JESUS MEANT WHAT HE SAID

If you translate, you add words - usually italicized for readability and understanding.
I know this because I’ve translated (Greek to English) in seminary.

Well yes of course, the English language is quite developed with regard to a more primitive Greek.
And you yourself know, that Koine Greek differs from todays modern Greek.
When "adding words" though in translation the ideal must be to do so without changing original meaning or context.

Is your translation infallible? Could it be incorrect? How do you know?

How do you know its authoritative enough for Doctrine?

Whether you agree or not, translations differ in meaning and substance;
and the modus of any translation turns out to be subjective to the translator.
This is certainly the case with Luther.
His motivation was clearly anti-Papist, and without any infallible authority.

Thats whats always missing when one jumps on the Luther bandwagon- and to note only about 50% (according to Pew) of Protestants actually do follow Luther as authoritative in these areas.
WHY is there not uniformity there?

Luther never explains why he thought the Greek in Romans
displayed or documented the need to be nuanced with “alone".
His reply was "that's the way he wants it, Papists be damned"(sic).
Well that's not very sound translationist ethos.

Now those have who come after him is the translation games
are relegated a starting point of then assuming what they're already trying to prove.

How can that process be authoritive for anyone, but the Translator?

Some short responses…

—> the English language is quite developed with regard to a more primitive Greek.

Contrary, Greek carries wonderful depth of meaning and is highly specific. Reading English scriptures is like watching a black and white TV channel. Reading Greek is like watching it in color.

—> When “adding words” though in translation the ideal must be to do so without changing original meaning or context.

Agree.

—> Is your translation infallible?

No translation is ever infallible. Nor can it be.

God, through His Spirit, moved men to write Scripture. In its original language, specific words were chosen. If you move to another language, you are forced to use different words.

—> How do you know its authoritative enough for Doctrine?

outside the scope of this thread. Translators and teams are well versed and whole books are written on this topic.

The simplist answer is that the goal is to reflect as closely as possible, the meaning of the original. Some translations are more literal and some are more dynamic. Souls have come to saving faith in Christ through them all.

—> His motivation was clearly anti-Papist, and without any infallible authority

Totally false. It is clear from that statement you’ve never read a Luther biography. I can recommend a good one.

—-> WHY is there not uniformity there?

1. Your understanding is flawed
2. There are Romans on FR that do not follow your pope.

—> Luther never explains why he thought the Greek in Romans
displayed or documented the need to be nuanced with “alone”.

No need. It is accurate, if you read the surrounding paragraphs.

—> Now those have who come after him is the translation games
are relegated a starting point of then assuming what they’re already trying to prove.

You really do not understand the process of translation bro.

This may help...(though I'm quite aware of the very short memories of the anti-Luther brigade).

From Luther Added The Word "Alone" to Romans 3:28?:

Luther's actual reasoning for using "alone" in Romans 3:28. This is the sad part about those who use Luther's Open Letter On Translating against him. He actually goes on to give a detailed explanation of why he uses the word "alone" in Romans 3:28. In the same document, in a calmer tone, Luther gives his reasoning for those with ears to hear:

“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. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had set about to speak in the translation.”

Luther continues to give multiple examples of the implied sense of meaning in translating words into German. He then offers an interpretive context of Romans:

“So much for translating and the nature of language. However, I was not depending upon or following the nature of the languages alone when I inserted the word solum in Romans 3. The text itself, and Saint Paul's meaning, urgently require and demand it. For in that passage he is dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine, namely, that we are justified by faith in Christ without any works of the Law. Paul excludes all works so completely as to say that the works of the Law, though it is God's law and word, do not aid us in justification. Using Abraham as an example, he argues that Abraham was so justified without works that even the highest work, which had been commanded by God, over and above all others, namely circumcision, did not aid him in justification. Rather, Abraham was justified without circumcision and without any works, but by faith, as he says in Chapter 4: "If Abraham were justified by works, he may boast, but not before God." So, when all works are so completely rejected — which must mean faith alone justifies — whoever would speak plainly and clearly about this rejection of works will have to say "Faith alone justifies and not works." The matter itself and the nature of language requires it.”

