St. Paul: Romans 3:28 For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law.
CynicalBear: It’s faith ALONE
But it does not say "alone". You've added to the scripture. You may or may not know it, but Luther added that "allein", "alone" as well to his obfuscatory translation of the Bible, and later was forced to remove it. Your religion is based on fraud.
I dealt with John 6:27-29 in my previous post.
That wasn’t a quote from scripture nor did I present it as a quote from scripture.
I dealt with John 6:27-29 in my previous post.
And you thought you did a real good job; didn't you!
Besides Reformers affirming that the faith that saves must be the kind that effects obedience, you must not know it, but Catholics also added that "allein", "alone" to Rm. 3:28, as this consistent with the contrast that Paul is making, that of faith appropriating justification (which again, RC baptism by desire with perfect contrition allows for) - albeit the aforementioned living faith - versus works of righteousness, whether by Jews or Gentiles, (Titus 3:5) whether under the law or before it, Abraham being the example of the later.
For " to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the unGodly [not the Godly], his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, .."(Romans 4:5-6)
The unGodly being justified by faith "without works" is the same as saying justified by faith alone, even if you restrict it to works done under the law or by impure motive, and conveys the sense of the text, which translators do. However, that is not the best practice, and it was not kept, and word for word translations are better than paraphrased or "dynamic equivalence."
Luther comments, “I know very well that in Romans 3 the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text — the papists did not have to teach me that. It is fact that the letters s-o-l-a are not there. And these blockheads 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 vigorous [klar und gewaltiglich], it belongs there."
But again, the reformed teaching (contrary to the RC straw man) is that faith itself is what precisely appropriates justification, being counted for righteousness as per Rm. 4, "but not by a faith that is alone,” Westminster states faith "is not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but works by love." [Westminster Confession of Faith, CHAPTER XI. Of Justification. http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm]
(Not that you and i have not debated this extensively before.)
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): See http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/02/luther-added-word-alone-to-romans-328.html for more of the above.
As for Luther being forced to remove it, contrary to the straw man of RCAs in which Luther is treated as a pope and whose statements are all held as infallible, he never ceased to amend his translations, while evidence for the forced to change allegation apparently is wanting.
Moreover, if you want to fault Luther based on a translators preference and call that a lie, then you need to convert your own church due it is flagrant mishandling of the Scriptures in its own official American Bible.
In addition, not did Luther have Catholic concurrence in his translation, and Protestantism is not based upon a lie, but Rome made good use of real fabrications to say what Scripture does not, except by ecclesiastical eisegesis based upon the premise of Rome self declared infallibility.