Well it makes sense when Paul NEVER taught faith alone.
It isn’t a secret that you have generally espoused a misunderstanding of what Luther taught.
Expressing it glibly and disrespectfully as “hilarious” is a way of doing everything you can win delaying or interfering with what you phrase as a realization.
Define faith alone, because Pope Benedict describes an understanding of faith alone that called true
I’ve read your consistent contradictions to Lutheran teaching and the confessions.
Raised LCA/ ELCA, then years in the LCMS. And yes, I can. Your mere “hilarity” is evidence
Because only Lutherans can truly and properly understand what Luther confessed to believe…right.
Such as? …
What do you care what Pope Benedict has to say about anything?! Is not Papal Supremacy the one reason why you are not Catholic?
I agree with you that Luther did not provide the best translation of Romans 3:24, using a functional equivalence of the verse saying grace alone. I personally tend to be more comfortable with translations that are further along on the functional equivalence side of translation philosophy. That being said, Luther’s translation is not off-base, particularly considering just a few verses prior to this phrase Paul states that the righteousness of God has been manifest apart from the law … through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. This passage is drawing a clear distinction between justification by works, which Paul has already spent two and a half chapters discussing that no one is justified by works, and righteousness obtained by faith apart from the law. In that sense, Luther’s translation is acceptable, although from an academic standpoint is not the best translation and does nothing to strengthen the argument that Paul has already laid out that we are justified by faith.
That being said, I find it hilarious when a Roman Catholic who would uphold mistranslations in the Vulgate as legit (i.e., Do Pennance instead of Repent, ascribing the one who will crush satan’s head as the mother of the seed to come, etc.), would then dare to try to nail Luther to the wall for that one.
No offense, but your comments tend to jump all over the place and I cannot follow what it is you’re trying to say. If I am too dense to follow your words, then I am too dense.
No! Pope Benedict understands him, and doesn’t think what he says is hilarious.
It takes people of good will.
No worries. You are usually not reading for understanding but for an opportunity to provide a retort anyway.
He’s a Catholic Christian of good will.
The post I responded to first.
Yes, and there was a huge ecumenical ‘if’ in the statement he provided regarding Luther’s definition of ‘faith alone’. You act as if he repealed Luther’s excommunication.
Indeed. And nothing about hilarity.
Goodness, @JonNC! If that one word grinds your gears that much, then I am sorry!!! What word do you suggest I use ?
Not really. The problem is that you are usually speaking in generalities so when someone responds to the specific instance which you were referencing off-hand, you are unaware of where it originated. The result is that you are confused by a specific response addressing the issue you raised, because quite frankly you were more interested in snappy putdowns than with addressing the issue. So when you raised a question about Luther’s translation (you referenced the wrong passage by the way), and I addressed why Luther’s translation was probably not the best, but is valid given formal and functional equivalent translation philosophies that are used by Protestants and Catholics alike, you were confused by the response.
Not mine. It should grind the gears of every good Catholic that seeks to reach out ecumenicaly to develop good rapport and dialogue, instead of driving wedges.
Seriously, what are you talking about?! I did not bring up any passage or translation of Luther’s.