Erasmus, Romans 3:28 and Faith Alone: "Vox sola, tot clamoribus lapidata hoc saeculo in Luthero, reverenter in Patribus auditur"

Martin Luther is often criticized for allegedly adding the word "alone" to his German translation of Romans 3:28. Ironically, it was a Roman Catholic scholar that best defended Luther on this: Joseph A. Fitzmyer pointed out a number of people previous to Luther also saw the thrust of "alone" in Romans 3:28. There's another popular historical snippet sometimes used similarly to defend Luther's translation, this time from Reformed theologian Charles Hodge:

That a man is justified by faith. If by faith, it is not of works; and if not of works, there can be no room for boasting, for boasting is the assertion of personal merit. From the nature of the case, if justification is by faith, it must be by faith alone. Luther's version, therefore, allein durch den glauben, is fully justified by the context. The Romanists, indeed, made a great outcry against that version as a gross perversion of Scripture, although Catholic translators before the time of Luther had given the same translation. So in the Nuremberg Bible, 1483, "Nur durch den glauben." And the Italian Bibles of Geneva, 1476, and of Venice, 1538, per sola fede. The Fathers also often use the expression, "man is justified by faith alone;" so that Erasmus, De Ratione Concionandi, Lib. III., says, "Vox sola, tot clamoribus lapidata hoc saeculo in Luthero, reverenter in Patribus auditur." See Koppe and Tholuck on this verse.

According to Hodge, Erasmus similarly knew that others previous to Luther used the word "alone" in Romans 3:28. Erasmus is claimed to have said, "Vox sola, tot clamoribus lapidata hoc saeculo in Luthero, reverenter in Patribus auditur" (The word alone, which has been received with such a shower of stones when uttered in our times by Luther, is yet reverently listened to when spoken by the Fathers). The quote seems suspicious. Luther began translating the New Testament in 1521 and released a finished version in 1522. Certainly Erasmus had some sympathy to Luther's cause early on, but by 1524 their polite ties were severed over the freedom / bondage of the human will and the relationship of faith and works. It would be surprising to find Erasmus defending Luther at any time on this issue! 

It seemed simple enough to search out the context of this statement from Erasmus (especially since it was a renowned Reformed scholar citing it!).  However, the exact opposite occurred: I could not locate it. I did discover though that Erasmus said something like it without mentioning Luther... at all. 

Documentation

I'm going to work backward in searching for the sources Hodge mentions. He says, "See Koppe and Tholuck on this verse." "Tholuck" refers to Fred Augustus Gottreu Tholuck, Exposition of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans: With Extracts from the Evangelical Works of the Fathers and Reformers (Philadelphia: Sorin and Ball, 1844). Hodge certainly appears to be citing Erasmus via Tholuck verbatim on page 113. Notice the Erasmus citation is almost exact except Hodge cites "De Ratione Concionandi, Lib. III" while Tholuck cites "De ratione conciondi 1.3." 

"Koppe" appears to refer to Johann Benjamin Koppe, and I think Hodge had in mind Koppe's Novum Testamentum Koppianum.  I could find no extant copies online to see exactly what Hodge was referring to from this source. Koppe wrote in the eighteenth century, so seeing exactly what Hodge was referring to would be interesting since it predates Tholuck's nineteenth century comment. 

"De Ratione Concionandi"refers to the book by Erasmus, Ecclesiastes: On the Art of Preaching (Ecclesiastes: sive de ratione concionandi) (1535).  I spent some time searching the works of Erasmus for any of the volumes of "De Ratione Concionandi." Of the volumes I was able to locate, I found no instance of the exact quote "Vox sola, tot clamoribus lapidata hoc saeculo in Luthero, reverenter in Patribus auditur." I'm not alone in this. In the nineteenth century, James Morison did the same thing. He states, 

Tholuck says that Erasmus (Liber Concion. lib. iii.) remarks,—vox sola, tot clamoribus lapidata hoc seculo in Luthero, reverenter in patribus auditur,—“The word alone, which has been received with such a shower of stones when uttered in our times by Luther, is yet reverently listened to when spoken by the Fathers." Hodge repeats the quotation and the reference. We do not know where Tholuck picked it up. But while the observation seems to bespeak, by its peculiar felicity and piquancy, an Erasmian origin, it is certainly not to be found in that great repository of felicities, and wisdom, and wit, and semi-garrulities,—the Liber Concionandi.

