When was the belief in the Bible alone first mentioned?

[Topper17]

Hi Edwin,

Thanks for your response.

The source is a letter from Luther to Trutvetter dated 9 May 1518–I think the same letter to which you refer above. (I find this quoted in Heiko Oberman’s essay “Headwaters of the Reformation,” which you can find on Google Books as part of the collection Luther and the Dawn of the Modern Era, pp. 63-64.) Oberman argues, by the way, in contrast to my suggestion above, that this was a common medieval principle and not a particularly Occamist teaching. But at any rate, my point made earlier stands (and with all due respect, you don’t seem to have noted it, since your objection to my claim ignores it): what was new (and not 100% new at that) in Luther’s teaching was his rejection of the authority of the hierarchical Church. My point was that Luther got the principle “faith is due only to canonical Scripture, though other writings should be respected” from his late scholastic education. He then employed this principle, as you note, in a much more destructive manner than Trutvetter or any of his other teachers would have wished (and in fact Trutvetter had written him to criticize the 95 Theses). But he wasn’t in formal disagreement with them about the scope of Scriptural authority. The fundamental disagreement, from Luther’s point of view, was about soteriology. Here Luther was genuinely an innovator.

Yes, we are talking about the same letter. This letter is referenced by Carroll, Grisar, and Smith, among others. Not surprisingly, it is not included in the American Edition of Luther’s works.

I myself would not use the term “private interpretation” for Luther’s view or the view of any of the major 16th-century Reformers. I don’t find a self-conscious advocacy of private interpretation gaining ground among Protestants until the next century. But I may just be defining the term more narrowly. Certainly Luther was willing to interpret Scripture in ways that went against both Pope and Councils.

If I understand you correctly, I disagree. Prior to Luther there had been those who challenged the authority of the papacy and those who had challenged the authority of Councils. But none had refuted the authority of both. That is what made Luther’s position so radical.

I also disagree with the suggestion that his program was fully formed by 1518. He certainly was determined by that time to rip up much of the fabric of both scholastic theology and canon law. But he hadn’t yet reached the radical rejection of church authority that he would come to after the Leipzig debate in 1519, nor probably was his soteriology fully formed (though already quite radical).

I didn’t mean to imply that I think that Luther’s ‘program’ was fully formed in 1518. In fact, I would prefer to argue that it never really was. The point of quoting his response to Trutfetter was to demonstrate how incredibly early it was in his ‘reformation’ that he had set his sights on the destruction of the Church. That letter reveals him to be far different from a ‘reformer’ who wanted to ‘improve’ the Church.

You say that Luther’s soteriology was radical and ‘genuinely innovative’. Isn’t that an admission that his “Salvation by Faith Alone” had never been taught previously, and that nobody prior had ever ‘noticed’ it in Scripture prior to Luther? Doesn’t that mean that we (meaning Christians) SHOULD view that radical teaching on Salvation with a certain degree of skepticism? Or, should we believe that all of the prior Theologians and Doctors and Fathers just ‘missed’ what is supposedly SO CLEAR in Scripture?

God Bless You Edwin, Topper

 

[Contarini]

That’s pretty much his argument. He admitted “sola” isn’t there, he added it because he will have it so.

No, he said (at some length) that it was required by the German idiom.

I don’t understand how you can just ignore this.

And that’s how you think ends the discussion? Labeling it a strawman? I don’t think so. Luther exposed himself in that letter.

I repeat: that letter is not where Luther defends his view of justification. He is defending a particular translation choice, and his defense is suspect because his translation choice is suspiciously convenient for supporting his view of justification. But he is not defending the doctrine of sola fide in that letter, and it is ridiculous to treat the letter as the place to find the “basis” for sola fide.

I mentioned several works above which treat of sola fide at length. Interact with those works if you wish to debate sola fide (in which, by the way, I do not believe–nor do I believe in any other doctrine that I know contradicts Catholic teaching). Otherwise, yes, you are attacking a straw man.

Edwin

 

[Topper17]

Hi Edwin,

You said that Luther “merely said, 'Luther will have it so.” That isn’t true. He said that, but then he went on to explain why “allein durch die Glaube” was required for idiomatic German.

Since I’m not a sixteenth-century German, I find it hard to refute this argument. However, I share your suspicions that it was a rather arrogant claim on Luther’s part, given the plethora of other translations that existed in Luther’s day, which presumably didn’t contain that translation choice (though to be fair, I don’t know that for sure–I’m assuming this due to the controversy that surrounded Luther’s translation of this verse). On the other hand, it is commonly said (rightly or wrongly I don’t know) that these other translations were less idiomatic than Luther’s.

There were something like 26 or 27 German translations prior to Luther’s. If idiomatic German really ‘required’ the use of the word ‘allein’, then it would follow that those other translations would also include that word. So – how many actually did? None. The reason that that word caused such a stir is because it had never been used before in that verse of German Scripture. If it had, Luther would not have had to defend it.

Also, Luther doesn’t say he has divine authority.

Actually, Luther made very large number of outrageous statements about his authority.

He says that he knows more about translating the Bible than any of his Catholic opponents. I think Steve’s right that he’s being arrogant. On the other hand, as I pointed out, Luther’s translation did catch on where the seventeen previous versions didn’t. Whether that’s because of superior scholarship I’m not sure, but it probably was, among other things, due to Luther’s linguistic abilities in vernacular German.

