Which group believed in Faith alone before Luther?

[Cathoholic]

I am happy to know I misunderstood your meaning. And yet, your second post makes me wonder if I had it right the first time?

I am not asking specifically about Luther here now steido01.

I want to know what YOU think about these things (and where they came from).

These are not tough questions. They are pretty basic.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14585290&postcount=27

JonNC and I have dealt with most of them in the past in a reasonable manner.

But now I want to know what YOU think about them steido01 and why (that’s all). Not necessarily Luther (unless you cite Luther as your personal source on some aspect).

I’ll probably be familiar with it if it’s Lutheran (as I have mentioned before, my maternal grandmother and my Dad etc. were Wisconsin Synod Lutherans. My maternal grandfather was a Presbyterian. I have an ethnic Jewish daughter in law who came from religious Jews via Protestantism too. And much of my youth was spent in Baptist bible studies, Sunday school, youth group, etc. So we have a pretty broad religious spectrum in our family.).

So you can site the Luther, Creeds, etc., if you want (I’ll probably at least be familiar with it), but I am more interested in seeing what YOU think steido01 and why.

 

[steido01]

I am not asking specifically about Luther here now steido01.

I want to know what YOU think about these things (and where they came from).

These are not tough questions. They are pretty basic.

JonNC and I have dealt with most of them in the past in a reasonable manner.

But now I want to know what YOU think about them steido01 and why (that’s all). Not necessarily Luther (unless you cite Luther as your personal source on some aspect).

I’ll probably be familiar with it if it’s Lutheran (as I have mentioned before, my maternal grandmother and my Dad etc. were Wisconsin Synod Lutherans. My maternal grandfather was a Presbyterian. I have an ethnic Jewish daughter in law who came from religious Jews via Protestantism too. And much of my youth was spent in Baptist bible studies, Sunday school, youth group, etc. So we have a pretty broad religious spectrum in our family.).

So you can site the Luther, Creeds, etc., if you want (I’ll probably at least be familiar with it), but I am more interested in seeing what YOU think steido01 and why.

My answer does not differ from Lutheran orthodoxy, so Jon’s quote of Luther seems sufficient. I’m asking sincerely: what else would you have me add?

 

[pablope]

Just to muddy the waters, since I am neither Catholic or Lutheran and likely to get this wrong anyway, I think justification and sanctification are separated only for analysis and actually refer to the same thing. In Reformed eyes, if one happens, the second does, if the second happens, the first did. If you are justified you will be sanctified; if you have been sanctified you were justified. I think somewhere I read that there is some confusion between what Catholics and Protestants refer to when they talk about justification.

chnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/salvation.pdf

Justification By Faith
By Dr. William Marshner

Stages of Justification
Catholic and Protestant views on the respective roles of grace, faith and works cannot be compared meaningfully, unless one specifies what stage of the justificational process one is talking about. In the preparatory stage, for instance, in which prevenient graces first stir a person towards an interest in religious truth, towards repentance, and towards faith, Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists are at one in saying “sola gratia.”2 A second stage is the very transition from death to life, which is the first stage of justification proper. Here the parties are at one in saying “sola fide,” though they seem to mean different things by it. Protestants tend to mean that, at this stage, by the grace of God, man’s act of faith is the sole act required of him; Catholics mean that faith is the beginning, foundation and root of all justification, since only faith makes possible the acts of hope and charity (i.e. love-for-God) which are also required.3 However, since most Protestants have a broad notion of the act of faith, whereby it includes elements of hope and love, it is often hard to tell how far the difference on this point is real and how far it is a matter of words. Finally, however, there comes a third stage, that of actual Christian life, with its problems of growth and perseverance. The man justified by faith is called to “walk” with God, to progress in holiness.

It is at this stage that the parties sharply diverge. Catholics affirm, and Protestants strenuously deny, that the born-again Christian’s good works merit for him the increase of grace and of the Christian virtues. As a result, Protestant piety has no obvious place for the self- sacrifices, fasts, and states of perfection which are prominent features of Catholic piety. At each stage, neither the apparent agreements nor the apparent disagreements can be understood without looking at certain metaphysical quarrels, the chief of which is over the very existence of what
Catholics call “grace.”

Justification: initial, unilateral act by God declaring one forgiven. What God has declared clean is clean.