4. Previous translations of the word “alone” in Romans 3:28. Luther offers another line of reasoning in his “Open Letter on Translating” that many of the current Cyber-Roman Catholics ignore (and most Protestants are not aware of):

“Furthermore, I am not the only one, nor the first, to say that faith alone makes one righteous. There was Ambrose, Augustine and many others who said it before me.”

Now here comes the fun part in this discussion.

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 2:19Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)]).

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

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

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

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

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

See further:

Theodore of Mopsuestia, In ep. ad Galatas (ed. H. B. Swete), 1.31.15.

Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).

Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”). Migne Latin Text: Venire quippe debet etiam illud in mentem, quod scriptum est, In hoc cognoscimus eum, si mandata ejus servemus. Qui dicit, Quia cognovi eum, et mandata ejus non servat, mendax est, et in hoc veritas non est (I Joan. II, 3, 4). Et ne quisquam existimet mandata ejus ad solam fidem pertinere: quanquam dicere hoc nullus est ausus, praesertim quia mandata dixit, quae ne multitudine cogitationem spargerent [Note: [Col. 0223] Sic Mss. Editi vero, cogitationes parerent.], In illis duobus tota Lex pendet et Prophetae (Matth. XXII, 40): licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere Dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intelligatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur; tamen postea Joannes ipse aperuit quid diceret, cum ait: Hoc est mandatum ejus, ut credamus nomini Filii ejus Jesu Christi, et diligamns invicem (I Joan. III, 23) See De fide et operibus, Cap. XXII, §40, PL 40:223.

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

Even some Catholic versions of the New Testament also translated Romans 3:28 as did Luther. The Nuremberg Bible (1483), “nur durch den glauben” and the Italian Bibles of Geneva (1476) and of Venice (1538) say “per sola fede.”

Very nice dear boatbums!

One can deny the words of Jesus, just as some disciples (murmured) and left. Jesus knew who did not believe. John 6:60, 64 Even Judas did not believe. 71

Many Christians today do not believe the words of Jesus and follow the words of men.

The Last Supper on Holy Thursday was the institution of the Mass and the Eucharist. The new sacrifice offered to God the Father as the new Passover Lamb.

Christ is the Lamb of God, the Passover Lamb. As the Jewish people celebrated each year in eating the flesh of the sacrificed lamb and pouring out the blood on the altar as their freedom from slavery.

Jesus as the new Passover Lamb that frees us from sin and provides us with His Body and Blood to Eat and Drink for our salvation.

The Divine Lamb of God changes the Old Testament pouring out of animal blood (which is life) and provides His Body and Blood as the living Bread of life in His new Covenant.

Jesus changed the water into wine at Cana. And Jesus miraculously changed the loaves and fishes to feed 5000 (food that perishes).

Then why would Jesus say Eat My Body and Drink My Blood as a symbol or metaphor?

Jesus would certainly make His final miracle before His death superior to previous miracles, and giving us His Body and Blood and abiding in us as we abide in Him. What great love He has for us. Why would we reject that love?

Jesus is God and performs miracles for our good and our salvation.

It seems to me, that many Christians accept their human beliefs, possibly with hardened hearts, rather than accepting the words (Truth) of Jesus in a very strong, repeated, important and clear message in 71 verses.

Even if someone does not understand God’s miracle, shouldn’t’ we believe in the words of Jesus (God’s Truth)? Should we believe in some words but not other words and not fully understand the context?

I would really like to know why so many reject the words of Jesus, and I suspect it is because of some other issue?

No. Jesus used parables and symbolism to teach man about God’s laws and word. Symbolism that illustrates one’s faith. It’s a misunderstanding of the Bible... and for some, it’s quite deliberate, meant to confuse and conflict. To take it literally is rather absurd, IMO.

—> Many Christians today do not believe the words of Jesus and follow the words of men.

We call them Roman Catholics.

—> The Last Supper on Holy Thursday was the institution of the Mass and the Eucharist.

Prove it. Otherwise you are simply reading your syncretic pagan beliefs back into his Word - not believing what said, but what you want it to say.

—> provides us with His Body and Blood to Eat and Drink for our salvation.

No. Not literally.

—> Then why would Jesus say Eat My Body and Drink My Blood as a symbol or metaphor?

You’d best review the meaning of metaphor. Sounds like you do not understand how figures of speech work and are used.

—> Jesus would certainly make His final miracle before His death superior to previous miracles

Prove it. Otherwise you just made an assumption, substituting .your preferences never found in Scripture, for the actual Words of the Savior.

