Martin Luther on his authority to add to Sacred Scripture.

Scotth1960 · Sep 15, 2011

Martin Luther on his authority to add to Sacred Scripture to support

his doctrine of Faith Alone

"You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word

"alone" (which Luther added) is not in the text of Paul (Romans 3:28).

If your Papist makes such an unnecessary row about the word "alone,"

say right out to him: "Dr. Martin Luther will have it so," and I order

it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the

word "alone" is not in the Latin or the Greek text ... it shall remain in

my (sic) New Testament. All the Popish donkeys will not get it out."

Martin Luther -- source: John Stoddard, Rebuilding a Lost Faith

(Rockford, IL: TAN Books), 136-137.

Martin Luther added the word "alone" to

Romans 3:28, and "only" to Romans 4:16.

Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith alone [allein

durch den Glauben] apart from the deeds of the law. Rom. 3:28

Luther's German Bible

Therefore it is of faith only that it might be according to grace, so that

the promise might be sure to all the seed ... Rom. 4:16 Luther's

German Bible

versus James 2:24 NKJV You see then that a man is justified by works

and not by faith only.

In Erie PA USA September 2011 AD Scott R. Harrington, B.A.

Consumed · Sep 15, 2011

As with all denom doctrine take a pick, we can all pick a hole in it.

One good thing Martin Luther confronted - indulgences, paying cash gold etc for sins to be remitted, and the practise of revering artifacts as if they were some supernatural wishing well

Blessings Scott 

Scotth1960 · Sep 15, 2011

Consumed said:

Initially a man is justified by faith without any works (Titus 3:4-5); but, after one has been justified/saved by God's grace (Eph. 2:8-9), then, only then, good works will follow (Eph. 2:10). Blessings Consumed.
(The) Peace of God which passeth all understanding be with you always in Christ Jesus. Amen. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

duewell · Sep 16, 2011

romans 3:28 says justified by faith
james 2:24 says justified by works

so which is it faith or works ? why would i work, if i had no faith? if i have faith, why wouldn't i work? justified by faith,justified by works, justified of what? justified of my sins? justified for my salvation ? do i need to be justified to be saved by grace? does my faith in Jesus require justification? do i need to repent, if works or faith can justify me ? if my works or my faith justify me, why did i need a Saviour?

john 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
i see nothing about works or faith or grace or baptism or repentance. i have taken things to an extreme level to address a point. either the bible is filled with contradictions or people do not understand the bible. you think a word or two added in there is going to change anything? you think multiple translations are going to change anything ? if our salvation relies on humanities understanding, we are all damned. its why we ate the apple in the first place.

duewell
faith, works and grace are happening now. every second, of everyday, to everyone. all things serve God.

Consumed · Sep 16, 2011

Justified by faith just means that one believes in God who sent Jesus to cover our debt and rightful punishment, nothing we can do gets us that reprieve, setting us free from satans way of live by our emotional charged way. The works is the proof in the pudding -- to love unfeigned
We go along for the ride, free will hasn't been taken away one can always backslide but acknowledging God in everything He will direct our path,

we stuff up just think of a shepherd and sheep, nook and cranny, one is to hook it into line the other to give it a touch up if bit stubborn lolz not just whack a wolf on the head
But every night the shepherd counts His sheep and handles each one before placing them in the fold, binding their wounds, cleaning them up and speaking words of assurance and care over them. Come morning leads them to green pastures again, ever watchful ever there ever ready to meet their needs.

Digital_Angel_316 · Sep 17, 2011

Scotth1960 said:

Good Topic Scott:

I am glad you brought up Martin L-Ut-Her. I may post a few threads on the topic later.

I am surprised a bit by the lack of response to this thread -- but perhaps there are many
Lutherans, I know there are many 'reformed' (sort of) folks here.

Theologically, we need to look at Context - and with the hindsight of history behind us,
and the foresight of powerful communications tools in the present.

Martin Luther was fighting an institutional church works / payment heresy, and badly
reacted to it. His mind was set on 'works' as the papacy saw it - indulgences, sin tax
services to the church and etc.

Martin Luther was not the originator of these additions, as he had many Catholic 'church
father' predecessors who either cited it that way, or wrote about it that way.

CONTEXT AND FRAME OF REFERENCE of a dualist, liberal and authoritarian church of Rome.

Most of these folks could not see past the holy water fount and stained glass and statues
to see the light of day, of the man "Building a Mystery".

The simple truth is, Martin Luther erred as a reaction to his culture -- Context and Frame
of Reference -- and CORPORATE demands of deeds by Dogma.