There are a lot of reasons as to why Luther’s ‘translation’ was popular. Probably the most important one was the fact that as a result of the Leipzig Debate (which he lost) and his appearance at the Diet of Worms, Luther had become a rock star to all of the ‘dissidents’, which included the majority of the population. His ‘translation’ certainly was NOT because of any kind of ‘superior scholarship’. Remember that St. Jerome took a couple of decades to translate the Scriptures while Luther took 11 weeks, part time. This was not an effort worthy of Holy Scripture.

Again, I’m not saying that Luther was justified in his translation. I’m highly suspicious that he was biased by his theological agenda.

You suspicions are generally supported by the literature:

Lutheran Professor Eric Gritsch comments:

“The Bible was unmistakably a Luther Bible. Prefaces and glosses read like an evolving catechism of Luther’s theology. It’s center is the doctrine of ‘justification by faith alone’. The polemic (in his Bible) is directed toward the papal church.” Gritsch, “Luther as Bible Translator”, Companion, pg. 65

Should Luther have brought his theological biases to his translation? Should he have used his translation to promote his radical version of Salvation?

Richard Marius, whom I consider to be Luther’s best biographer describes Roland Bainton as ‘wishes to make the best of Luther’, and yet, Bainton makes some very revealing points:

In regards to his sermons which were mostly on the Gospels –** “But the text never mattered much to him. If he did not have the Pauline words, ‘The just shall live by faith,’ he could readily extract the same point from the example of the paralytic in the Gospels. **Whose sins were forgiven before his disease was cured.” Bainton, pg. 361

“Luther had a curious knack of finding in Scripture everything he wanted, even the Greek term for penance, metanoia, led up to the same conclusion, whereas the Latin " poenitentiam agere" implied effort and was therefore misleading.” Hartman Grisar, Luther Vol. I , pg. 296

Lutheran Professor E. G. Schwiebert informs us that:

“The Reformation was thus not directed solely against the outward abuses in the Roman Church. It, like Luther’s own struggle was concerned with the very core and root of the whole Catholic plan of salvation.” Schweibert, “Luther and His Times”, pg. 157

“In time, Luther concluded that Sola Scriptura could be the only sure means of recapturing the spirit of St. Paul and the other New Testament writers. Now a mature theologian, Luther was prepared to discard all the Church Fathers as guides, for even they were like muddy streams when compared with the pure water flowing from the spring of the New Testament. ….The exact date when Luther began to accept the principle of Sola Scriptura cannot be determined, but it was probably during his first year of teaching at the University of Wittenberg, 1508 to 1509.” Schwiebert, pg. 158

We need to remember that Luther did not receive his Doctorate until 1512.

Edwin, when you combine your suspicions that Luther’s translation was biased by his theological agenda with the comments of Gritsch, Grisar, and Schweibert (and knowing that there are many, many more), what is the logical extrapolation in regards to the validity of Luther’s radical teachings on Sola Scriptura, Private Interpretation, and Salvation by Faith Alone?

God Bless You Edwin, Topper

 

[Contarini]

If I understand you correctly, I disagree. Prior to Luther there had been those who challenged the authority of the papacy and those who had challenged the authority of Councils. But none had refuted the authority of both. That is what made Luther’s position so radical.

The sentence of degradation against Hus by the Council of Constance pretty clearly implies that Hus had refused to accept the Council’s authority. If he had, he wouldn’t have been handed over to the secular authorities as an impenitent heretic.

Of course, the problem with the authority of Councils is that one can always say that a given Council isn’t a true one. Eck got Luther in a corner by pointing out that a particular well-established Council had condemned ideas identical to those Luther was maintaining. And Luther, after vainly trying to wriggle out of this, appealed to the authority of Scripture over Councils.

I don’t think we basically disagree here. I think that given Wyclif and Hus’ ecclesiology, in which only the Church of the elect really matters, it’s fair to say that they, like Luther later, rejected the authority of both Pope and Councils. But perhaps I’m wrong. It wasn’t my main point.

I didn’t mean to imply that I think that Luther’s ‘program’ was fully formed in 1518. In fact, I would prefer to argue that it never really was. The point of quoting his response to Trutfetter was to demonstrate how incredibly early it was in his ‘reformation’ that he had set his sights on the destruction of the Church. That letter reveals him to be far different from a ‘reformer’ who wanted to ‘improve’ the Church.

That was what I was talking about. Of course, it depends on what you mean by the “Church.” In that letter Luther takes aim at scholasticism and canon law. Do those two things make up the “Church”? I’m arguing that it wasn’t until after Leipzig that Luther rejected the hierarchical Catholic Church outright. And of course he never rejected the Catholic Church in the sense of the historic body of believers–he thought that his followers were the true Catholic Church, simply a purer version of what had existed before.

You’re right that the sola fide issue is separate, though I think they developed together (his understanding of salvation and his rejection of the institutional church, that is–precisely because his soteriology was so contrary to tradition).

You say that Luther’s soteriology was radical and ‘genuinely innovative’. Isn’t that an admission that his “Salvation by Faith Alone” had never been taught previously, and that nobody prior had ever ‘noticed’ it in Scripture prior to Luther?