To answer Morison's question, Tholuck could have picked up the quote from any number of sources. 

If one does a search specific to eighteenth century books, a number of hits appear with attribution to Erasmus. The quote goes back further. In the early seventeenth century, Lutheran theologian Johann Gerhard states, "Erasmus wrote to someone: 'The word 'alone' which in our time has been assailed by so many outcries in Luther, is reverently heard and read in the fathers" (Latin source, English translation from On Justification through Faith - Theological Commonplaces, p. 317). The quote makes it all the way back to the sixteenth century: In 1591, Martin Chemnitz also cites it: "Therefore we can correctly say with Erasmus: 'This word sola, which has been attacked with so much noise in the era of Luther, was reverently heard and read among the fathers'" (English source). Still though, there is no meaningful reference. There is a sixteenth century source that predates Chemnitz by ten years (1581) that includes some important aspects of the quote:

Notice some striking similarities to the quote under scrutiny. First, the source is said to be "Eccl 3." Second, some of the quote is exactly presented: "vox Sola, tot clamoribus hoc seculo lapidata." There are blatant dissimilarities as well. First, Luther is not mentioned. Second, the church fathers are not mentioned, but rather, Hilary of Poitiers is. If one searches the writings of Erasmus focusing on Hilary rather than Luther, significant clues are revealed. Note the following observations from The Collected Works of Erasmus: 

The author cites "book 3 CWE 68 967" for footnotes 828 and 829. "CWE 68" stands for "Collected Works of Erasmus." "book 3" refers to "The Evangelical Preacher, book one (Ecclesiates sive de ratione confitendi) (1535)." This appears to correspond to the reference given above by Tholuck (De ratione conciondi 1.3) On page 966-967, Erasmus states: 

Interestingly, footnote 1399 states, "Erasmus is no doubt alluding to Martin Luther and the central theological issue of the Reformation, justification by faith alone (sola fides)."
  

Conclusion

I think it's probable to say that "book 3 CWE 68 967" (expounded above) is the original source of the quote eventually used by Hodge and others. I'm uncertain who added "hoc saeculo in Luthero" to the quote. Erasmus penned his original words in 1535. Martin Chemnitz was the first I could locate adding Luther to the citation (1591). Was it Chemnitz? I don't know. If it was, his basic crime would be adding explicit meaning to what Erasmus was probably implying (i.e., Luther) and changing Hilary to "fathers." Also, the context of the comment from Erasmus was not an exegetical exposition of Romans 3:28, but rather, a passing comment made on Matthew 9:6.  What I find most interesting is that if Erasmus had Luther in mind, he penned these words about a decade after his harsh battle with Luther. I find that amazing: Erasmus was able to get beyond his personal encounter with Luther and still defend his translation of including "alone"... in a roundabout way.  

Addendum

 

This source posits the early Erasmus agreed with Luther in some sense about "faith alone." 

Luther Admitted He Was Not Following the Rules of Language When He Translated Romans 3:28?

Here's a Martin Luther-tidbit from one of Rome's defenders on the CARM boards:

You do realize that Luther admits that he didn't add the word alone due to the rules of language but because he said that is what Paul meant to say. That's Luther's own admission, so yes, Luther added the word alone so that it read like what he thought is should say. So much for a person who held Scripture in such high regard.

