TertiumQuid:
Why would you want to talk about this particular Luther treatise? It doesn’t have very much to do with Catholicism.
I’m very familiar with this work, and I reviewed Luther’s attitudes toward the Jews here:
ntrmin.org/Luther%20and%20the%20Jews%20(Web).htm
If you have anything to say that I may have missed in my treatment of the subject, let me know.
Regards,
James Swan
Hi James, I just want people to read his works and address the theology not the man. For example rather than calling him names let’s look at his invention of sola scriptura or sola fides.
Where did the “solas” come from? Well, when Martin Luther wrote his new testament, he wrote it with own theology in mind. He did not translate the New Testament, he wrote his own, based on what he thought it should have said. The sad thing is he had many erroneous ideas (sola, works, etc.). He readily admits the new testament he wrote was his and his alone. He also admits that he added the “alone” in several places, because it sounded good to him. He tries to explain that in German it is necessary to include “alone”. Anyone who speaks German knows this is not true, adding “alone” changes the meaning. He did in fact change Scripture to his own liking. Anyone interested in learning how the sola mistake occurred should read the words of Luther himself.
iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-translate.txt
Please do not give these asses any other answer to their useless braying about that word “sola” than simply “Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the papal doctors.” Let it remain at that.
Good reason, because “I say so”
For you and our people, however, I shall show why I used the word “sola” - even though in Romans 3 it wasn’t “sola” I used but “solum” or “tantum”. That is how closely those asses have looked at my text! However, I have used “sola fides” in other places, and I want to use both “solum” and "sola
He “wants to use them, but they really weren’t there to begin with
“I also know that in Rom. 3, the word “solum” is not present in either Greek or Latin text - the papists did not have to teach me that - it is fact! The letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these knotheads stare at them like cows at a new gate, while at the same time they do not recognize that it conveys the sense of the text - if the translation is to be clear and accurate, it belongs there.”
And here is where he reveals himself. Adding “alone” changes the text into what he wants it to say. He very much wants there to be no authority except the Bible. Why? Well think about it, where is the authority in the Church our Lord Jesus the Christ established? You got it, the pope!!! And Luther hates the pope.
I wanted to speak German since it was German I had spoken in translation - not Latin or Greek. But it is the nature of our language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed, the other denied, we use the word “solum” only along with the word “not” (nicht) or “no” (kein). For example, we say “the farmer brings only (allein) grain and no money”; or “No, I really have no money, but only (allein) grain”; I have only eaten and not yet drunk"; “Did you write it only and not read it over?” There are a vast number of such everyday cases.”
Only it isn’t true.
Problem with his logic, Scripture no where denies authority in His Church, in fact it tells us that the pillar of truth IS the Church, not the Bible. Adding “alone” completely changes the meaning and negates the Church Luther hates.
What if the farmer brought grain, wood, water and no money? Simply because we say he brought no money does not say he brought “only” grain. No one argues that Scripture is good for teaching, as Scripture itself says, the error is that Scripture “alone” is sufficient was added by Luther. It isn’t in Scripture, wasn’t meant to be. Read his own words.
I enjoy reading his works, he was certainly not a stupid man, but he did make a lot of errors.