Why not understand and accept His Words instead of making an argument up from whole cloth??

Why do you do that??

—> It seems to me, that many Christians accept their human beliefs, possibly with hardened hearts, rather than accepting the words (Truth) of Jesus

Mirror, meet ADSUM!

—> I would really like to know why so many reject the words of Jesus

Indeed! I don’t know why you continue to do this.

Look deep inside and post your answer.

Most importantly, ask why you are not saved yet.

Best.

I agree that Jesus used parables and symbols to teach man.

Does your opinion include that he performed miracles to teach man God’s Truth?

Do you believe that what Jesus said was the Truth? (John 1)

Do you believe in the Trinity? That God created Heaven and Earth? Jesus has both human and divine natures in one person? Jesus ascended into Heaven? Forgiveness of sins? Life everlasting? Or are they merely symbols?

How does one eat and drink a symbol? How does a symbol give everlasting life or not eating a symbol one has no life? (John 6:53)

Do you believe that Jesus as God can change bread and wine into his living Body and Blood? How is it a misunderstanding and causing confusion?

I am trying to understand your opinion and not argue with you.

—-> How does one eat and drink a symbol?

That is both a logical category mistake and a figure of speech misunderstanding.

Wrapped up in a creative way!

Have you reviewed metaphors yet Adsum?

“I agree that Jesus used parables and symbols to teach man.”

- Yes, that is a fact.

“Does your opinion include that he performed miracles to teach man God’s Truth?”

- Absolutely.

“Do you believe that what Jesus said was the Truth? (John 1)”

- Completely.

“Do you believe in the Trinity? That God created Heaven and Earth? Jesus has both human and divine natures in one person? Jesus ascended into Heaven? Forgiveness of sins? Life everlasting? Or are they merely symbols?”

- I do believe all of that....but you are attempting to conflate things here. The question was about the “literal” interpretation of communion. Jesus meant symbolically speaking, not literally. Has nothing to do with anything else.

“How does one eat and drink a symbol? How does a symbol give everlasting life or not eating a symbol one has no life? (John 6:53)”

- One must symbolically interpret the eating and drinking of the communion wafer as Jesus’s mortal body. Since I am not Catholic, the literal stance of communion makes no sense to me. Jesus did not intend for it to be taken “literally”... in my humble opinion and understanding.

“Do you believe that Jesus as God can change bread and wine into his living Body and Blood? How is it a misunderstanding and causing confusion?”

- Jesus through God, and God, can do anything. It’s your misinterpretation that is in question here. You have misunderstood what Jesus meant, I think.

“I am trying to understand your opinion and not argue with you.”

- I’m trying to help you understand my stance. Thanks for the discussion.

Thanks for your response and we understand what Jesus taught us, except that many believe that John 6:53 was not meant literally.

Even many Catholics do not fully believe because they do not understand or were not taught. There is a National Eucharistic Revival to help Catholics better understand Jesus in the Eucharist.

I understand that many have been taught that this message is a symbol.

What if Jesus did not mean this as a symbol? and wants us to abide in Him and Jesus in us. John 6:56

Can you imagine having Jesus (God) living inside you because He wants to be there? Jesus wants us to be one like the Father and Jesus. (Luke 17:21)

Jesus told us He was the living bread that came down from Heaven. At the Last Supper and on the road to Emmaus *Luke 24)

My understanding is that Jesus gave His human and Divine Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity (Resurrected) and authorized the Apostles and their successors to continue this sacrificial (unbloody) offering to God the Father as He told us to do this in reembrace of Me.

Why would Jesus say this symbolically if his disciples left because they understood Him Literally? He said that He knew that many didn’t believe, even Judas who would betray Him.

I understand that many have been taught that John 6:53 is a symbol as their religion disagrees with this teaching and can not provide the consecrated Body and Blood to their members.

The Eucharist is one of God’s mysteries that we may not fully understand, but we should accept it as the Word of Jesus. Peter spoke for the Apostles in belief as he said “you have the words of eternal life”.

Thank you for an open discussion and I am not convinced that when Jesus told us to “Eat and Drink” His Body and Blood was symbolic.

Consider spending some time with Jesus at a Catholic Church in the Tabernacle, exposed in the Monstrance or at a Catholic Mass. One can pray or just listen. It can be very peaceful.

