mention of salvation by Faith alone in Christ.

The Diache also does not mention any of the particular RC only doctrines including the Marian and papacy doctrines.

 

[Teflon93]

The Didache teaches that those who endure in their Faith shall be saved.

Didache 16:12
Then all created mankind shall come to the fire of testing, and many shall be offended and perish; but they that endure in their faith shall be saved by the Curse Himself.

I think that is a clear mention of salvation by Faith alone in Christ.

The Diache also does not mention any of the particular RC only doctrines including the Marian and papacy doctrines.

Boy, you pulled from the wrong source to support a Protestant POV!

What does “endure in faith” mean?

What happens if one has been granted God’s grace, but does not “endure in faith”?

 

[Atemi]

Boy, you pulled from the wrong source to support a Protestant POV!

There is no more “protestant” writing of the early church than the Didache.

Of course, if we pretend that all the Roman Catholic doctrines missing from the text are really, really there somewhere…

…and we pretend that everywhere the Didache contradicts Roman Catholic doctrine just doesn’t matter…

…then it is the most Roman Catholic writing of the early church.

…

 

[Church_Militant]

The Didache teaches that those who endure in their Faith shall be saved.

Didache 16:12
Then all created mankind shall come to the fire of testing, and many shall be offended and perish; but they that endure in their faith shall be saved by the Curse Himself.

I think that is a clear mention of salvation by Faith alone in Christ.

The Diache also does not mention any of the particular RC only doctrines including the Marian and papacy doctrines.The debate was that it did not contain any of the things that the current CCC does, and I proved that to be dead wrong. No one ever said it had to contain all the things that are in the current CCC, nor did we ever assert that it does.

So… according to your thinking and doctrine, “enduring” is not a work? OOOOOOkay.:juggle:

BTW, you also are wrong. Check the other thread.

 

[Church_Militant]

There is no more “protestant” writing of the early church than the Didache.

Yeah , right. In your wishful thinking. (Again).

Of course, if we pretend that all the Roman Catholic doctrines missing from the text are really, really there somewhere…

I don’t recall any of us ever asserting that to be the case… though I’m sure you wish we did. Hate it for ya…

…and we pretend that everywhere the Didache contradicts Roman Catholic doctrine just doesn’t matter…

Unfortunately there is no such, but again…you wish.

…then it is the most Roman Catholic writing of the early church.

Don’t recall anyone making that assertion either, but I’m quite sure that you wish we did.

When you quit twisting Catholic teaching to suit your a-C agenda and then stop twisting the ECF like you do then maybe you’ll develop something of a substantive argument.

I don’t see that happenin’…but I suppose in some alternate reality it might.