The righteous shall live by faith alone!

Romans 1:16-17

Romans 3:28

Luther added the word “alone” (sola) to Romans 3:28?

Scripture is superior to relics, statues, crucifixes, icons. The words of Scripture bring us to God because the words are “God-breathed” (2 Timothy 3:16-17), when the Spirit works inside of us to make them alive in our hearts. (John 6:44; Acts 16:14; Ephesians 2:4-5; 2 Timothy 2:24-26)

Advertisements

About Ken Temple

I am a follower of Jesus Christ. I am a sinner who has been saved by the grace of God alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), through faith alone (Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:28; 4:1-16), in Christ alone (John 14:6). But a true faith does not stay alone, it should result in change, fruit, good works, and deeper levels of repentance and hatred of my own sins of selfishness and pride. I am not better than you! I still make mistakes and sin, but the Lord is working on me, conforming me to His character. (Romans 8:28-29; 2 Corinthians 3:16-18) When I do sin, I hate the sin as it is an affront to God, and seek His forgiveness in repentance. (Mark 1:15; 2 Corinthians 7:7-10; Colossians 3:5-16 ) Praise God for His love for sinners (Romans 5:8), shown by the voluntary coming of Christ and His freely laying down His life for us (John 10:18), becoming flesh/human (John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8), dying for sins of people from all nations, tribes, and cultures (Revelation 5:9), on the cross, in history, rising from the dead (Romans 10:9-10; Matthew 28, Mark 16:1-8; Luke 24; John 20-21; 1 Corinthians chapter 15). His resurrection from the dead proved that Jesus is the Messiah, the eternal Son of God, the word of God from eternity past; and that He was all the gospels say He was and that He is truth and the life and the way to salvation. (John 14:6)
This entry was posted in Faith, Justification, Martin Luther, Reformation, Sola Fide. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to The righteous shall live by faith alone!

  1. David Waltz says:

    Hi Ken,

    Over the last few decades, a number of scholars from varying ecclesiastical affiliations (e.g. Baptist, Catholic, Lutheran, Reformed, et al.) have come to the conclusion that the polemical atmosphere of the Reformation period led to a misunderstanding of Luther’s full soteriological position by Catholic theologians, as well as misunderstanding of the Catholic position by the magisterial Reformers (Calvin, Chemnitz, Luther. Melanchthon, et al.).

    As I pointed out in THIS COMMENT, even earlier, some Reformed folk realized that Trent had been misunderstood concerning the issue of justification. Once again, see the following threads: FIRST; SECOND.

    Before ending, I would like to share one more thread on the issue of ‘faith alone’:

    https://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2009/11/catholic-affirmationunderstanding-of.html

    Grace and peace,

    David

    • Ken Temple says:

      David,
      Thank you for your comment and links. Every time I click on one of your past posts, it makes me go to other past links and our past discussions (Athanasius, Islam, etc.) and I am finding I don’t have time to digest it all with understanding.

      I checked out Anthony Lane’s book from a local theological library years ago and read some of it here and there, skipping around, but I confess I did not understand his point and ran out of time and interest in pursuing it; and turned the book back into the library.

      The Lutherans who met with Roman Catholics and agreed on stuff seem like the liberals to me – like the ones that affirm homosexuality; and therefore, that makes me not even think they are credible at all. So, I don’t read this issue any further, because they Don’t count in my book. Also the Roman Catholics who agreed to it are not official and they can always play games (it seems to me RC apologetics plays sophistry games of obsfuscation between formal de fide dogma, official Papal statements vs. ex cathedra, etc. so that a Protestant cannot possible get to the truth of “what the hell” (sorry for that, but it is needed in this case concerning justification) they are actually saying!

      If the RCC agreed with Luther, why no official Papal declaration and repentance and confession of the whole mistake by them and return to Biblical Christianity?

      It will take me a while to digest any of this further because of time and the whole confusing and unclear talking / writing and seeming contradiction to all of history of the whole matter – the anathema of Trent and the subsequent history of Protestantism viewing the RCC as becoming an apostate church at Trent. (excepting that I don’t understand Tony Lane or Charles Hodge yet) Has any modern conservative written on that? (some one like an R. C. Sproul or James White, or William Webster, that I can understand?)

      A lot of the content of your last link is in James Swan’s article on Romans 3:28 that I linked to about in my post. Interesting. From 2006, long before your 2009 article.

  2. David Waltz says:

    Hello again Ken,

    Thanks much for taking the time to respond to my post; you wrote:

    ==The Lutherans who met with Roman Catholics and agreed on stuff seem like the liberals to me – like the ones that affirm homosexuality;==

    I have no idea if the theologians working on the issue of justification during the ‘Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue’ sessions were liberals, let alone whether or not they affirmed homosexuality. With that said, I do know that the scholarship produced was quite solid. One of the first books I purchased to explore these ongoing dialogues was Justification by Faith – Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue VII which was published by Augsburg Publishing House in 1985. This book prompted my in depth study into justification. I have literally obtained and read dozens of books (and articles and essays), including Fitzmyer’s Romans (1993). The commentary, dialogue and responses went well beyond the confines of Lutherans and Catholics, and for sure included a number of conservative theologians.

    == If the RCC agreed with Luther, why no official Papal declaration and repentance and confession of the whole mistake by them and return to Biblical Christianity?==

    Have you read the FROM CONFLICT TO COMMUNION document ???

    ==A lot of the content of your last link is in James Swan’s article on Romans 3:28 that I linked to about in my post. Interesting. From 2006, long before your 2009 article.==

    Was not aware of James’ post until clicked on your link. I first read Fitzmyer’s Romans over two decades ago, and have seen quotations from that work well before James’ post. I did a Google search this morning and found that David King was quoting Fitzmyer at least as early as 2002 (See THIS ONLINE CONTRIBUTION).

    Anyway, thanks for the ongoing discussion. I know that you are very busy, but would like to recommend one book for you to read. It is a collection of excellent essays that address a number of important issues concerning justification:

    Rereading Paul Together: Protestant and Catholic Perspectives on Justification

    Grace and peace,

    David

    • Ken Temple says:

      The Lutherans are indeed liberal – the Lutheran World Federation is made up of liberal groups.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran_World_Federation

      One of the most famous is the “Evangelical Lutheran Church” – they promote homosexuality and gay marriage and gay clergy. Also women as pastors / elders. I think it is wrong and disingenuous for them to even retain the name “Evangelical” in their name. They are a disgrace. Luther himself would agree with me.
      They have ZERO credibility in my opinion.
      See here:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Lutheran_Church_in_America

      The two conservative USA Lutheran groups that still believe the Bible were not part of the dialogue.
      The Missouri Synod and Wisconsin Synod.
      I can respect them; but not the others.


      Thanks for the other links. No, I have not read the first book you linked to “from Conflict to Communion”. It is at the Vatican website. Immediately, my sense of smell tells me something is rotten, since they have not yet announced that they renounce Trent, and all other man-made dogmas – Purgatory, indulgences, treasury of merit, Transubstantiation, 1854, 1870, and 1950 – therefore, I confess I am NOT too interested in trying to struggle through the nuances and sophistry. (playing games with ordinary magisterium, infallible statements, official, but not ex cathedra, etc. It is a mass of gobblygook, in my opinion.

Comments are closed.