God’s Peace be with you.

—> Can you imagine having Jesus (God) living inside you because He wants to be there?

If this is literally true, does this not also mean you are excreting God into the toilet and sewers??

—-> authorized the Apostles and their successors to continue this sacrificial (unbloody) offering to God

No. There remains no need for sacrifice ever again.

—> in the Tabernacle,

Not a biblical thing for His Church.

—> exposed in the Monstrance

Not a biblical thing for His Church. Just idolatry.

—> or at a Catholic Mass

Not a biblical thing for His Church

—-> and can not provide the consecrated Body and Blood to their members

It isn’t in Scripture, so one can.

Never will He be sacrificed again.

“It is finished.”

Your opinions are wrong.

I listen to Jesus and accept all that Jesus has taught for our salvation, even if I don’t fully understand with my human mind because Jesus is the Truth.

The Pharisees and Satan can read and quote the Bible without acting with love of God and neighbor.

Everyone has a choice to follow their opinions or follow God.

So if the Body and Blood of Jesus that Jesus gave us to EAT and DRINK is literally God’s Truth, then are you risking your salvation?

I am sure that you will say that you are already saved, but what does your heart truly say? (You do not need to answer.)

So you worry about the sewers, I TRUST in God. I believe Jesus abides in me and I in Him.

—> So if the Body and Blood of Jesus that Jesus gave us to EAT and DRINK is literally God’s Truth, then are you risking your salvation?

But it is not.

Salvation in the entirety of scripture comes by faith alone.

—> I am sure that you will say that you are already saved, but what does your heart truly say?

Thanks be to God for His Indescribable Gift!!!

Through no merit, I am His for eternity and He is mine!

“Salvation in the entirety of scripture comes by faith alone.”

That is a false teaching and certainly not what Jesus said. It contradicts James 2.

Even Satan and the Pharisees had faith and belief in Jesus, but they rejected Him.

Many have tried but no one has been able to change God’s Truth.

“So faith by itself, if it has no works is dead>” James 2:17

Apparently, some understand the Bible based on their opinion or based on an opinion of a heretic.

May you find the narrow gate.

--> “Salvation in the entirety of scripture comes by faith alone.” That is a false teaching and certainly not what Jesus said. It contradicts James 2.

James states that faith, when not confirmed by works is dead.
Saving faith is never dead.
James never says that faith does not save.

--> Even Satan and the Pharisees had faith and belief in Jesus, but they rejected Him.

I'd really like you to post your scriptural evidence that "Satan had faith in Jesus."
I'd really like you to post your scriptural evidence that "The pharisees had faith in Jesus."

I'll wait!

--> Apparently, some understand the Bible based on their opinion or based on an opinion of a heretic.

This is exactly what you are doing. Adding to the Scripture, or ignoring what it says and claiming it means what you prefer.

You don’t answer but deflect.

You claim that salvation comes from ‘faith alone’. Added by men.

Satan tempted Jesus in the desert. He knew that Jesus was God and attempted three times to have Him bow to Satan. Similar to the temptation of Adam and Eve. Satan wanted independence and equality to God. Is14:13

Have you been tempted by Satan to reject that Jesus told us to EAT and DRINK the bread of life - His Body and Blood -that came down from Heaven?

The Jewish leaders believed in God in their own imperfect way, but they were unwilling to accept Jesus. Their own egos and positions rejected Jesus but they knew He defeated them at the own game. It appears that they knew He was special at least a prophet, but probably more by his miracles and raising from the dead.

They had belief in God or faith, but they rejected Jesus as God.

So what difference is there when a Christian rejects the words of Jesus in John 6:53 and claims it is a symbol?

How does one have salvific faith when they reject the teachings of Jesus as passed down through the Catholic faith that provides the Mass and seven Sacraments for our salvation? Why does one follow the beliefs of men from the 16th century instead of and contrary to God’s Truths consistently passed down from the time of the Apostles?

May you find God’s Truths.

I’ve been so busy these past weeks, I am very time limited. I still need to get back to you on your birthday gift/Grace reply since it sends you off course from the get go.
Salvation has always been by GRACE ALONE.
It is Grace that saves- not faith- or works- or anything else.
I will get to that -but I thank you for this reply, and need to respond to the errors..

