Posted on 05/03/2008 4:38:34 PM PDT by NYer
"Yeah, but he’s a really GOOD kid."
If Judith Anne ASKS for the definiton of Pharisee, and someone gives her that definition, that is not "making it personal."
That's called "answering a question."
These rules are just not that difficult to understand and abide by. Hopefully, you'll get the hang of it.
lol
Let's see what Luther said about that...
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.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...
And I'm sure you're aware, Petronski, that many other translations inserted the word "alone" in Romans 3:28. As Luther wrote...
“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.
In fact, 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.
Additionally, Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):
1) Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).
2) Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).
3) Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).
4) 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).
5) John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).
6) Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).
7) Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.
8) Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).
To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):
9) Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).
10) 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]).
Appraently, Petronski, Luther was in good and righteous company.
Oh, and your answer was from your own research, not opinion, dogma or edict. Do it again and you will be referred to the RM for proper penalty.
Excellent post.
In reveiwing the scripture, it’s clear to me that the word “only” need not be added.
27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
Clearly this Scripture aligns with Scripture in proclaiming that works are dead and grace saves by faith in Christ, giving way to good works of righteousness.
If it “by faith without the deeds of the law”, it’s faith alone in Christ alone.
All praise be unto the Lamb of God who can open the scrolls and Who holds the Book of Life.
That much?
Amen. There are dozens of verses which tell us salvation comes by grace alone through the faith of Jesus Christ alone. It is God who justifies the ungodly.
Blah blah blah.
Did Luther issue a German translation adding that word, or not?
“That much?”
Well I guess they can break their favorite two syllable words, “ohyeh?” and “sezhoo” into two one syllable words, “oh yeah?” or “sez who?”.
LOL.
Makes me kinda wonder why I even bother.
Is “blahblahblah” three words or just one really stupid one?
You chose not to answer the question in that post.
Will you answer it?
Are you bragging about not answering the question in that post?
Did Luther issue a German translation adding that word, or not?
Did Luther issue a German translation adding that word, or not?
Did Luther issue a German translation adding that word, or not?
Did Luther issue a German translation adding that word, or not?
“Is “blahblahblah” three words or just one really stupid one?”
I think it’s Latin for “I can’t keep up with you” or in another translation “I can’t hear you ‘cause I have a banana in my ear”.
Probably the latter translation since “blahblahblah” and banana have similar sounds and the same number of syllables.
And they're both yellow through and through.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.