Help with faith alone

Again, “apart from works” should have been clear enough, “allein” was not necessary.
Also, you and Luther tell me to “leave it alone”? If you have an infection somewhere in
your body, you don’t just “leave it alone,” you attack the infection or, if necessary, cut
off the infected portion of the body. If a large branch of a tree is dry and dead, provided
you’re a wise gardener, you don’t just “leave it alone,” you cut it off!

I’ll admit, I think that Luther’s other example there about
the ointment was okay enough, but it still doesn’t justify
what he did in Romans.

It’s true we are not obligated to work in a soup kitchen in a strict sense, but we are obligated to do good… which gets translated as good work. ( I’m speaking of those who have achieved at least the age of reason)

If we don’t do good works,
[LIST]
]we do NOT do what God created in advance for us to do Ephesians 2:10 WHEN God crowns good works we do, He crowns the work He prepared in advance for us to do. When we do good works we do what we are created to do. That’s why good works are necessary for us to do.
[/LIST]What happens if we do NOT do good works, iow we don’t do what we are created to do?
[LIST]
]Matthew 3:10 , Matthew 7:19
, Matthew 25:34-46 ,Luke 3:9 , **John 15:5-6
[/LIST] This is the doctrine of the Catholic Church. Agreed?

That’s because you are speaking and thinking in English.

Luther’s translation is neither a dead branch or an infection.

Jon

I just had too look over the Open Letter again, seeing if Luther would describe how people wouldn’t
understand Romans 3:28 without “allein.” The most I found was that German people were so used
to works that they would have to be pulled away by force, but nothing more. That is why the “Sola
Scriptura” (under the common usage, i.e. ‘minus Church’) is not enough, but Church must also be
included, to tell people what the Scriptures mean, not alter it.

About 6 weeks ago I started a thread to discuss this.
Here’s my initial post:

Well, “minus Church” has nothing to do with sola scriptura. I think he describes German vernacular quite well, and the reason for the usage. But, we’ve veered of topic. Hopefully, the OP will have a chance to view some of the links provided, and get the answers desired.

Jon

This reason amounts to eisegesis; nothing more.
It in fact contradicts what is actually IN scripture (James 2:24 – thankfully still in scripture, since Luther didn’t get his way when he wanted to remove it).

Oh, read the letter, FKB. It doesn’t contradict James 2:24 or any other part of scripture. The only thing it did was put it into the German vernacular.
Read the letter. I posted a link.

Jon

I’ve read it before.
A more boastful, prideful letter is not possible to write.

Most of his reasonings amount to “you’re too stupid to understand my brillant translational skills.”

He keeps claiming that St. Paul MEANT “faith alone” and therefore he added the word allein to properly express the meaning of the phrase. This is nothing but begging the question.

It doesn’t contradict James 2:24 or any other part of scripture.

Ohhhh kayyy …
You can claim that:
“We hold that a man is justified without the works of the law, by faith alone,”
doesn’t contradict
“Jas 2:24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

… all you want. But it frankly sounds kinda silly to make such a claim.

Luther realized that. And Luther wanted to claim that James wasn’t inspired.

=FathersKnowBest;11527614]I’ve read it before.
A more boastful, prideful letter is not possible to write.

Most of his reasonings amount to “you’re too stupid to understand my brillant translational skills.”

He keeps claiming that St. Paul MEANT “faith alone” and therefore he added the word allein to properly express the meaning of the phrase. This is nothing but begging the question.

Then it seems you did not understand the letter, or the context of it, which I explained earlier.

Ohhhh kayyy …
You can claim that:
“We hold that a man is justified without the works of the law, by faith alone,”
doesn’t contradict
“Jas 2:24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

… all you want. But it frankly sounds kinda silly to make such a claim.

I honestly do not care how it sounds to you. All throughout Paul’s letters he provides that we are justified by faith, without any add-ons. Now, clearly, James cannot, does not contradict that fact. James is driving the law to the regenerate. He makes it clear that works are necessary for the regenerate. Luther never claims otherwise. In fact, in his commentary on Galatians 5:6

Faith must of course be sincere. It must be a faith that performs good works through love. If faith lacks love it is not true faith. Thus the Apostle bars the way of hypocrites to the kingdom of Christ on all sides. He declares on the one hand, “In Christ Jesus circumcision availeth nothing,” i.e., works avail nothing, but faith alone, and that without any merit whatever, avails before God. On the other hand, the Apostle declares that without fruits faith serves no purpose. To think, “If faith justifies without works, let us work nothing,” is to despise the grace of God. Idle faith is not justifying faith. In this terse manner Paul presents the whole life of a Christian. Inwardly it consists in faith towards God, outwardly in love towards our fellow-men.

this doesn’t sound silly, either. It sounds spot-on, and not unlike what James was saying.