This may help...(though I'm quite aware of the very short memories of the anti-Luther brigade).

No, this does not help. Not at all. Whether Luther wanted an “accurate” translation
in German- or for any other language... that is not the point.
Nowhere is he given authority to add to scripture. Period.
It’s totally unbiblical to do so.

Where Luther states he “inserted” the word Alone because… “Saint Paul's meaning, urgently require and demand it.” is just BS.
St. Paul used the word “Alone” many times, and would have done so in Romans if this were such a doctrinal absolute.
You can’t go back 1500 years later and say…”Oh, he really meant this. It’s absurd.
This stunt of Luther’s to set Faith as some type of primacy actually opposes what St. Paul says writes about Faith alone.
Your memory should avail to:
Like having Faith enough to move mountains, but not have Love- I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. Yes, from what I know about Martin Luther, a person knowledgeable of scripture,
yet his divisiveness,
and the rupture of the Church he played a part in, so yes I am anti-.
For me Luther actually Lost his Faith, whether through scrupulosity- Church corruption- his own psychological make up- whatever.
In starting his new religion, based on his new doctrines,
it opposed scriptural Christianity to the point one has to ignore passages like those above-
or twist them out of any meaningful context, until these twisted “knots” of scripture will kill the Christian Faith in a person.
This is what I see in Luther- Faith alone, Scripture alone – it eventually will kill one’s Faith- and lead them into false Gospels- as we have today in American Christian life.
I believe this to be true because many modern day non-catholic Pastors,
who sacrificed income, family and friends as they converted to Catholicism-
say that this invented doctrinal primacy of 1500 years ago is rife with contradiction and emptiness. And when they confronted this false hope in themselves honestly they were moved to seek the fullness of God’s truth in the Church.

4. Previous translations of the word “alone” in Romans 3:28. Luther offers another
line of reasoning in his “Open Letter on Translating” that many of the current
Cyber-Roman Catholics ignore (and most Protestants are not aware of):

“Furthermore, I am not the only one, nor the first, to say that faith alone makes
one righteous. There was Ambrose, Augustine and many others
who said it before me.”
.
Now here comes the fun part in this discussion.

Really. Do you check on your sources at all? Its funny that you say “most Protestants are aware of”.
They’re lucky- because it is neither truthful or factual. And primarily it is CONTRADICTORY to what you say you actually believe in.
You get a Catholic write to write this and you jump to a conclusion? Reread what you wrote- mainly this snippet:

” …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.

Do you not believe in Scripture Alone? Or can we subjectively appeal ot Church Fathers
and their “theological TRADITION”?
Catholics can because we do not have that limitation.
But you may not- unless you accept to contradict your
own doctrine. Luther contradicts HIS OWN dang theology.

Don’t anyone dare tell me “that Scipture is the highest Authority” -
and then turn around and say- well it matters what Church Fathers think- and we can appeal to that”.
THIS is where we call BS on Martin’s quasi-doctrine.
If that Authority needs to be interpreted- and maybe adding a word here-
because some disenchanted Monk wanted a sexual relationship-
that Authority is a false one.
Christ prayed that his Apostles be one – St. Paul said preached that same unity.
Scripture Alone and its interpretive “authority” fly in the face of God Inspired Scripture.
Do you ever wonder why there are so many competing Faith beliefs out there today?

And this appeal to Church Fathers, namely St. Augustine are incorrect.
Just looking at one of your citations you mention Chysostom.

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

I’m not sure what the exact wording or text you are referring to- as you only put this homily ref…
though I’ll also show with St. Augustine later-
the use of these Church fathers really is not fun- appeals to tradition, and not only being extra-biblical-
it really does not give you definitive help:

John Chrysostom (d. 407)
“Is it then enough,” saith one, “to believe on the Son, that one may
have eternal life?” By no means. . . . let us not suppose that the
(knowledge) spoken of is sufficient for our salvation . . .
Since though he has said here, “He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life,” . . .
yet not even from this do we assert that faith alone is sufficient to salvation.
And the directions for living given in many places of the Gospels show this.
(Homily XXXI, 1, On John 3:35-36; NPNF 1, Vol. XIV)
.
Here Paul stirs up those who had fallen away during the persecutions
and shows that it is not right to trust in faith only.
For God’s tribunal will demand deeds as well.
(Homilies on Romans, 5; commenting on Romans 2:7; Bray, 59; NPNF 1, Vol. XI: 362)
.
Hence I beseech you, let us be zealous in practicing those very deeds
(by no other way, in fact, is it possible to be saved) . . .
(Homilies on Genesis 47,18; commenting on Romans 2:13; Bray, 66; Deferrari, Vol. 87: 24)