It’s not an admission. It’s an assertion.

Doesn’t that mean that we (meaning Christians) SHOULD view that radical teaching on Salvation with a certain degree of skepticism? Or, should we believe that all of the prior Theologians and Doctors and Fathers just ‘missed’ what is supposedly SO CLEAR in Scripture?

I don’t know why you imagine that I have some interest in defending sola fide. Well, I will defend it as I’ll defend anything else against what I think are unfair characterizations, but I don’t subscribe to it. I profess as true everything that the Catholic Church teaches, and I am seeking full communion with the Catholic Church.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

There were something like 26 or 27 German translations prior to Luther’s.

I’ve seen the number seventeen in print, but I don’t know for sure and will not argue the point.

If idiomatic German really ‘required’ the use of the word ‘allein’, then it would follow that those other translations would also include that word.

I agree that that’s suspicious. The one thing one can say in Luther’s favor is that the other translations may not have been very idiomatic. Luther’s translation caught on for a reason, and it’s generally asserted that part of that reason was the literary quality of his translation. I have not read any of the other translations, and I am not an expert in the literary qualities of early modern German (I do read it, but with some difficulty). So I don’t know if this is true or not

Actually, Luther made very large number of outrageous statements about his authority.

Sure. And this is one of them. It’s just a brag about his learning (a joking one, I’m pretty sure, though it’s hard to tell with Luther where the broad humor ended and the serious megalomania began–he was kind of like Rush Limbaugh that way), not a claim of divine authority per se.

There are a lot of reasons as to why Luther’s ‘translation’ was popular. Probably the most important one was the fact that as a result of the Leipzig Debate (which he lost) and his appearance at the Diet of Worms, Luther had become a rock star to all of the ‘dissidents’, which included the majority of the population.

I think that’s a vast overstatement, unless by “dissidents” you mean "people who thought Rome was corrupt and a financial drain on Germany.

His ‘translation’ certainly was NOT because of any kind of ‘superior scholarship’. Remember that St. Jerome took a couple of decades to translate the Scriptures while Luther took 11 weeks, part time. This was not an effort worthy of Holy Scripture.

Luther and the other Protestant Reformers did work very fast. However, they also worked very intensely. I’m not interested in defending his scholarship, though.

Should Luther have brought his theological biases to his translation? Should he have used his translation to promote his radical version of Salvation?

No, because his radical version wasn’t in fact the best reading of Paul. But everyone brings theological biases to translation. Surely you know that.

Richard Marius, whom I consider to be Luther’s best biographer describes Roland Bainton as ‘wishes to make the best of Luther’

I disagree with you entirely about Marius (it’s an interesting book, but much more about Marius than about Luther or his times), but he’s certainly right there.

and yet, Bainton makes some very revealing points:
In regards to his sermons which were mostly on the Gospels –** “But the text never mattered much to him.**

If you’re looking at all these quotes in terms of the biases of their authors, bear in mind that Bainton was a fairly liberal Protestant and this is for him a way of saying that Luther wasn’t a fundamentalist. But I agree–Luther brought a lot of his theology to Scripture. Which we always do, but in Luther’s case his insistence that he was right and the Church was wrong because Scripture agreed with him is a problem.

It’s a mistake, though, to focus solely on Luther. Nearly an entire generation of northern European scholars and theologians went over to Protestantism–many of the most brilliant younger humanists. You can attack Luther all you want, but you’re dealing with a whole generation of people who found him convincing.

“The Reformation was thus not directed solely against the outward abuses in the Roman Church. It, like Luther’s own struggle was concerned with the very core and root of the whole Catholic plan of salvation.”

Schweibert, “Luther and His Times”, pg. 157

Absolutely. I’m not sure what point you are making, but I certainly agree and have said this on this forum many times.

“In time, Luther concluded that Sola Scriptura could be the only sure means of recapturing the spirit of St. Paul and the other New Testament writers. Now a mature theologian, Luther was prepared to discard all the Church Fathers as guides, for even they were like muddy streams when compared with the pure water flowing from the spring of the New Testament. ….The exact date when Luther began to accept the principle of Sola Scriptura cannot be determined, but it was probably during his first year of teaching at the University of Wittenberg, 1508 to 1509.” Schwiebert, pg. 158

Where does Schwiebert (whom I have not read) get this conclusion? As I said above, I define sola scriptura primarily in terms of rejecting the authority of the Church, and I don’t think Luther was fully there till after Leipzig. But as I also said above, accepting the authority of Councils could be pretty nebulous, so perhaps Schwiebert is right.

Edwin, when you combine your suspicions that Luther’s translation was biased by his theological agenda with the comments of Gritsch, Grisar, and Schweibert (and knowing that there are many, many more), what is the logical extrapolation in regards to the validity of Luther’s radical teachings on Sola Scriptura, Private Interpretation, and Salvation by Faith Alone?

The translation issue is neither here nor there. That was my point originally–you and steve are just putting way too much importance on it. It doesn’t prove anything one way or the other about the validity of Luther’s position.

You seem to be trying to persuade me that Luther was wrong. Wouldn’t it have been a good idea to ascertain first whether and how far I agreed with him?