And also:

In his An Open Letter on Translating: "So much for translating and the nature of language. However, I was not depending upon or following the nature of language when I inserted the word "solum" (alone) in Rom. 3 as the text itself, and St. Paul's meaning, urgently necessitated and demanded it." Luther inserted his own theology into the text.

And also:

As I have stated already, Luther admits he did not use the rules of language as the basis for adding the word alone. "However, I was not depending upon or following the nature of language when I inserted the word "solum" (alone) in Rom. 3 as the text itself, and St. Paul's meaning, urgently necessitated and demanded it."

And also:

All of your appeals to the German language mean nothing because Luther freely admits, as I have quoted, that he was not following the rules of language when he inserted the word alone. He did it because he believed that Paul meant to say alone.

The polemic is blatant: Luther is said to have simply added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 to fit his theological agenda. The basis for this is a statement Luther himself made,  "I was not depending upon or following the nature of language when I inserted the word "solum" (alone) in Rom. 3 as the text itself." let's take a look at this quote and see if it substantiates this typical Roman Catholic narrative.

Documentation
The sentence is said to come from Luther's An Open Letter on Translating. This refers to a document Luther wrote in 1530 which covered the topics of justification by faith alone, his methodology in regard to his German translation of the Bible, and the intercession and prayer to the saints. This document was originally written in German, "Ein sendbrieff D. M. Luthers. Von Dolmetzschen und Fürbit der heiligenn" (WA 30 II, 627-646). The comment can be found on page 640:

As far as I can tell, the English rendering of the sentence being utilized was taken from a version originally put up on the Project Wittenberg website. Project Wittenberg has been around for quite a few years now. This website was up and running years before the onslaught of Google Books. At one time, it was one of the few places one could go to read Luther's writings online in English. Some of the versions of Luther's texts on Project Wittenberg appear to be unique to their website. Their version of An Open Letter on Translating, was put together by Gary Mann, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Religion/Theology Augustana College Rock Island, Illinois. Mann's translation reads,

So much for translating and the nature of language. However, I was not depending upon or following the nature of language when I inserted the word "solum" (alone) in Rom. 3 as the text itself, and St. Paul's meaning, urgently necessitated and demanded it. 

Mann's English translation is not the only one available. One of the most enduring translations was that done by Charles Michael Jacobs in the Philadelphia Edition of Luther's Works (PE 5:10-27). This translation was revised by LW 35:175-200. In PE 5, the comment can be found on page 20. In LW 35, page 195. For the context, Mann's translation will be used below.

Context

So much for translating and the nature of language. However, I was not depending upon or following the nature of language when I inserted the word "solum" (alone) in Rom. 3 as the text itself, and St. Paul's meaning, urgently necessitated and demanded it. He is dealing with the main point of Christian doctrine in this passage - namely that we are justified by faith in Christ without any works of the Law. In fact, he rejects 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. Instead, Abraham was justified without circumcision and without any works, but by faith, as he says in Chapter 4: "If Abraham is justified by works, he may boast, but not before God." However, when all works are so completely rejected - which must mean faith alone justifies - whoever would speak plainly and clearly about this rejection of works would have to say "Faith alone justifies and not works." The matter itself and the nature of language necessitates it.

Conclusion
Whatever English translation one uses, Luther does provide reasons as to why he used the word solum in his German translation. Luther's intention was to translate the Bible into an easily comprehended form of popular German. His translation at times employed dynamic equivalence (as many translations do). Word-for-word translations can be cumbersome and awkward, and can miss the thrust of the original thought. Rather, many translations seek to maximize readability with a minimum of verbal distortion by translating according to “concept.” In translating Romans, Luther tried to present the impact of what the original Greek had on its first readers, and to present the German style and idiom equivalent for his readers.