So I don’t know what your Chrysostom citation could have been-
but he could not have been more clearer on the Falsity of “FAITH ALONE” -
1000 thousand years before Luther’s ideas.
Again like in James, “Faith Alone” is not confirmed – but DISPUTED !
Who are you going to trust then for your belief?
let’s not cite Chrysostom anymore.

It gets no better using Augustine. Even murkier probably- but keep in mind Luther
and Calvin disagreed on St. Augustine in other areas.
St. Augustine’s theology is often called ambiguous.
Everyone should know this. Ideas and opinions change over time.
Even if you don’t believe you can appeal to him on scripture-
do you think it’s a wise thing to take what you agree with him on –
and ignore the rest of what St.Augustine might have wrote?
Sounds very disingenuous.
To latch onto something he wrote or said and ride that ONE snippet out of the gate will leave you deflated. St Augustine was a Catholic Bishop. He wrote a book called Faith AND Works.
For EXAMPLE - He wrote of the Church’s divine authority-

“We have no other assurance that the books of Moses, the four Gospels, and the other books are the true word of God,” wrote Augustine, “but by the canon of the Catholic Church.”

Did he disagree on the canonicity of some writings? Yes.
Does he defer to the Church such as Jerome did? Yes.
Too bad Brother Martin could not have that same demeanor.
But forget the example and focus on this from his boo Faith AND Works
(Written 1000 years BEFORE Luther’s epiphany):

Let us now consider the question of faith.
In the first place, we feel that we should advise the
faithful that they would endanger the salvation of their souls if they acted on
the false
assurance that faith alone is sufficient for salvation or that they need not perform good
works in order to be saved. This, in fact, is what some had thought even in the time of the
apostles. For at that time there were some who did not understand certain rather obscure
passages of St. Paul, and who thought therefore that he had said: Let us do evil that there
may come good [Rom. 3:8]. [….]
.
When St. Paul says, therefore, that man is justified by faith and not by the observance of the
law [Rom. 3:28]. he does not mean that good works are not necessary or that it is enough
to receive and to profess the faith and no more. What he means rather and what he wants us
to understand is that man can be justified by faith, even though he has not previously
performed any works of the law. For the works of the law are meritorious not before but after justification.
But there is no need to discuss this matter any further, especially since I have treated of it at length in another book entitled On the Letter and the Spirit.

So while just like in JAMES- and notice how St. Augustine is harmonizing scripture on this-
he writes “FAITH ALONE” is a FALSE assurance for it to be sufficient for Salvation.
St. Augie is pretty dang clear here in what he writes – and caveats it with
” NO NEED to discuss this matter any further” !! Oh how I wish ! LoL
So lets not use St. Augustine in this instance anymore.
Actually what is funny is this little snippet from Martin years later after he
probably got schooled trying to appeal to St. Augustine for his invented doctrine.;

It’s worth noting that Luther (who invented sola fide) actually rejected this idea, saying that
“Although good and holy, he [Augustine] was yet lacking in the true faith, as well as the other fathers.”
Aside from the fact Luther refers to these men as the “other FATHERS”… (wink, wink),
when you read this, you have to realize that at some point of Luther’s theological defense of his
own Doctrines- he reached a place where he had to dismiss even the tradition he would initially stake his claims upon.
Contradiction?
So IN CONCLUSION--- I will refute your citations, and say that Luther’s idea of Faith Alone is contradictory to these Church Fathers – by his words indicting these good and holy men
as “lacking in true faith”.

Now that’s the Pompacity of Love in a “nut”shell. To know Luther, is not to love him…

Some relatively short response replies for your consideration…

Contrary, Greek carries wonderful depth of meaning and is highly specific. Reading English scriptures is like watching a black and white TV channel. Reading Greek is like watching it in color.