Edwin

 

[steve_b]

No, he said (at some length) that it was required by the German idiom.
I don’t understand how you can just ignore this.

I responded to that. #37
I’ll highlight key points.

(all emphasis mine)
First Printed Bible in German (1466)
Before Martin Luther was even born, a German-language Bible was published in 1466, using Gutenberg’s invention. Known as the Mentel Bible, this Bibel was a literal translation of the Latin Vulgate. Printed in Strassburg, the Mentel Bible appeared in some 18 editions until it was replaced by Luther’s new translation in 1522.

As you know, while it says first "printed" bible, which means prior to that date, all bibles were hand written, there were also hand written bibles in German prior to the first “printed” bible.

Let’s face it, Luther printed his bible, because he had an agenda, and we can’t ignore that…
C:

I repeat: that letter is not where Luther defends his** view of justification.** He is defending a particular translation choice, and his defense is suspect because his translation choice is suspiciously convenient for supporting his view of justification. But he is not defending the doctrine of sola fide in that letter, and it is ridiculous to treat the letter as the place to find the “basis” for sola fide.

You’ve been telling me #33. #35 that Luther WAS defending his use of sola fide in that letter, and you accused me of not giving Luther credit for his defense. Of course I disagree.
C:

I mentioned several works above which treat of sola fide at length. Interact with those works if you wish to debate sola fide (in which, by the way, I do not believe–nor do I believe in any other doctrine that I know contradicts Catholic teaching). Otherwise, yes, you are attacking a straw man.
Edwin

I posted his letter, and used that letter, in Luther’s own words, to make my points, along with using extra document history. That’s not a strawman argument

 

[Contarini]

I responded to that. #37
I’ll highlight key points.

(all emphasis mine)
First Printed Bible in German (1466)
Before Martin Luther was even born, a German-language Bible was published in 1466, using Gutenberg’s invention. Known as the Mentel Bible, this Bibel was a literal translation of the Latin Vulgate. Printed in Strassburg, the Mentel Bible appeared in some 18 editions until it was replaced by Luther’s new translation in 1522.

As you know, while it says first "printed" bible, which means prior to that date, all bibles were hand written, there were also hand written bibles in German prior to the first “printed” bible.

Let’s face it, Luther printed his bible, because he had an agenda, and we can’t ignore that…

No disagreement thee. But you said “merely.” The “merely” was wrong. You can disagree with his linguistic argument (though I question whether either you or I have much basis for having an opinion one way or the other), and you can certainly have a suspicion that his theological agenda was biasing his translation choice (as I do). But you mistook (as generations of Catholics have done–the canard is in Chesterton) a rhetorical flourish for his main argument.

You’ve been telling me #33. #35 that Luther WAS defending his use of sola fide in that letter, and you accused me of not giving Luther credit for his defense. Of course I disagree.

You’re confusing the translation choice with the doctrine. They are distinct. Are you laboring under the misconception that Luther’s doctrine is somehow based on the translation choice?

And this whole thing centers on your use of the word “merely.” You seem to think that just because I acknowledge the existence of the linguistic argument I must agree with it. Your word “merely” excluded Luther’s main argument. Essentially what he said is, “I don’t owe those Papist idiots an explanation, but I’ll give one to you.” You are taking the “I don’t owe an explanation” as the answer when it’s a preface to the answer. It isn’t really that significant a point, but fairness and accuracy matters. This letter, along with the “sin boldly” one, are used as cheap shots by Catholics. That doesn’t further serious refutation of sola fide.

Edwin

 

[benjohnson]

The amusing thing for us Lutherans about the ‘Alone’ controversy is that historically Luther was in good company with stalwart Catholics who translated it as such as well:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Goya]

The amusing thing for us Lutherans about the ‘Alone’ controversy is that historically Luther was in good company with stalwart Catholics who translated it as such as well:

…

Glad you find it ‘amusing’.

The part that’s not so amusing, is that ‘the alone controversy’ wasn’t about deciding to include ‘alone’ (or ‘sola’ before ‘fide’) in his translation–it’s the theology/soteriology he inferred, and in fact championed, therefrom–which was in stark conflict with 1,500 years of Church teaching. Hiding behind the semantics/ grammatical basis, obscures the real point, which is that Luther’s intent was to undermine Sacred Tradition–not to work reform, within the Church that Christ established.***

IOW: Revolution, not Reformation*.**

It would appear that he succeeded.

Much like Fidel Castro’s revolution in Cuba–or the sexual revolution of the '60’s, “succeeded”–they worked…just not for the betterment of their intended beneficiaries.

C’est la vie.

 

[Goya]

You said that Luther "merely said, 'Luther will have it so." That isn’t true. He said that, but then he went on to explain why “allein durch die Glaube” was required for idiomatic German.
…

explanation:shrug:

Edwin

He said “merely.” And that’s just not true. Luther didn’t “merely” say that. He said that and other things too.
…
Again, I’m not saying that Luther was justified in his translation. I’m highly suspicious that he was biased by his theological agenda. But*** it isn’t true that he “merely” said “Dr. Luther will have it so.***”

Edwin

Sorry–I meant translations in German, not just translations in general, but I didn’t say so explicitly.
…

What is that supposed to mean? What am I reading wrong? You said "merely."