An honest translator, Luther freely admitted the word “only” does not appear in the original Greek at Romans 3:28. He states, 

Here, in Romans 3[:28], I knew very well that the word solum is not in the Greek or Latin text; the papists did not have to teach me that. It is a fact that these four letters s o l a are not there. And these blockheads stare at them like cows at a new gate. At the same time they do not see that it conveys the sense of the text; it belongs there if the translation is to be clear and vigorous. I wanted to speak German, not Latin or Greek, since it was German I had undertaken to speak in the translation. But it is the nature of our German language that in speaking of two things, one of which is affirmed and the other denied, we use the word solum (allein) along with the word nicht [not] or kein [no]. For example, we say, “The farmer brings allein grain and kein money”; “No, really I have now nicht money, but allein grain”; “I have allein eaten and nicht yet drunk”; “Did you allein write it, and nicht read it over?” There are innumerable cases of this kind in daily use.

In all these phrases, this is the German usage, even though it is not the Latin or Greek usage. It is the nature of the German language to add the word allein in order that the word nicht or kein may be clearer and more complete. To be sure, I can also say, “The farmer brings grain and kein money,” but the words “kein money” do not sound as full and clear as if I were to say, “The farmer brings allein grain and kein money.” Here the word allein helps the word kein so much that it becomes a complete, clear German expression. (LW 35:188-189).

Granted though, Rome's defender has seized upon Luther's seeming admission that he "was not depending upon or following the nature of language when I inserted the word "solum" (alone) in Rom. 3." This does seem like a blatant denial of the syntax and grammar of the original text. The solution comes by looking carefully at the original German text and other English translations. The German text of this sentence reads in part, "Aber nu hab ich nicht allein der sprachen art vertraut und gefolgt, daß ich Röm. 3, 28. solum (allein) hab hinzugesezt; sondern der Tert und die Meinung Pauli fodern und erzwingen es mit Gewalt." (WA 30 II:640). LW 35:195 translates this as, "Now I was not relying on and following the nature of the languages alone, however, when, in Roman 3[:28] I inserted the word solum (alone)." PE 5:20 translates similarly, "Now however, I was not only relying on the nature of the languages and following that when, in Romans iii, I inserted the word solum, 'only,' but the text itself and the sense of St. Paul demanded it and forced it upon me." Luther is saying that he did not only follow the nature of the language, but also saw the thrust of the text demands using "alone."

The need for "alone" in Romans 3:28 was not unique to Luther. Luther mentions others before him translated Romans 3:28 as he did (for example, Ambrose and Augustine). The Roman Catholic writer Joseph Fitzmyer verified Luther’s claim and also presented quite an extensive list of those previous to Luther doing likewise. Even some Roman Catholic versions of the New Testament also translated Romans 3:28 as did Luther. The Nuremberg Bible (1483), “nur durch den glauben” and the Italian Bibles of Geneva (1476) and of Venice (1538) say “per sola fede.” It is entirely possible Luther’s understanding of “faith alone” differs from those before him, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the thrust of Romans 3:28 implies “alone.” Others previous to Luther may have differed in theological interpretation, yet saw the thrust of the words implied “alone.” Hence, as a translator, Luther holds company with others, and cannot be charged with a mistranslation. If he’s guilty of such a charge, so are many before him.

Luther Added the Word "Free" to Romans 3:28?

This is a follow-up to my earlier critiques of Shoebat's Martin Luther- The Bare Truth Unfolded. Their recent hit piece includes some Luther quotes I've never gone into detail on or have never covered, or deserve a fresh look. For instance, they state that Luther added the word "free" to Romans 3:28:

Deliberate adding of the word ‘free’ to Romans 3:28 along with deliberate, Satanic arrogance in elevating himself above even the Holy Fathers and Holy Apostles! 

