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:
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:
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):
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!
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…