…

I see–I was distracted by your use of "merely" from a bigger problem with that you said. …

Edwin

No disagreement thee. But you said "merely." The “merely” was wrong. You can disagree with his linguistic argument (though I question whether either you or I have much basis for having an opinion one way or the other), and you can certainly have a suspicion that his theological agenda was biasing his translation choice (as I do). But you mistook (as generations of Catholics have done–the canard is in Chesterton) a rhetorical flourish for his main argument.

…

Edwin

You seem more inclined to hold ‘Steve B’ accountable for his intent in the use of the word ‘merely’ on a message board, than Luther’s use of ‘sola’, in a translation of scripture.

Seems to me that one’s intent, *vis a vis *potentially taking liberties with the Word of God, should be subjected to greater scrutiny, than one’s use of an adjective, on a message board, about a guy who allegedly/potentially took liberties with the Word of God, in order to favor his own theology/soteriology, over that of the proper successors to the proper successors…to the Church that Christ founded–especially when that said object of the message board commentary, actually–and proudly–admitted, and owned the substance of the allegations–and even claimed ‘divine revelation’ for doing so–albeit tongue in cheek (typically making a mockery of not just himself, but of the Church that Christ actually founded, how He founded it, the Faith He bequeathed to us…and frankly, vicariously thereby, of Christ himself).

But hey…that’s just my perspective.

 

[benjohnson]

Glad you find it ‘amusing’.

The part that’s not so amusing, is that ‘the alone controversy’ wasn’t about deciding to include ‘alone’ (or ‘sola’ before ‘fide’) in his translation–it’s the theology/soteriology he inferred,

Perhaps are you assuming Lutheran’s thought of Faith are like our Reformed brothers and sisters in Christ? I’ve bolded some sections that may be encouraging from a Catholic perspective.

Martin Luther’s Definition of Faith: An excerpt from “An Introduction to St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans,”

        Faith is not what some people think it is. Their human dream 
   is a delusion. Because they observe that faith is not followed by 
   good works or a better life, they fall into error, even though they
   speak and hear much about faith. ``Faith is not enough,'' they
   say, ``You must do good works, you must be pious to be saved.''
   They think that, when you hear the gospel, you start working,
   creating by your own strength a thankful heart which says, ``I
   believe.'' That is what they think true faith is. But, because
   this is a human idea, a dream, the heart never learns anything
   from it, so it does nothing and reform doesn't come from this
   `faith,' either.

        Instead, faith is God's work in us, that changes us and gives 
   new birth from God. (John 1:13). It kills the Old Adam and makes us
   completely different people. It changes our hearts, our spirits,
   our thoughts and all our powers. It brings the Holy Spirit with
   it. Yes, it is a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this
   faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn't
   stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone
   asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without
   ceasing.  **Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an
   unbeliever. ** He stumbles around and looks for faith and good
   works, even though he does not know what faith or good works are.
   Yet he gossips and chatters about faith and good works with many
   words.

        Faith is a living, bold trust in God's grace, so certain of 
   God's favor that it would risk death a thousand times trusting in it.
   Such confidence and knowledge of God's grace makes you happy,
   joyful and bold in your relationship to God and all creatures. The
   Holy Spirit makes this happen through faith. **Because of it, you
   freely, willingly and joyfully do good to everyone, serve
   everyone, suffer all kinds of things, love and praise the God who
   has shown you such grace. Thus, it is just as impossible to
   separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from
   fire! **Therefore, watch out for your own false ideas and guard
   against good-for-nothing gossips, who think they're smart enough
   to define faith and works, but really are the greatest of fools.
   Ask God to work faith in you, or you will remain forever without
   faith, no matter what you wish, say or can do.

 

[Contarini]

Glad you find it ‘amusing’.

The part that’s not so amusing, is that ‘the alone controversy’ wasn’t about deciding to include ‘alone’ (or ‘sola’ before ‘fide’) in his translation–it’s the theology/soteriology he inferred, and in fact championed, therefrom–which was in stark conflict with 1,500 years of Church teaching. Hiding behind the semantics/ grammatical basis, obscures the real point

Goya, I think you have missed the point of the disagreement between steve b and myself. Steve b is the one who confused the translation choice with the theology. I have pointed out several times that the letter on translating isn’t where you go to see Luther’s basis for sola fide.

And I disagree with sola fide.

Edwin

 

[Goya]

Perhaps are you assuming Lutheran’s thought of Faith are like our Reformed brothers and sisters in Christ? I’ve bolded some sections that may be encouraging from a Catholic perspective.

Martin Luther’s Definition of Faith: An excerpt from “An Introduction to St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans,”

        Faith is not what some people think it is....

        Instead, faith is God's work in us, that changes us and gives 
   new birth from God. (John 1:13). It kills the Old Adam and makes us
   completely different people. It changes our hearts, our spirits,
   our thoughts and all our powers. It brings the Holy Spirit with
   it. Yes, it is a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this
   faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn't
   stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone
   asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without
   ceasing.  **Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an
   unbeliever. ** He stumbles around and looks for faith and good
   works, even though he does not know what faith or good works are.
   Yet he gossips and chatters about faith and good works with many
   words.