 

[JonNC]

As a former Confessional Lutheran, my endeavor is to get people to ponder in a novel way regarding their doctrinal teachings that hopefully brings them to a more apostolic and primitive way of understanding the full deposit of faith, specifically through Sacred Scripture.

That you were a confessional Lutheran and came away with the notion that Lutheranism teaches that justification is a mere intellectual assent is the worst condemnation of Lutheran catechesis ive ever heard. Or you skipped some catechetical classes.

Jon

 

[Contarini]

“but trusting in Jesus’ victory over sin and death and the devil”

“If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ’s sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.” Council of Trent, Sixth Session, Canon XII

I’m not arguing that Luther’s teaching is compatible with Trent (though I’m not sure the Fathers of Trent ever quite understood how inevitably connected faith was with love and good works for the Protestants). I’m arguing that faith as Luther defined it wasn’t just “intellectual.”

“This is an act that involves the whole person and always goes along with love and good works.”

Amen, amen! Well said, Edwin!

I’m glad you agree. But this is the Protestant position.

I think it’s compatible with Catholicism (that bit of it) as long as we also say that there is a kind of faith that is genuinely given by God but may exist without love and good works. as Trent teaches.

Edwin

 

[JonNC]

=

pablope;14586459]

chnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/salvation.pdf

Justification By Faith
By Dr. William Marshner

Stages of Justification
Catholic and Protestant views on the respective roles of grace, faith and works cannot be compared meaningfully, unless one specifies what stage of the justificational process one is talking about. In the preparatory stage, for instance, in which prevenient graces first stir a person towards an interest in religious truth, towards repentance, and towards faith, Catholics, Lutherans and Calvinists are at one in saying “sola gratia.”2 A second stage is the very transition from death to life, which is the first stage of justification proper. Here the parties are at one in saying “sola fide,” though they seem to mean different things by it. Protestants tend to mean that, at this stage, by the grace of God, man’s act of faith is the sole act required of him; Catholics mean that faith is the beginning, foundation and root of all justification, since only faith makes possible the acts of hope and charity (i.e. love-for-God) which are also required.3 However, since most Protestants have a broad notion of the act of faith, whereby it includes elements of hope and love, it is often hard to tell how far the difference on this point is real and how far it is a matter of words. Finally, however, there comes a third stage, that of actual Christian life, with its problems of growth and perseverance. The man justified by faith is called to “walk” with God, to progress in holiness.

It is at this stage that the parties sharply diverge. Catholics affirm, and Protestants strenuously deny, that the born-again Christian’s good works merit for him the increase of grace and of the Christian virtues. As a result, Protestant piety has no obvious place for the self- sacrifices, fasts, and states of perfection which are prominent features of Catholic piety. At each stage, neither the apparent agreements nor the apparent disagreements can be understood without looking at certain metaphysical quarrels, the chief of which is over the very existence of what
Catholics call “grace.”

there are some stunning things here, but the most stunning of all is a former Lutheran to speak of faith as an “act”, as if it is a work a human does. He should know, one would think, that faith is an act of God working in us.

9] "Therefore, of works that are truly good and well-pleasing to God, which God will reward in this world and in the world to come, faith must be the mother and source; and on this account they are called by St. Paul true fruits of faith, as also of the Spirit. 10] For, as Dr. Luther writes in the Preface to St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans: 'Thus faith is a divine work in us, that changes us and regenerates us of God, and puts to death the old Adam, makes us entirely different men in heart, spirit, mind, and all powers, and brings with it [confers] the Holy Ghost. '"

It is also stunning that he would talk about protestants as a monolith, particularly in regard to things like fasting, which is prominent in some Anglican circles, but also other groups including some Lutherans.

We need to cooperate with God’s grace to be actually clean:

2 Cor 7:1
7:1 Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and of spirit, making holiness perfect in the fear of God.

2 Tim 2:21
All who cleanse themselves of the things I have mentioned will become special utensils, dedicated and useful to the owner of the house, ready for every good work.

James 4:8
Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.

From Rev 7…14 I answered, “Sir, you know.”

And he said, “These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

We are obligated to work together with his grace in that washing…it is incumbent upon us to work together with His grace for this cleansing to happen.

The question here is whether a person can cooperate without the guidance of the Holy Ghost. And if our cooperation in sanctification is only with the help of the Spirit, then it is His merit, His work in us.
It is also a truth, often denied by some Protestant communions, that we have the free will to reject grace.