Your opinion.
If that “meaning” was truly “highly specific” as you wish-
we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Nor would there be a hundred different sects and rules of Faith
which are supposedly somehow maintaining an otherwise indivisible Body of Christ in His Church.

God, through His Spirit, moved men to write Scripture. In its original language,
specific words were chosen. If you move to another language, you are forced to use
different words.

Anyone can agree with this, sure... within limitation though.
Kecharitomene and Theopnuestos are two such “specific” words in Scripture that cannot be understood solely through scripture.
“Specific” does not always insure understandable.
The meanings of these words I have noted -
must be found by appealing to extra-biblical sources from that ancient time-
not from our more easily understood modern perspectives.

Not only does that process contradict your “specific meaning” allowing
for a “wonderful depth of meaning” on its own as you say above-
it is another example that is contrary
to the false notion of the errant doctrine that
the Bible alone is all that is needed for proper understanding of the Faith.

—> His motivation was clearly anti-Papist, and without any infallible authority

Totally false. It is clear from that statement you’ve never read a Luther biography. I can recommend a good one.

No it is correct. Not that he can be faulted for that emotion really, for in his time he definitely was subject to a corrupt Church.
Though to change doctrine on his own - without Council-
he violated and divided the Church by with an inflamed ego- dissastified and pissed at his Priestly life he had chosen.
Enter the scapegoat Church.
Where did he think his authority to do such a thing came from? His own will?

Take note as his own quotes support my claim, when Luther is called out by the Church for his “editing” prowess- and in real time back then.

If your Papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word Sola (Alone),
say to him: “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and he says that a papist
and a donkey are the same thing.
Sic volo, sic lubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas.
(I will it- I command it, MY WILL is reason enough.)
For we are not going to be students and disciples of the Papists. Rather WE will become their teachers and Judges.
.
Open Letter, Martin Luther, 1530
Translated from "Ein sendbrief D. M. Luthers. Von Dolmetzschen und Fürbit
der heiligenn" in Dr. Martin Luthers Werke,
(Weimar: Hermann Boehlaus Nachfolger, 1909), Band 30, Teil II, pp. 632-646.

Certainly sounds like a case of Church envy...
I think you would agree, that any confirmation of a doctrinal change should have
less personal chutzpah, and a little more exegetical prowess-
through a consensus of smart guys...
Not just a singular voice.
Then maybe these 16th century "reformers"
would not have disagreed with one another like they did.
And of course a little more intellectual deference in a handling of James,
beyond a personal dismissal that now calls into question opposing, "errant" scripture.
(Paul vs. James)
As far as an interest in a biography that attempts to canonize Luther,
I have no interest.
Objectivity would be scant.
Interwebs can always offer needed help.
Check this out.. if you want...

The 38 Most Ridiculous Things Martin Luther Ever Wrote

—> Luther never explains why he thought the Greek in Romans displayed or documented the need to be nuanced with “alone”.

No need. It is accurate, if you read the surrounding paragraphs.

? No need? Well that’s right- As I quoted him- his will was reason enough…

But no… The word “monon” (Alone, only) is used over 60 times in God- breathed NT scripture as found in the bible. (Eng. Concordance)

St. Paul- alone- uses the word (3440.) “monon” over half of those instances
in his letters. He knew when to write the word "Alone" Dr.
St. Paul was very capable of using the word “Alone” when he needed to.
So the claim is that in God-Inspired inerrant scripture, St. Paul forgot to use the word “Alone” in the text…
Yeah… one un-authorized persons ”theology” is gonna need a little bit mor explaining to change a 1500 hundred year understanding of doctrinal application.
And then the floodgates of course were open… apparently Luther was unconcerned with St. Paul’s own exhortation for the infant Church:

10 I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree
and that there be no dissensions among you,
but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment

You really do not understand the process of translation bro.

Well I do know the difference between Translation and subjective interpretation.
The temptation of the latter always results in assuming the very thing you’re trying to prove, good intentions aside.
The subjectivity is unavoidable in handling ancient text.
And the proof is in the historical fruits of that created division-
which in this case is the fruit of Luther’s "teaching".

My take on this “scriptural accuracy” is not a minority concern of mine alone.
You yourself as well, are en garde against this process as well…
whether it be Catholic, Mormon, Jehovah Witness… etc.
with most other Christian beliefs,
Where division, through translation is paramount.

OK Murph.

I wish you well!