The very thought of excising from the Word of God should already cause one to cringe in disgust and make one wary of the eternal consequences. It should cause one to cringe even more to add to the Word of God as well. Unfortunately, this cannot be said for Martin Luther. Martin Luther in a deliberate attempt to support lawlessness in the Christian life, deliberately added the word “free” to his German bible, despite the fact that there is no serious evidence for this in the Greek text of the New Testament. To this he stated as his reasons for his deliberate distortion: 

“If your Papist annoys you with the word [‘alone’-Romans 3:28], tell him straightaway, Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and ass are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by; the devil’s thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is doctor above all doctors in Popedom.” (Amicable Discussion, I, 127, ‘The Facts About Luther’, O’Hare, TAN Books (1987), p201)

Now you may be as puzzled by this "free" comment as I am.  The Shoebat article says twice that Luther added "free." The first time it says it was added to Romans 3:28, the second time to his German Bible. Then they proceed to provide a quote from Luther on his use of the word "alone" in Romans 3:28. Giving Shoebat.com the benefit of the doubt,  it appears to me that whoever put this article together was chugging along at a brisk pace and meant "alone" but was thinking "free." I'm going to assume that's the case.

This "free" blunder aside, the Shoebat snippet provides the opportunity to revisit the popular Luther quote they use.  In terms of polemics, this is probably one of the most famous quotes of Luther. It's been used by his detractors throughout the centuries. Even though the context of this quote is easily available, the documentation provided by Shoebat.com turns out to be an example of nineteenth century Roman Catholic plagiarism.

Documentation of Father O'Hare's Plagiarism
Shoebat.com cites "Amicable Discussion, I, 127, ‘The Facts About Luther’, O’Hare, TAN Books (1987), p201)." I don't think the article used either of these sources, but perhaps cut-and-pasted the quote from Luther, Exposing the Myth (see footnote 62).  Yes, the quote is in The Facts About Luther on page 201. O'Hare writes,

Romans III, 28, "We account a man to be justified by faith without the works of the law" he renders by the interpolating of a word, "We hold that a man is justified without works of the law by faith alone." His answer to Emser's exposition of his perversion of the text was: "If your Papist annoys you with the word (alone), tell him straightway: Dr. Martin Luther will have it so: Papist and ass are one and the same thing. Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by: the devil's thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so and he is a doctor above all the doctors in Popedom." (Amic. Discussion 1, 127.) Thus Luther defends his perversion of Scripture and makes himself the supreme judge of the Bible. His work, faulty and erroneous, places the true Lutheran in a serious dilemma. He needs the Bible for his salvation and yet he cannot be sure that Luther has given him a version possessing any binding force.

Rather than directly citing Luther, O'Hare cites "Amic. Discussion 1, 127." This refers to Jean François Marie Trévern, An Amicable Discussion on the Church of England and on the Reformation in General vol. 1. Various editions of  this nineteenth century text are available online. I've had a copy of this book for over a decade. When it arrived all those years ago, I recall thumbing through it attempting to check O'Hare's references. I was never able to locate this O'Hare-cited Luther quote in An Amicable Discussion. Now with so many old books available on-line,  I searched through a number of editions of An Amicable Discussion, and still could not find this quote as cited by O'Hare.

Father O'Hare's Facts About Luther was published in the early 1900's. In searching for the text O'Hare cites, I came across a book from 1888 entitled, Protestantism and the Bible by Rev. Thomas Preston.  It may actually be the case that Father O'Hare simply plagiarized this section from this source. Note the striking similarities:

Romans iii. 28, "We account a man to be justified by faith without the works of the law," he renders by the interpolating of a word, '' We hold that a man is justified without works of the law by faith alone.'' His answer to Emser's exposition of his perversion of the text was: "If your Papist annoys you with the word (alone), tell him straightway: Dr. Martin Luther will have it so; Papist and ass are one and the same thing." "Whoever will not have my translation, let him give it the go-by; the devil's thanks to him who censures it without my will and knowledge. Luther will have it so, and he is a doctor above all the doctors in popedom."