Continued

 

[JonNC]

The difference between Protestant and Catholic understanding is further explained by Dr. Marshner, in the link above:

Hence, the Protestant doctrine of “forensic” or “extrinsic” justification. Now watch what happens to our own act of faith: it ceases to be the foundational act of an interior renewal and becomes a mere requirement, devoid of any salvific power in its own right, which God arbitrarily sets as the condition on which He will He will declare us just. Whereupon, watch what happens to our good works: they cease to be the vital acts wherein an ontologically real “new life” consists and manifests itself; they become mere human responses to divine mercy—nice, but totally irrelevant to our justification—or else they become zombie-like motions produced in us by irresistible divine impulses, whereby God exhibits His glory in His elect.

Here again he speaks of an “act of faith”. What act of faith is he referring to? Where in the Lutheran confessions that he once studied does it talk about our act of faith?
Good works are more than nice, as he knows full well, and they are not than just zombie-like motions produced in us by irresistible divine impulses. He must be aware of what the Lutheran Confessions say about works, or what Christ says about the two great commandments.

Thus faith is a divine work in us, that changes us and regenerates us of God, and puts to death the old Adam, makes us entirely different men in heart, spirit, mind, and all powers, and brings with it [confers] the Holy Ghost. Oh, it is a living, busy, active, powerful thing that we have in faith, so that it is impossible for it not to do good without ceasing. 11] Nor does it ask whether good works are to be done; but before the question is asked, it has wrought them, and is always engaged in doing them. But he who does not do such works is void of faith, and gropes and looks about after faith and good works, and knows neither what faith nor what good works are, yet babbles and prates with many words concerning faith and good works. 12] [Justifying] faith is a living, bold [firm] trust in God’s grace, so certain that a man would die a thousand times for it [rather than suffer this trust to be wrested from him]. And this trust and knowledge of divine grace renders joyful, fearless, and cheerful towards God and all creatures, which [joy and cheerfulness] the Holy Ghost works through faith; and on account of this, man becomes ready and cheerful, without coercion, to do good to every one, to serve every one, and to suffer everything for love and praise to God, who has conferred this grace on him, so that it is impossible to separate works from faith, yea, just as impossible as it is for heat and light to be separated from fire.

Zombie like motions? Nonsense.

Quotes from the Formula of Concord

 

[Tomyris]

I’m not arguing that Luther’s teaching is compatible with Trent (though** I’m not sure the Fathers of Trent ever quite understood how inevitably connected faith was with love and good works for the Protestants**). I’m arguing that faith as Luther defined it wasn’t just “intellectual.”

I’m glad you agree. But this is the Protestant position.

I think it’s compatible with Catholicism (that bit of it) as long as we also say that there is a kind of faith that is genuinely given by God but may exist without love and good works. as Trent teaches.

Edwin

I am surprised to hear this from someone about to enter the Catholic Church, that these fathers of the Council did not understand the situation. I think Catholics believe the Holy Spirit will work regardless and produce perfect results, even if the bishops in their assembly are clueless.

 

[Tomyris]

pablope:

We need to cooperate with God’s grace to be actually clean:

2 Cor 7:1
7:1 Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and of spirit, making holiness perfect in the fear of God.

2 Tim 2:21
All who cleanse themselves of the things I have mentioned will become special utensils, dedicated and useful to the owner of the house, ready for every good work.

James 4:8
Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.

From Rev 7…14 I answered, “Sir, you know.”

And he said, “These are they who have come out of the great tribulation; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

We are obligated to work together with his grace in that washing…it is incumbent upon us to work together with His grace for this cleansing to happen.

See Acts 10:15.

Did you miss what I said about sanctification? I think so.

 

[pablope]

See Acts 10:15.

Did you miss what I said about sanctification? I think so.

I do not think I did…see the link to Dr. Marshner’s explanations.

What about act 10:15?

So…do you think God has declared you clean?

And if God has done so…do you say then with certainty that you are clean? free of any sin?

And you do not sin anymore?

 

[pablope]

=

there are some stunning things here, but the most stunning of all is a former Lutheran to speak of faith as an “act”, as if it is a work a human does. He should know, one would think, that faith is an act of God working in us.

 

[JonNC]

=

pablope;14586964]

I was actually surprised to learn he was a former Lutheran.