…

**Frederick Staphil (17) relates a curious anecdote concerning this matter. Luther at one time, he says, endeavoured to exorcise a girl in Wittemberg, possessed by an evil spirit, but was so terrified that he tried to escape, both by the door and window, which, to his great consternation, were both made fast; finally, one of his companions broke open the
door with a hatchet, and they escaped (18).

If Luther was not the child of Satan, however, few laboured so strenuously in his service. His name originally was Luder; but as the vulgar meaning of that word was not the most elegant, he changed it to Luther. …

While pursuing his legal and philosophical studies in that University, he happened to take a walk in the country with a fellow-student, who was struck dead by lightning at his side. Under the influence of terror, and not moved by devotion, he made a vow to enter into religion, and became an Augustineian Friar, in the Convent of Erfurt (19). “It was not,” he says, " by my own free will I became a Monk, but terrified by a sudden death, I made a vow to that effect*." This took place in 1504, in the 22nd year of his age, and was a matter of great suprise to his father and friends, who previously never perceived in him any tendency to piety (20). …

In the year 1518, Luther sent his conclusions to the Pope, in a pamphlet, entitled “Resolutiones Disputationum de Indulgentiarum virtute ;” and in the preface, he thus addresses him : " Holy Father, prostrate at your Holiness feet, I offer myself, with all I possess; vivify or destroy, call, revoke, reject, as you will, I recognise your voice as the voice of Christ, presiding and speaking in you; if I deserve death, I refuse not to die" (26). With such protestations of submission did he endeavour to deceive the Pope, but as Cardinal Gotti (27) remarks, in this very letter, he protests that he adopts no other sentiments than those of the Scriptures, and intends merely to oppose the Schoolmen. Leo X. having now received both Luther’s and Tetzel’s writings, clearly saw the poison which flowed from the pen of the former, and accordingly summoned him to Rome, to defend himself. …

Luther excused himself on the plea of delicate health, and the want of means to undertake so long a journey, and added, that he had strong suspicions of the Roman judges; he also induced the Duke of Saxony, and the University of Wittemberg, to write to his Holiness to the same effect, and to request him to appoint judges in Germany to try the cause (28). The Pope dreaded to entrust the case to the decision of the Germans, as Luther already had a powerful party in his own country; he, therefore, sent as his Legate, a latere, Thomas Vio, called Cardinal Cajetan, commissioning him to call on the secular power to have Luther arrested, to absolve him from all censures, in case he retracted his errors; but should he obstinately persist in maintaining them to excommunicate him (29).

Luther was alarmed at finding himself in Augsburg, then totally Catholic, without a safe conduct (although Noel Alexander (31) says, he obtained one from Maximilian; Hermant, Van Ranst, and Gotti, deny it (32), and Varillas wonders at his boldness in presenting himself without it), and asked time for reflection, which was granted him, and on the
following day he presented himself before the Legate, together with a Notary Public, and four Senators of Augsburg, and presented a writing signed with his own hand, saying that he followed and revered the Roman Church in all her acts and sayings, past, present, and to come, and that if ever he said anything against her, he now revoked and unsaid it. …

 

[Contarini]

Perhaps are you assuming Lutheran’s thought of Faith are like our Reformed brothers and sisters in Christ? I’ve bolded some sections that may be encouraging from a Catholic perspective.

Martin Luther’s Definition of Faith: An excerpt from “An Introduction to St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans,”

        Faith is not what some people think it is. Their human dream 
   is a delusion. Because they observe that faith is not followed by 
   good works or a better life, they fall into error, even though they
   speak and hear much about faith. ``Faith is not enough,'' they
   say, ``You must do good works, you must be pious to be saved.''
   They think that, when you hear the gospel, you start working,
   creating by your own strength a thankful heart which says, ``I
   believe.'' That is what they think true faith is. But, because
   this is a human idea, a dream, the heart never learns anything
   from it, so it does nothing and reform doesn't come from this
   `faith,' either.

        Instead, faith is God's work in us, that changes us and gives 
   new birth from God. (John 1:13). It kills the Old Adam and makes us
   completely different people. It changes our hearts, our spirits,
   our thoughts and all our powers. It brings the Holy Spirit with
   it. Yes, it is a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this
   faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn't
   stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone
   asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without
   ceasing.  **Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an
   unbeliever. ** He stumbles around and looks for faith and good
   works, even though he does not know what faith or good works are.
   Yet he gossips and chatters about faith and good works with many
   words.

        Faith is a living, bold trust in God's grace, so certain of 
   God's favor that it would risk death a thousand times trusting in it.
   Such confidence and knowledge of God's grace makes you happy,
   joyful and bold in your relationship to God and all creatures. The
   Holy Spirit makes this happen through faith. **Because of it, you
   freely, willingly and joyfully do good to everyone, serve
   everyone, suffer all kinds of things, love and praise the God who
   has shown you such grace. Thus, it is just as impossible to
   separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from
   fire! **Therefore, watch out for your own false ideas and guard
   against good-for-nothing gossips, who think they're smart enough
   to define faith and works, but really are the greatest of fools.
   Ask God to work faith in you, or you will remain forever without
   faith, no matter what you wish, say or can do.

What part of that would you expect Reformed folks to disagree with?