Rev. Preston does not document this Luther quote. In his next paragraph, he goes on to cite "Bishop Trevern" on other sixteenth century Bible versions (Beza, Calvin, etc.) and he does give a reference for these: "Amic. Discussion," 1.127." Because of the similarites, it appears to me that Father O'Hare simply lifted his Luther quote from Rev. Preston's book (or one of his books with the same material) and botched the footnote.

Documentation

This is one of the easiest of all Luther quotes to locate. It comes from Ein sendbrieff D. M. Luthers. Von Dolmetzschen und Fürbit der heiligenn (WA 30II, 632-646). The beginning of the quote can be found on page 635 (the rest of the quote comes some pages later):

This treatise has been translated into English: On Translating: An Open Letter. It can be found in PE 5:1-27, and also in LW 35:175-202 (LW's translation is a revision of PE's translation). There is also an online version found at Project Wittenberg. The quote in question is found in LW 35:185 or PE 5:12-13.

Context

Luther begins:

[T]here has been much talk about the translation of the Old and New Testaments. The enemies of the truth charge that in many places the text has been modified or even falsified, whereby many simple Christians, even among the learned who do not know the Hebrew and Greek languages, have been startled and shocked. With this publication it is devoutly to be hoped that, at least in part, the slander of the godless will be stopped and the scruples of the devout removed. Perhaps it may even give rise to further writing on questions and matters such as these. I therefore ask every lover of the truth to take this work seriously to heart and faithfully to pray God for a right understanding of the divine Scriptures, to the improvement and increase of our common Christendom. (LW 35:181-182)

The first section of the treatise is actually fairly angry, sarcastic, and humorous. Luther shows himself fed up with his Papal critics. His anger was fueled against them for an ironic reason- they rallied against his translation, while at the same time utilizing it for their own new translations. A strong Papal critic of Luther (Jerome Emser from Dresden) did just that:

We have seen the Dresden scribbler who played the master to my New Testament. I shall not mention his name again in my books as he has his Judge now, and is already well known anyway. He admits that my German is sweet and good. He saw that he could not improve on it. But eager to discredit it, he went to work and took my New Testament almost word for word as I had written it. He removed my introductions and explanations, inserted his own, and thus sold my New Testament under his name. (LW 35:184-185)

With this historical context in mind, Luther blasts away at his papal critics. Part of the quote can be found in these three paragraphs; 

If your papist wants to make so much fuss about the word sola (alone) tell him this, “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and says that a papist and an ass are the same thing.” Sic volo, sic jubeo; sit pro ratione voluntas. We are not going to be the pupils and disciples of the papists, but their masters and judges. For once, we too are going to be proud and brag with these blockheads; and as St. Paul boasts over against his mad raving saints [II Cor. 11:21ff.], so I shall boast over against these asses of mine. Are they doctors? So am I. Are they learned? So am I. Are they preachers? So am I. Are they theologians? So am I. Are they debaters? So am I. Are they philosophers? So am I. Are they dialecticians? So am I. Are they lecturers? So am I. Do they write books? So do I.

I will go further with my boasting. I can expound psalms and prophets; they cannot. I can translate; they cannot. I can read the Holy Scriptures; they cannot. I can pray; they cannot. And, to come down to their level, I can use their own dialectics and philosophy better than all of them put together; and besides I know for sure that none of them understands their Aristotle. If there is a single one among them all who correctly understands one proemium [preface] or chapter in Aristotle, I’ll eat my hat. I am not saying too much, for I have been trained and practiced from my youth up in all their science and am well aware how deep and broad it is. They are very well aware, too, that I can do everything they can. Yet these incurable fellows treat me as though I were a stranger to their field, who had just arrived this morning for the first time and had never before either seen or heard what they teach and know. So brilliantly do they parade about with their science, teaching me what I outgrew twenty years ago, that to all their blatting and shouting I have to sing, with the harlot, “I have known for seven years that horseshoe-nails are iron.”