Maybe, you have a different understanding of an act of faith as Dr. Marshner’s?

Faith offers us sure hope and direction amid the spiritual confusion of our times. Before all else, faith is a divine gift which enables us to open our hearts and minds to God’s word and, through Baptism, to share in his divine life within the community of the Church. Yet faith is also a profoundly human act, engaging our intelligence and freedom,”…Pope Benedict XVI

I don’t disagree with Pope Benedict, but his quote has a different context than Marshner’s, specifically a discussion of justification, how we come to justification. Marshner’s sounds like “decision theology”, which is entirely not Lutheran. So by painting all “Protestants” in this way is, at best, misleading and polemical.

I have encountered a professed Lutheran who said fasting is not Biblical …even critizing Catholics for fasting…

Perhaps such groups are in the very small minority…since Protestants, majority of the several thousand denominations…shun such as being too Catholic…go figure…

The criticism I have heard is, not of fasting itself, but of fasting to add to merit, or justification.
bookofconcord.org/defense_14_traditions.php

Well…let me as, what do you believe is this growth in sanctification with the guidance of the Holy Spirit…is this the result of an interior change or merely a response to the prompting of the HS?

Did you read the quote? “Thus faith is a divine work in us, that changes us and regenerates us of God, and puts to death the old Adam, makes us entirely different men in heart, spirit, mind, and all powers, and brings with it [confers] the Holy Ghost.” Which does that sound like to you?
For me, it is an interior change, a growth in grace, prompted by the Spirit, but also requiring our being cooperative/ complicit.

Jon

 

[Tomyris]

I do not think I did…see the link to Dr. Marshner’s explanations.

You mean misrepresentation. I find it hard to believe he ever was a Protestant, let alone that he has a doctorate.

As a source of information he is sadly misinformed.

What about act 10:15?

So…do you think God has declared you clean?

Yes. It is HIS declaration. Not my perception or yours.

The One who created the heavens and the earth by a Word has spoken again.

And if God has done so…do you say then with certainty that you are clean?

Yes. That is the declaration of the high court.

free of any sin?

No.

And you do not sin anymore?

No. I sin.

Jesus is my attorney before the high court. My representative. The verdict has already been set.

I trust His promise to see me through and home. I do not doubt His power to save or bring me home. That is not something in me but in Him.

I think Catholics tend to think Protestants are hyperCalvinists. Partly because of the misrepresentations such as your Dr. Marshner promulgate.

There is the initial declaration of “not guilty” followed by its working out in the life. This is the difference between justification and sanctification.

 

[AugustTherese]

That you were a confessional Lutheran and came away with the notion that Lutheranism teaches that justification is a mere intellectual assent is the worst condemnation of Lutheran catechesis ive ever heard. Or you skipped some catechetical classes.

Jon

The fact that Luther taught, and his followers blindly accepted, that you can murder and commit adultery thousands of times per day and not be separated from Our Lord, i.e. remain justified, it is probably being too light and soft Luther and his followers in saying that they confessed to believe that “justification is a mere intellectual assent”. I could go on all day with how diabolic Luther’s works were and show all the mindless contradictions and inconsistencies. I hope to God Martin Luther is in Heaven, I truly mean that! However, many of his works are straight from the bowels of hell and should make any reasonable Christian abhor them and repent from following the novel 16th century doctrines, if they are genuinely familiar with them.

John, (and steido01), instead of of making unsubstantiated claims of what I do or do not know, or that I am misrepresenting what Lutherans confess, why don’t you try and back up your claims. Show me where or what exactly I misrepresented and/or misunderstood and provide some correction! If you can…

 

[JonNC]

=AugustTherese;14587484]The fact that Luther taught, and his followers blindly accepted, that you can murder and commit adultery thousands of times per day and not be separated from Our Lord, i.e. remain justified, it is probably being too light and soft Luther and his followers in saying that they confessed to believe that “justification is a mere intellectual assent”. I could go on all day with how diabolic Luther’s works were and show all the mindless contradictions and inconsistencies. I hope to God Martin Luther is in Heaven, I truly mean that! However, many of his works are straight from the bowels of hell and should make any reasonable Christian abhor them and repent from following the novel 16th century doctrines, if they are genuinely familiar with them

.
Now you’re just being disingenuous. No one with any common sense sees Luther’s use of hyperbole in his letter to Melanchthon as stating what you have here.
To be sure, Luther at times was harsh, crass, even obnoxious. That’s one reason why Lutherans do not view him as a prophet, do not take all of his writings as worthy. So, there’s lots of writings of his one could site in this way, meaning there’s no need to misrepresent his meaning on this one, for example.