Luther realized that. And Luther wanted to claim that James wasn’t inspired.

Luther’s primary complaint with James was authorship. James had been disputed for 1,200 years before Luther, by Eusebius.
Luther also felt that the mark of apostolic writing was a focus on Gospel, and James doesn’t focus on Gospel, but on law. But no where is Luther excluded from the canon.

Jon

Exce-e-ept . . . There has been no demonstration to justify Luther’s actions.
Yes, he gave that instance of the ointment story, but curiously he didn’t
talk much about the German grammar on Romans 3:28 without allein.

Read the letter, Judas. He gives a number of examples. The justification is/was German vernacular. He often asks the question in the letter, “what German talks like that?” He is distinguishing German vernacular from Latin and Greek language.

Jon

Luther talks about the relation of “allein” (only) and “nicht” (not) or “kein” (no) and how both
were required in which one subject is affirmed while the other is denied. That isn’t what hap-
pens in Romans 3:28. It doesn’t say “Faith and no Works,” but “APART from works,” differ-
ent scenario.

No. It is the same.

Jon

oy

A blessed Christmas to you and yours.

Jon

It depends on what you mean by “works.” A sin of omission would be seeing someone hungry and offer no food (assuming you had food to offer), or naked and offer no clothing. Or to see an injured traveler on the road and just pass by. These are sins of omission. Given sufficient context, such sins could be mortal in nature, and remove us from a state of Grace. Such sins are a result of our negligence to perform a good work that is expected of us.

But we are not obliged, as a condition of salvation to seek out good works to perform (soup kitchen, etc). Failure to seek out good works does not constitute a sin of omission. But these are the types of “good works” that most people think of when they use the term. When protestants accuse the Catholic Church of including “good works” in the economy of salvation, these are the types of works they are usually thinking of.

I am certainly not saying we OUGHT not seek out such works (we should), or that they are not meritorious (they are). I am simply pointing out that our salvation is not dependent on them - which is something that many people don’t understand.

Agreed.

Agreed

Unless one is on a deserted island, I would suggest, one doesn’t have to seek out doing good works, they will naturally trip over the opportunities to do them every day.

the types of “good works” that most people think of when they use the term, are in front of us every single day. We don’t have to seek them out. One would have to be blind not to see the opportunities.

And what I’m saying, one who ignores them is putting their soul in perile.

But I was not describing sins of omission as opportunities that we can perceive, but works that we would be expected to perform. Jesus preached parables about feeding the hungry and attending a wounded traveler - acts which we would be expected to perform. These are not works that would be expected by Christians in particular, but by anybody. In some legal jurisdictions (including in the United States), failure to perform some of these works could be persecuted as criminally negligent behavior. THESE are the types of “good works” that Jesus preached about.

I get appeals in the mail every day from charities, most of which I have never heard of. Some of them are surely scams. I am not expected to give money to ANY of them (even the ones I know of). Not EVER. I do give to some, but not to most. But I am not expected, as a condition of my salvation, to give a dime to ANY of them.

I tithe to my Parish, and my Parish gives a portion of its offerings to charitable organizations (which are screened by the Parish or the Diocese). I’ve been a Catholic for more than 20 years, and I have never know for sure if I am expected (as a precept of the Church) to give ANYTHING even to my own Parish. There are five precepts of the Church, but different sources enumerate and group them differently (kinda like the Ten Commandments, which actually encompass 13 directives). The Catechism does not seem to include this support as a precept (which would make it binding as a rule, but not as a doctrine), but adds it as an additional expectation (but not a requirement).

We are encouraged to give of our Time, Talent, and Treasure. But I find nothing in Catholic doctrine that requires anyone to give any specific amount of any of this as a condition of salvation. Besides, how would such a requirement be measured? We can measure “treasure” by the Old-Testament standard of a “tithe” (which I cannot find required in Catholic Doctrine). But how do we measure time and talent?

And what I’m saying, one who ignores them is putting their soul in peril.

So, if I ignore EVERY appeal for money that I get in the mail, then my soul is in peril? If I answer ONE, am I OK? Or do I need to answer two? Or three? How many of these mailings to I need to send money to to be sure that my soul is not in peril? I get maybe ten or twelve appeals per week. If I “tithe” to these appeals, I would send money to one appeal every six or seven days. Is this sufficient to insure that my soul is not in peril? Does it matter which appeals I respond to? (after all, even if the appeal is a scam, my intent is motivated by charity, and it should not matter as far as my soul is concerned).

I don’t disagree

steve b wrote: And what I’m saying, one who ignores them is putting their soul in peril.

that’s taking what I said out of context.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.