Scripture does not contradict itself. Paul speaks of works or 'deeds' of the law and in
these are not the moral law, but rather the ceremonial law -- circumcision, animal
sacrifice, moon sabbaths, oblations, and such like (this is also NOT referencing the dietary
laws either, but Paul did teach them as a secondary enlightenment, not first fruits).

Paul is clear in regard to grace and faith in Ephesians 2:8 ... and follows it right up, in Ephesians 2:10

For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which
God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

But these are not ceremonial or atonement style works or deeds.

The problem was the REACTION TO A CORPORATE, AUTHORITATIVE, DOGMATIC Church of
ROME, and the CONTEXT and FRAME OF REFERENCE from that, and the culture that they
were in at that time.

Let's see, didn't he marry a nun and end up with six kids also?

Brief, but enough to provoke thought I hope

zone · Sep 17, 2011

Scotth1960 said:

hi scott.
STOP TRASHING LUTHER please.

EO and Rome continue to indoctrinate their people (though EO is much more heavey-handed with the indoc process) against Luther and with what?

ONE WORD THAT DOES NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO ALTER THE MEANING OF THE PASSAGE?

should he have done it? no.

did it change the meaning? NOT ONE BIT. and you know that.
but you are perfectly brainwashed, and haven't even BEGUN to be accepted by your church.
maybe you don't have enough repetetive vacuous accusations for lutherans and reformed built up for MERIT yet.

all this nonsense is nothing more than a DISTRACTION from the real heresies at work in the hidden chambers of EO and Rome.

DS and Santo and the Catholics here never pull the anti-reformed stunts you pull.
what's your agenda exactly? is it to have people convert to EO? or just abandon ship because you have a trillion anti-reformed threads?

wanna look at some jackal-headed "saints" and stuff again scott? knock it off scott.
you never did answer my questions about WHOSE TRADITIONS WAS PAUL SPEAKING OF?
HIS AND THE OTHER APOSTLES, OR KGB EO?

GOD BLESS MARTIN LUTHER.

Abiding · Sep 17, 2011

Yes Scott knock it off....those jackals scare me

Scotth1960 · Sep 17, 2011

zone said:

So are you saying, Everyone must agree with Luther, or he/she is anathema? You certainly aren't consistent! I'm not trashing Luther. Luther trashes the Gospel. That's what I point out. I am not anti-reformed. I am anti-error. I don't excuse error just because it is Protestant. I also don't support what Patriarch Sergius did in Russia. The Official Eastern Orthodox Church in Russia was in the wrong; an error called Sergianism! See GOOGLE under Sergianism. The Orthodox faithful kept faith with Christ, in face of the error of the Russian Orthodox hierarchy.

zone · Sep 17, 2011

Scotth1960 said:

no scott.
i'm not.
i'm countering the relentless propaganda, as you would expect.
you're entitled to your church and traditions.

HOW DOES LUTHER TRASH THE GOSPEL? are you saved by anything you do or not?

what rubbish.

at least you finally admit the OC isn't infallible. what horror. and what hypocricy to claim apostolic succession with that history.

Scotth1960 · Sep 18, 2011

zone said:

So, it's okay to add the word "alone" to Romans 3:28, when Romans 3:28 doesn't say it? Just look also what Luther did. He added words to the Bible that are not in the text. The Jehovah's Witnesses do the same thing in Colossians. They add their own words to the text. All (other) things. The Witnesses add the word "other". Which is not in the Greek! Luther didn't care that he was doing that. He said, "My will is reason enough. And I will have it so."
I didn't realize one man in Germany was prophesied by the NT to be the corrector of all other Christians, and that we need Luther to tell us "what is so". Didn't the Holy Spirit live in the Eastern Church for thousands of years before Luther came along and caused another schism. To cause a schism is a sin against the truth.
He caused a schism because of his false doctrines.
I didn't say the OC isn't infallible. Christ says the Church is infallible (Matthew 16:18). Christ didn't say all members of the Church are infallible. Don't you understand the difference zone? Christ called St. Peter "the rock". He also said to the same St. Peter, "Get thee behind Me, satan". Strong words. But St. Peter was forgiven and restored by Christ. And he remained a rock of Christian faith.
So the Orthodox Faith is a rock. And it hasn't changed.

Digital_Angel_316 · Sep 20, 2011

Scotth1960 said:

Wednesday, January 28, 2009
New Patriarch of Russian Orthodox Church: KGB Agent "Mikhailov"

The Russian Orthodox Church today announced the election of its new Patriarch, Metropolitan Kirill, to replace Patriarch Alexy II who passed away in December. Kirill is a known KGB/FSB agent code named "Mikhailov". Patriarch Alexy likewise was a long-time agent of Russia's intelligence services code named "Drozdov" (blackbird).