John, (and steido01), instead of of making unsubstantiated claims of what I do or do not know, or that I am misrepresenting what Lutherans confess, why don’t you try and back up your claims. Show me where or what exactly I misrepresented and/or misunderstood and provide some correction! If you can…

I just did. It was not Luther’s intent to claim that a Christian could or should commit murder and adultery a thousand times (the numbers reveal his intent to overstate). His intent is to illustrate the greatness of grace. Further, the reference you make is to a private letter, not a teaching tool. Go look at the Small Catechism for that.
But don’t believe Don or me. Remember, I was and he is a “blind follower”. Go back and reread the confessions, and read what Lutheran scholars say.

 

[pablope]

You mean misrepresentation. I find it hard to believe he ever was a Protestant, let alone that he has a doctorate.

As a source of information he is sadly misinformed.

 

[pablope]

=

 

[pablope]

You m

I think Catholics tend to think Protestants are hyperCalvinists. Partly because of the misrepresentations such as your Dr. Marshner promulgate.

There is the initial declaration of “not guilty” followed by its working out in the life. This is the difference between justification and sanctification.

jimmyakin.com/righteousness-and-merit

One often hears Protestant apologists saying things like, “Catholics do not recognize justification as an event which happens to a person when he first comes to Christ because they confuse sanctification with justification.” This is false on two fronts.

To begin with, Catholics do not confuse the two, thinking there is only one phenomenon when there are really two. Catholics do use the terms “justification” and “sanctification” interchangeably, but they distinguish two (actually, more than two) senses in which these joint-terms can be applied.

First, they recognize what is called “initial justification,” which is a single event that happens to a person once, at the beginning of the Christian life and by which one is given righteous before God. Second, they recognize what is called “progressive justification,” which occurs over the course of the Christian life and by which one grows in righteousness.

The Protestant apologist, out of lack of familiarity with the Catholic position, usually jumps on this second phenomenon–progressive justification–and says, “Aha! You see! That’s sanctification! Catholics confuse justification with sanctification!”

Even the Protestants who get past the initial versus progressive issue tend to wrongly assume that what Catholics mean when they talk about progressive justification is what Protestants mean when they talk about sanctification. It isn’t, and the difference between the two turns on the meaning of the term “righteousness.”

 

[AugustTherese]

.
Now you’re just being disingenuous. No one with any common sense sees Luther’s use of hyperbole in his letter to Melanchthon as stating what you have here.
To be sure, Luther at times was harsh, crass, even obnoxious. That’s one reason why Lutherans do not view him as a prophet, do not take all of his writings as worthy. So, there’s lots of writings of his one could site in this way, meaning there’s no need to misrepresent his meaning on this one, for example.

I just did. It was not Luther’s intent to claim that a Christian could or should commit murder and adultery a thousand times (the numbers reveal his intent to overstate). His intent is to illustrate the greatness of grace. Further, the reference you make is to a private letter, not a teaching tool. Go look at the Small Catechism for that.
But don’t believe Don or me. Remember, I was and he is a “blind follower”. Go back and reread the confessions, and read what Lutheran scholars say.

Luther is precisely emphasizing, hyperbole or not, that to be justified and remain justified one can commit a mortal sin and stay connected to the Mystical Body of Christ, hence the use of “murder” and “adultery”, the very mortal sins which Saint Paul warns not to commit, as murderers and adulterers WILL NOT inherit the Kingdom of Heaven! How can this be? Because the “intellectual assent”, i.e. faith in Christ’s righteousness being imputed to us while we remain wholly depraved, covers us and we are merely declared justified for His sake, hence no sin can separate us because justifying faith does not include works of charity and/or abstaining from mortal sin, hence an “intellectual assent”, or cognitive trust, call it what you will.

“Harsh, crass, and even obnoxious” are not fair assessments of many of Luther’s words and works. I would kindly suggest Luther’s works at many times were downright lewd, obscene, and diabolically grotesque.