Let this be the answer to your first question. And please give these asses no other and no further answer to their useless braying about the word sola than simply this, “Luther will have it so, and says that he is a doctor above all the doctors of the whole papacy.” It shall stay at that! Henceforth I shall simply hold them in contempt, and have them held in contempt, so long as they are the kind of people—I should say, asses—that they are. There are shameless nincompoops among them who have never learned their own art of sophistry—like Dr. Schmidt and Doctor Snotty-Nose, and their likes—and who set themselves against me in this matter, which transcends not only sophistry, but (as St. Paul says [I Cor. 1:19–25]), all the world’s wisdom and understanding as well. Truly an ass need not sing much; he is already well known anyway by his ears. (LW 35:185-187)

The quote as cited by Father O'Hare is out of order. Above are the first and fourth sentences. The second and third sentences are found a few pages later:

And why should I talk so much about translating? If I were to point out the reasons and considerations back of all my words, I should need a year to write on it. I have learned by experience what an art and what a task translating is. Therefore I will tolerate no papal ass or mule to be my judge or critic, for they have never tried it. He who desires none of my translating may let it alone. If anyone dislikes it or criticizes it without my knowledge and consent, the devil repay him! If it is to be criticized, I shall do it myself. If I do not do it, then let them leave my translation in peace. Let each of them make for himself one that suits—what do I care? (LW 35:193)

Conclusion

Shoebat.com claims their Luther quote demonstrates a "deliberate attempt to support lawlessness in the Christian life." There's nothing at all in this context to suggest this. Second, Shoebat.com says Luther added words to Romans 3:28 as a "deliberate distortion." 

Luther used the German word “allein” to express a concept inherent in the original text. This is basic translating methodology (employed by both Protestant and Roman Catholic exegetes) and a technique not anathematized by Rome either during Luther’s time or ours. Luther's intention, a perfectly allowable intention, was to translate the Bible into an easily comprehended form of popular German. Hence, his translation at times employed forms of dynamic equivalence, as many translations do. Word-for-word translations can be cumbersome and awkward, and not appealing to average readers. Rather, many translations seek to maximize readability with a minimum of verbal distortion by translating according to “concept.” In translating Romans, Luther tried to present the “impact” of what the original Greek had on its first readers, and to present the German style and idiom equivalent for his readers.

If Luther was attempting to radically distort the New Testament, his doctored work failed in three ways. Luther did not add the word “alone” to Galatians 2:16, nor did he remove “alone” from James 2. Even in his revision of the Latin Vulgate, Luther left the Latin of Romans 3:28 as it was, because the contrast was apparent.

If Luther was attempting to introduce a radical mistranslation into church history he failed. Luther mentions others before him translated Romans 3:28 as he did (for example, Ambrose and Augustine). The Roman Catholic writer Joseph Fitzmyer verified Luther’s claim, and also presented quite an extensive list of those previous to Luther doing likewise. Even some Roman Catholic versions of the New Testament also translated Romans 3:28 as did Luther. The Nuremberg Bible (1483), “allein durch den glauben” and the Italian Bibles of Geneva (1476) and of Venice (1538) say “per sola fede.” It is entirely possible Luther’s understanding of “faith alone” differs from those before him, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the thrust of Romans 3:28 implies “alone.” Others previous to Luther may have differed in theological interpretation, yet saw the thrust of the words implied “alone.” Hence, as a translator, Luther holds company with others, and cannot be charged with a mistranslation. If he’s guilty of such a charge, so are many before him.

The entire Roman Catholic crusade against Luther on this issue is entirely unjustified when evaluated by their own paradigms. To my knowledge, there was not any official dogmatic statement prohibiting Luther from either translating the Bible, or translating Romans 3:28 as he did. There was not an infallible interpretation of Romans 3 during Luther’s translation work. Until such dogmatic declarations, those throughout church history previous to such cannot be held anathema for their positions or interpretations of Biblical passages. Further, there wasn’t a defined Roman position on Justification previous to Luther. That is, Roman Catholics cannot even indict Luther’s understanding of justification, because previous to Trent, there was not “one” Roman Catholic understanding of justification. Therefore, Roman Catholics who criticize Luther for not having authority to translate as he did forget their own Church allowed Luther to do so without him posthumously falling under an anathema.