I think you are being at least as unfair to the Reformed as the Catholics are being to you.

Catholics, Lutherans, and Reformed (indeed, pretty much all Christian traditions) all agree that the only faith that saves is a faith that works in love. The disagreements come when we ask how faith and love are related to each other. That both are always present in a regenerate person is not a subject of controversy.

Edwin

 

[Goya]

Continuation from above post.
*

From that day to the day of his death, he never ceased writing against the Pope and the Catholic Church*, and from the year 1521 to 1546, when he died, he brought to light again in his works, almost every heresy of former ages. Cochleus, speaking of Luther’s writings, says (43) : “He thus defiled everything holy; he preaches Christ, and tramples on his servants; magnifies faith, and denies good works, and opens a licence to sin; elevates mercy, depresses justice, and throws upon God the cause of all evil; finally, destroys all law, takes the power out of the hands of the magistrate, stirs up the laity against the clergy, the impious against the Pope, the people against princes.” …

In the works written here, Luther principally attacked the scholastic Theologians, especially St. Thomas, whose works he said were filled with heresies. **We should not wonder he called the works of St. Thomas heretical, who centuries before had confuted his own pestilential errors **(3). …

1. In the July of 1530, the famous Diet of Augsburg was held. The Emperor and all the Princes being assembled at the Diet, and the feast of Corpus Christi falling at the same time, an order was given to the Princes to attend the procession. The Protestants refused, on the plea that this was one of the Roman superstitions; the Elector of Saxony, nevertheless, whose duty it was to carry the sword of state before the Emperor (7), consulted his Theologians, who gave it as their opinion, that in this case he might consider it a mere human ceremony, and that, like Naam, the Syrian, who bowed down before the idol, when the King leaned on his arm in the temple, he might attend. In this Diet the Catholic party was represented by John Ecchius, Conrad Wimpin, and John Cochleus, and the Lutheran by Melancthon, Brenzius and Schnapsius. The Lutheran Princes presented to the Emperor the Profession of Faith drawn up by Philip Melancthon, who endeavoured as much as possible to soften down the opinions opposed to Catholicity.
   This is the famous Confession of Augsburg, afterwards the Creed of the majority of Lutherans. In those Articles they admitted : First - That we are not justified by Faith alone, but by Faith and Grace. Second - That in good works not only Grace alone concurs, but our co-operation like wise. Third - That the Church contains not only the elect, but also the reprobate. Fourth - That free-will exists in man, though without Divine Grace he cannot be justified. Fifth - That the Saints pray to God for us, and that it is a pious practice to venerate their memories on certain days, abstracting, however, from either approving or condemning their invocation. …

In ten other chapters of less importance they agree with Catholics. They agreed, likewise, in saying that Jesus Christ is present in the Eucharist, in each species, and did not condemn the laity who communicated in one kind only. They allowed the jurisdiction of Bishops, and that obedience was due to them by Pastors, Preachers, and Priests, in Spiritual matters, and that censures published by them, according to the rule of Scripture, are of avail. The Emperor, hoping it would render easier the establishment of peace, joined to the commissions two jurists, for each side, along with Ecchius and Melancthon; but this Conference never was closed, because, as Sleidan tells us, Melancthon was not permitted by Luther to sign the treaty, although he was most anxious for the establishment of peace, as he declares in his letter to the Legate Campeggio :** " We have no dogma," he says, " different from the Roman Church; we are ready to yield her obedience, if, in her clemency, she will relax or wink at some little matters. We still profess obedience to the Roman Pontiff, if he does not cast us off**" (8). Varillas (9) mentions a curious fact relative to this. When Francis I., King of France, invited Melancthon to Paris, to teach in the University (in which he did not succeed), he received from him a pamphlet, in which he laid it down as a principle, that it was necessary to preserve the preeminence and authority of the Roman Pontiff, to preserve the unity of doctrine. Nothing could exceed Luther’s rage when he heard of this, and he told Melancthon that he had a mind to break with him altogether, and that he was now about to ruin the Religion it cost him twenty years labour to establish, by destroying the authority of the Pope. …

[/INDENT]

From St. Alphonsus Liguori’s History of Heresies. Time constraints prevent me from proper analysis, but a few points worth noting:

1. Luther recanted everything he said…(then, later, un-recanted);
2. Luther prevented Melancthon from reconciling with the Church–else Protestantism would have ceased, and it would have been a Reformation of the Church Christ established–not a revolution against it;
3. Luther refused to attend the Council of Trent, to which he was invited, repeatedly. Had his intent been to reform the Church that Christ founded/established…he would have attended; alas, that was never his intent;
4. Luther confessed, in a fit of rage, that what he set out to establish–what he laboured for for 20 years–was THE ESTABLISHMENT OF HIS RELIGION.

 

[Goya]

Goya, I think you have missed the point of the disagreement between steve b and myself. Steve b is the one who confused the translation choice with the theology. I have pointed out several times that the letter on translating isn’t where you go to see Luther’s basis for sola fide.

And I disagree with sola fide.

Edwin

Perhaps. I understood him to be pointing to the intent behind the translation choice–not citing it as the sole basis for the theology.