... Russia got rid of Communism not to convert to a Western-style capitalist democracy but rather to transform Russia into a KGB-run Orthodox theofascist state as warned about by Alexander Yanov in his 1987 book, The Russian Challenge and the Year 2000.

Here are some excerpts from Yanov's book:

Russia's Mission

The Russian Idea proceeded....from the belief that the contemporary world was suffering from a global spiritual crisis 'carrying humankind headlong toward catastrophe' (in the words of a present day prophet). It pointed to the inability of the secularized, materialistic and cosmopolitan West to come to grips with this crisis, whose historical source lay in the secular Enlightenment: in the West's rejection of religion as the spiritual basis of politics and in its inability to realize that not the individual but the nation is the foundation of the world order conceived by God; that 'humankind is quantified by nations'.

The Russian Idea pointed to the providential role of Orthodoxy, as uniquely capable of pulling back the world from the brink of the abyss, and to Russia as the instrument of this great mission. While the Russian Idea rejected the 'government's interference in the moral life of the people' (the police state), it also denounced the 'people's interference in state power' (democracy). To both of these it opposed the 'principle of AUTHORITARIAN power'. The state, it taught, must be unlimited because 'only under unlimited monarchial power can the people separate the government from themselves and free themselves to concentrate on moral-social life, on the drive for spiritual freedom'.

(Excerpt from Yanov's The Russian Challenge, pp.24-25)

But in what then can the Soviet system find its justification? Only in the consciousness that it was unconsciously in the past, as it is now quite consciously, God's instrument for constructing a new Christian world. It has no other justification, and this is . . . a genuine and great justification. By adopting it, our state will discover in itself a truly inexhaustable source of Truth, spiritual energy and strength, which has never before existed in history . . . The old pagan world has now finally outlived its era . . . In order not to perish with it we must build a new civilization - but is Western society, whose foundations have been destroyed, really capable of this? Only the Soviet sytem, having adopted Russian Orthodoxy . . . is capable of beginning THE GREAT TRANSFORMATION OF THE WORLD." (Passage written by Russian nationalist G.M. Shimanov quoted in Yanov's The Russian Challenge, p.236)
The Spirit Of Truth Blog: New Patriarch of Russian Orthodox Church: KGB Agent "Mikhailov"

Digital_Angel_316 · Sep 20, 2011

Scotth1960 said:

Luther offers another line of reasoning in his “Open Letter on Translating” that many of the current Cyber-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 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] 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 2:19 [Open 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 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] : 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 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] : 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 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] as did Luther. The Nuremberg Bible (1483), “allein durch den glauben” and the Italian Bibles of Geneva (1476) and of Venice (1538) say “per sola fede.”

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Luther Added The Word "Alone" to Romans 3:28?

Scotth1960 · Sep 20, 2011

Digital_Angel_316 said:

Luther offers another line of reasoning in his “Open Letter on Translating” that many of the current Cyber-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 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] 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 2:19 [Open 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 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] : 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 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] : 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 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] as did Luther. The Nuremberg Bible (1483), “allein durch den glauben” and the Italian Bibles of Geneva (1476) and of Venice (1538) say “per sola fede.”

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Luther Added The Word "Alone" to Romans 3:28?

So what? The only one whose opinion matters is St. Paul's, and he did not use the word "alone" in Greek. None of the Church Fathers is infallible; only the Church as the Body of Christ is infallible. Using the Church Fathers to try to justify Martin Luther is a mistake. This wasn't Luther's only error; he also said "Filioque": Who proceedeth from the Father "and the Son".

Digital_Angel_316 · Sep 20, 2011

Scotth1960 said:

Yes Paul was correct, and learned that he too must say:
RIGHT:
-- NO CHURCH
-- NO TEMPLE
-- NO PHARISEES
-- NO PRIESTS
-- NO SANHEDRIN
-- NO HIERARCHY
-- NO OFFICE
-- NO STATION

None of this is to condone Martin Luther or the Church. It is simply to say, that the church
itself recognizes the above precepts as Saul the Pharisee came to learn. Calvin, Luther,
Spurgeon, Sproul, etc. -- the names matter not. It isn't a religion of Nico Laos.

