The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum A question from the book of Romans

Tom,

The translator should not add to the text. But he need not translate word for word. Word for word translations do not always convey the meaning of the passage and they are difficult to understand.

J Edwards,

Some cults reject justification altogether. But, if they teach justification, they teach justification by works. The only other option is justification by faith alone which God alone works.

The Roman cultists quote James 2:24 to prove that justification is not by faith alone. However, they are not such crass synergists as to accept their clear implication of their faulty application of the passage: justification is by works. Instead, they employ doctrinal subterfuge and a strawman (alone) to cover their obvious departure from Rom. 3:28.

speratus, you change acts faster than a magician. Your original question was, “Name a single cult that teaches man is justified by something other than a work of the law. ” I gave you TWO examples and now you say, “But, if they teach justification!” Not every cult teaches justification—as you discovered. In addition, neither did they in Luther’s time (and before).

But all this above has no bearing and adds no justification to whether one is allowed to “add to” the holy text of Scripture. Do you think God was caught off guard by individuals not teaching justification by faith alone? Do you think God was naïve? Do you think God did not know about the RCC even before RCC was birthed? God was not taken by surprise. His Word is sufficient without the assistance of man to attempt to improve upon His holy inspired inerrant authoritative Word. God’s Word addresses these issues when one studies the whole counsel of God. To think any less is not to have faith in God alone! I do agree with you that Luther added his “commentary” to his “translation” of the holy text “in part” to combat Rome’s doctrine of justification by works—but that makes a poor apologetic! Rome has capitalized on this ever since!

Let’s use another example—Let’s say, O.J. was guilty of murder is a fact. But someone poured his blood over the back gate of Bundy, because they thought there was not enough evidence, et. al. to convict him. But, the blood was shown to have a preservative in it—that only comes from a test tube for collecting blood, thus revealing it was planted evidence. (Of course, there were other prosecution blunders; If the glove does not fit you must acquit, et. al.). O.J. was allegedly set up and thus he was acquitted.

By adding “your text” to the holy text to improve upon God’s words <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" /> is planting evidence. The evidence in all of Scripture speaks for itself and does not need your or Luther’s assistance. But, if you taint the evidence you lose credibility—even if you are right! In effect what you desire us to embrace is; “If the verse does not fit you must add a tip <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />

Luther was a great man (and I do respect him; traveled to Germany, lived in his house/school, to study his history/theology, et. al.), but his translation has been shown to be a “Commentary on the Word of God.” Now his commentary (what it should rightfully be called) served a great cause, but it none the less a poor translation of the Bible.

Are you doing any better by supporting adding commentary to the Word of God? Your support of adding “man’s words” to Bible translation (a doctrinal subterfuge) to support your position is sin, but it is not even needed. Doctrine does not come from just ONE verse alone—if it does it should not rank high in our cone of certainty, et. al. The doctrine of justification alone comes from several verses of Scripture that, for lack of a better phrase, proof text one another (Rom. 3:28; 4:5; 5:1; Gal. 2:16; 3:8; 3:11; 3:24, etc). Why fix something that is not broken. Since it is impossible for God’s Word to be broken, why add a “mere man’s” word to it to fix it?

My Lutheran friend, Luther was a great man, but he was far from perfect.

I did not change the question. You have yet to name a cult that teaches justification by something other than works.



Anyone who has read Luther knows he was far from perfect. I will concede the point about adding "alone" if a 16th century German scholar tells me that Luther was blowing smoke when he said he was following German idiom. But I suspect that many translations have similar "errors" but no powerful cult has yet pointed them out.

Justification by NOTHING is not justification by WORKS (already explained). If you assert that NOTHING = WORKS, I would be interested in how you magically explain this?

Please, re-read Dr. Emser —some of which I quoted here.

Of course, since you say, Luther was just "following German idiom,” I wonder why the German Bibles (late 15th century), “The Ninth Bible,” of 1483, “The Koburger Bible of Nürnberg,” of 1483, and “The Strassburg Bible” of 1485, don’t have the term “allein” (alone) in their rendering”?

In addition, since as you say, Luther was just “following German idiom,” why did he (16th century) omit the term allein in Gal. 2:16, where it might be just as well justified, and where the pre-Lutheran Bible reads, nur durch den Glauben. Please note, Romans 3:28 reads: nicht durch den Glauben allein!