 

[Contarini]

You seem more inclined to hold ‘Steve B’ accountable for his intent in the use of the word ‘merely’ on a message board, than Luther’s use of ‘sola’, in a translation of scripture.

Luther isn’t on the message board. I assure you that if he were living I would tackle him with all my might

This is a question of accurate historical understanding. Steve b has a common misunderstanding that Luther’s translation of Romans 3:28 is some kind of key pillar of Protestant theology. It probably flowed from that theology, but it isn’t the basis of it.

Luther came to his conclusions, after all, before he engaged in the translation. Focusing on the silly brag “Dr. Luther will have it so” distracts from the real issue.

Seems to me that one’s intent, *vis a vis *potentially taking liberties with the Word of God, should be subjected to greater scrutiny, than one’s use of an adjective, on a message board, about a guy who allegedly/potentially took liberties with the Word of God

So we have a double standard? Catholics can say whatever the like about Luther, and it’s OK because Luther was such a bad guy. That’s what I see you saying.

If you think that Luther had no basis for his theology, but “merely” asserted it out of self-will, then you will never actually engage with Protestant theology and its errors will never be corrected.

You can only understand any religious point of view by empathizing to the point that you feel, if only for a moment, almost like agreeing with it. Only then can you show how it is wrong.

And BTW, St. Alphonsus was a holy man, but that doesn’t make him a good historical source for Luther’s biography.

Edwin

Edwin

 

[pablope]

The amusing thing for us Lutherans about the ‘Alone’ controversy is that historically Luther was in good company with stalwart Catholics who translated it as such as well:

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

 

[Goya]

Contarini;12054607]

Luther isn’t on the message board. I assure you that if he were living I would tackle him with all my might

This is a question of accurate historical understanding. Steve b has a common misunderstanding that Luther’s translation of Romans 3:28 is some kind of key pillar of Protestant theology. It probably flowed from that theology, but it isn’t the basis of it.

Again, that may be so–I was merely pointing out the emphasis you placed on his use of the world ‘merely’ (although in my last reply, I was giving deference, or benefit of doubt, to the intent aspect).

Luther came to his conclusions, after all, before he engaged in the translation.

Isn’t that the point though? His ‘conclusions’, drive his intent. Hence opting for a translation including ‘alone’, wasn’t accidental, or grammar driven (notwithstanding how he spun it after the fact).

Focusing on the silly brag “Dr. Luther will have it so” distracts from the real issue.

Well, it is telling as to who Luther was, and ‘the reverence’ (or lack thereof) with which he treated sacred mattes–much like “…you want to know who prophesied this stuff? Tell them it was your truly, the prophet Martin Luther…I’m your (Germany’s) prophet”–[paraphrasing].

So we have a double standard? Catholics can say whatever the like about Luther, and it’s OK because Luther was such a bad guy. That’s what I see you saying.

Double standard? Sure. One for message boards…and entirely different standard, for Scripture. That’s what I was saying.

As for Martin Luther? I owe him no more respect than he showed the Pope, or any of his contemporary elders, and superiors. He gave no respect; he deserves none. Not even posthumously. Not intended to be offensive–but absolutely no cause for respect.

If you think that Luther had no basis for his theology, but “merely” asserted it out of self-will, then you will never actually engage with Protestant theology and its errors will never be corrected.

The basis for his theology wasn’t what was/is problematic–it was his intent, and ultimate objective (NB: it was NOT, to reform the Church that Christ established).

That calls everything else into question.

Please note, the Church convened a global Council (Trent) in response to his objections; so he definitely got the Church’s attention. Now, the Church that Christ founded, elected to host a world wide party in Luther’s honor–and Mr. Luther doesn’t even deign to grace the ‘party’ with his presence?

That undermines his sincerity and credibility–among other virtues. Certainly calls them into question (again, reform/revolution?).

You can only understand any religious point of view by empathizing to the point that you feel, if only for a moment, almost like agreeing with it. Only then can you show how it is wrong.

Touche’. My wife is protestant; I know this all too well.

In fact, I can assure you that I have made much greater effort in understanding protestantism (as a result)–which btw, has made me ever more Catholic–than she has, of understanding Catholicism. But, she’s honed my apologetics skills nicely--she’s raised every conceivable objection to Catholicism, and prompted me to answer for Her (the Church). I sincerely considered becoming protestant actually (from when I first met her; not so much, as time went on)–but the more I dug and read…the more confirmed I became in my Catholicity. Ironically.

…but your point is well taken here.

btw–she’s gotten to the point where she say’s she’s pretty much Catholic–all in, "…except for the Mary thing’. That’s the last hurdle for her. Shocking, I know.

And BTW, St. Alphonsus was a holy man, but that doesn’t make him a good historical source for Luther’s biography.

Edwin

Fair point–I happened to have that work handy in a pdf file on my hard drive–made it easy to access, and handle, as I worked the phone.

Peace.

 

[steve_b]

You’re confusing the translation choice with the doctrine. They are distinct. Are you laboring under the misconception that Luther’s doctrine is somehow based on the translation choice?

I don’t think for one nano second his translation was divorced from his doctrine anymore than his issues with the canon was divorced from his doctrine… Why else would he need HIS translation of the bible when there were already 18 editions of the bible “in German” before his version was out? He had an agenda and it drove him to do what he did.