Scotth1960 · Sep 20, 2011

Digital_Angel_316 said:

What is wrong with Russian Orthodoxy? Nothing. It's the Russian part of the "faith once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3). What is wrong with America's theofascist Religious Right (in Texas and elsewhere)? Plenty! Where Texas Governor Rick Perry uses prayer to God in public as a way to attract votes by the born again Evangelical Christian Right. As part of America's Zionist, dispensationalist, pre-tribulation rapture, lobby. Or of the postmillennialist Calvinist Reconstructionist wing. Both 2 Protestant errors contending for control of the Religious Right in the USA. If Rousas John Rushdoony's biblical law was put into effect in the USA, people who didn't attend Calvinist churches would be put to death for "heresy"/ "blasphemy", homosexuals and adulterers would also be put to death, and anyone who disagreed with the leadership of the Calvinist Reformed Presbyterian hierarchy would also be put to death. Just like in John Calvin's Geneva.
Fortunately, most Calvinists do not believe in practicing what John Calvin practiced in Geneva.
Most Reformed Christians do not believe in the teachings of Rousas John Rushdoony's 3 volume set of books, "Institutes of Biblical Law".
What was wrong with Russian Orthodoxy in the past? Some. Sergianism in the early twentieth century, and Old Believers in Russia committing suicide, burning themselves to death, because they thought the Tsar and the Patriarch were "Antichrist".
There is no righteous man who sinneth not, and always does only good.
That doesn't mean that the Orthodox Church is not "the pillar and ground of the truth".
If it isn't, the Bible is wrong in 1 Tim. 3:15. And so we shouldn't believe in the Bible, if the Church that wrote the Bible erred in ages after the end of the NT era. Then Matthew 16:18 would have been proved false, it would mean the gates of hell (mouths of heretics) did prevail against the true Catholic Church.

Scotth1960 · Sep 20, 2011

Digital_Angel_316 said:

Yes Paul was correct,

Scotth1960: Yes, St. Paul was correct, but you are not teaching what St. Paul taught.

and learned that he too must say:

RIGHT:

DIGITALANGEL:
-- NO CHURCH

SCOTTH1960:

No Church? Then the Bible is false.

The Bible says the Church is the foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15).

And if the Bible is false, No Word of God.

If no Word of God, then no God.

No Church, means, then, No God,

And, therefore, ATHEISM.

Scott R. Harrington, Erie, PA

-- NO TEMPLE
-- NO PHARISEES
-- NO PRIESTS
-- NO SANHEDRIN
-- NO HIERARCHY
-- NO OFFICE
-- NO STATION

None of this is to condone Martin Luther or the Church. It is simply to say, that the church
itself recognizes the above precepts as Saul the Pharisee came to learn. Calvin, Luther,
Spurgeon, Sproul, etc. -- the names matter not. It isn't a religion of Nico Laos.

ALL POWER GLORY LOVE AND HONOR UNTO GOD THE FATHER THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT, IN THE CHURCH, NOW AND EVER AND UNTO THE AGES OF AGES. SRH ERIE PA

Scotth1960 · Sep 20, 2011

Digital_Angel_316 said:

Luther offers another line of reasoning in his “Open Letter on Translating” that many of the current Cyber-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 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] 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 2:19 [Open 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 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] : 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 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] : 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 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] as did Luther. The Nuremberg Bible (1483), “allein durch den glauben” and the Italian Bibles of Geneva (1476) and of Venice (1538) say “per sola fede.”

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Luther Added The Word "Alone" to Romans 3:28?

[/

The author you cited is a Roman Catholic, and Roman Catholicism is an innovation/heresy/schism.

So, why should we trust his citing of Church Fathers? These can only be understood in the Church that Christ founded, the Orthodox Church.

Strangelove · Sep 20, 2011

Scotth1960 said:

I thought you said zionism doesnt exist in America Scotty?

Muskokaman · Sep 20, 2011

Faith alone in God supercedes all man made laws and verifies the law of Moses!

It does not detract from it!

The more involved I get in theology the more I find myself leaning towards Arianism it is a lot more cut and dried than the rest of the doctrines put forth and does not deny the deity of Jesus contrary to popular belief.......... rather it makes things much clearer in respect to understanding the true nature of God and the relationship between christ and ourselves!

Martin Luther on his authority to add to Sacred Scripture.

Scotth1960

Guest

Consumed

Guest

Scotth1960

Guest

Senior Member

Consumed

Guest

Banned

Senior Member

Abiding

Guest

Scotth1960

Guest

Senior Member

Scotth1960

Guest

Banned

Banned

Scotth1960

Guest

Banned

Scotth1960

Guest

Scotth1960

Guest

Scotth1960

Guest

Banned

Banned