“That’s one reason why Lutherans do not view him as a prophet, do not take all of his writings as worthy”

Fair enough. However, using the argument that Luther was not a “prophet” or that many “do not take all of his writings as worthy” seems like an attempt to justify and excuse his doctrinal errors, no offense. For example, to imply that Luther’s character and sinfulness does not inherently make his works erroneous is dishonest, because take any sinful human being since the dawn of time that either wrote an Inspired book of the Bible, or was canonized a Saint etc.; show me one, just one, where their writings - not their actions, or conduct, or reputation - but, their actual writings were as crude, lewd, and obscene as Luther’s were! It is one thing to be a sinner, it’s another thing to commingle your obscenities/dishonesty with doctrine carved in stone not to be repudiated till this day (e.g. ‘alone’ being added to Romans 3:28, it’s still thereto this day, never retracted!).

“It was not Luther’s intent to claim that a Christian could or should commit murder and adultery a thousand times”

I will try to be fair and agree with you on the “should” part of your comment. But I think you are being disingenuous regarding the “could” part. Martin Luther is precisely confessing that one literally “could” commit “murder” and/or “adultery” and not be separated from the Mystical Body of Christ because you “could” be a murderer/adulterer and be declared justified through imputation. This language correlates with the forensic element of his view of imputation, or, the “faith” alone outside of works of charity is what declares us justified regardless of committing adultery and/or murder.

“His intent is to illustrate the greatness of grace.”

Martin Luther: “Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong [or sin boldly], but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world.”

Saint Paul: “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?” - Romans 6:1,2 NKJV

Now, if you cannot see, or at least admit, the blatant doctrinal error of Luther in that quote, hyperbole or not, then perhaps continuing this discourse if futile.

Peace be with you, Jon.

 

[steido01]

Luther is precisely emphasizing, hyperbole or not, that to be justified and remain justified one can commit a mortal sin and stay connected to the Mystical Body of Christ,

Wrong. You’re twisting Luther. In this comforting letter to his close friend Phillip Melanchthon, Luther is assuming that genuine repentance is taking place after those sins (as his ol’ Phillip, being himself a polyglot with decades of experience in biblical study, would also have understood, and you would too if you actually read the correspondence. Phillip was feeling like his sins were too great to be forgiven).

Obviously, unrepentant sin causes the Christian to fall from Grace. But if you think that God will not forgive that murderer or adulterer, even if the sinner’s repentance is genuine, then you’ve just condemned ever person who has ever lived to eternal death – all are murderers and adulterers in the heart. Is there a sin too great for God to forgive? Too wretched for Christ to bear on the Cross? What meek god do you worship?

“Harsh, crass, and even obnoxious” are not fair assessments of many of Luther’s words and works. I would kindly suggest Luther’s works at many times were downright lewd, obscene, and diabolically grotesque.

Ah, now we’re getting into the name-calling. Whatever makes you feel better about leaving your old communion, dude.

Fair enough. However, using the argument that Luther was not a “prophet” or that many “do not take all of his writings as worthy” seems like an attempt to justify and excuse his doctrinal errors, no offense. For example, to imply that Luther’s character and sinfulness does not inherently make his works erroneous is dishonest, because take any sinful human being since the dawn of time that either wrote an Inspired book of the Bible, or was canonized a Saint etc.; show me one, just one, where their writings - not their actions, or conduct, or reputation - but, their actual writings were as crude, lewd, and obscene as Luther’s were!

Galatians 5:12. Better yet, Matthew 12:34.

It is one thing to be a sinner, it’s another thing to commingle your obscenities/dishonesty with doctrine carved in stone not to be repudiated till this day (e.g. ‘alone’ being added to Romans 3:28, it’s still thereto this day, never retracted!).

He inserted the German word “allein” because that’s what the text there means and that’s how one explains it in German and English. Words get added in translations all the time because translation is an art, not an exact science. Hopefully this doesn’t cause too much of an existential crisis for you, but:

*At this point Luther translated: “justified by faith alone”. I shall return to this point at the end of the Catechesis…

…Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true*…

Pope Benedict XVI

Martin Luther: “Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong [or sin boldly], but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world.”

Why do Roman Polemicists continue to trot out this flimsy “gotcha” bit? Luther is obviously saying ‘be a sinner’ in the sense of ‘confess your sins!’ Even Roman Catholic leaders have acknowledged this.