Addendum 5/18/16
I came across a Roman Catholic citing the following:

You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word alone in not in the text of Paul…say right out to him: 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,'…I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well that the word 'alone' is not in the Latin or the Greek text (Stoddard J. Rebuilding a Lost Faith. 1922, pp. 101-102; see also Luther M. Amic. Discussion, 1, 127).

This quote is similar to that cited by Shoebat. I'm including it for those who search out the reference and wind up here (the quote in this form is cited often). I suspect this citation may have originated from Sola Scriptura or Prima Luther? What Did Martin Luther Really Believe About the Bible?. The documentation is explained above.
 

Translations of the Word “Alone” in Romans 3:28 Previous to Luther

Over on the Carm boards, I came across the following:

 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]).

This is particularly funny. This quote has shown up in a 1001 places on the internet, never with any more supporting context. And, a good many times it is posted by our friend James Swan who works with James White, the notorious Catholic hater. The fact that 'faith alone' appears side by side in the works of a few Catholic doctors does not mean this is the "faith Alone" Martin Luther taught. In fact, if St. Thomas had indeed meant for it to be faith alone, why all these many centuries hasn't this come forward till now. And why didn't St. Thomas Aquinas repeat "faith alone" in his Commentary on Romans. I'm reading it now, there is little "faith alone". What we read St. Thomas say is that faith is formed in love, something far from alone.

Maybe you would be kind enough to get more than a few phrases on either side of the cited lines so we can see the content, I'm sure you have access to it, you didn't say it was obtained from any other source. Where did it come from?
JoeT


Here was my response:

I appreciate that you referred to me as "friend." Previous to this I had the feeling that you were most antagonistic to anything I post. It also appears from your recent comments that when I do take a moment or two to post on CARM, some of these occurrences you consider "good many times." It's nice to know you are a "friend" and you appreciate some of my posts as "good." 

You did though make a few tedious errors in your recent comment (and I'm only pointing them out now that I know we're friends). First, I am not (nor have I ever been) employed by James White, but I have written articles for him on his aomin.org site (and I could still if I so choose) I am not paid for any of my contributions to his web site, I never have been paid by him. Second, James White is not a "notorious Catholic hater." Don't take my word for it, Simply ask Father Mitch Pacwa (he's endorsed at least one of Dr. White's books).

In regard to the actual substance of your comments: the Aquinas quote that makes it's way around the Internet (which I probably helped popularize) was from Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361. He's on your side, not mine. If you don't own this scholarly Roman Catholic work, you can actually view pages 360-361 by going over to Amazon and use their "Look Inside" feature. 

In regard to the contexts for those comments by Aquinas as cited by Joseph A. Fitzmyer: I'm not fluent in locating contexts for Aquinas like I am Reformation materials. However, I did take a few minutes to try to track the contexts down for you. I will certainly appreciate any corrections on the context locations (as we explore our new friendship!)

1. "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)."

I found the context for this quote on this link: Biblica. Super Epistulam ad Timotheum Primam. Feel free to read through the entire treatise. The paragraph the quote comes from can be searched for in the link: 

"Sed apostolus videtur loqui de moralibus, quia subdit quod lex posita est propter peccata, et haec sunt praecepta moralia. Horum legitimus usus est, ut homo non attribuat eis plus quam quod in eis continetur. Data est lex ut cognoscatur peccatum. Rom. VII, 7: quia nisi lex diceret: non concupisces, concupiscentiam nesciebam, etc.; quod dicitur in Decalogo. Non est ergo in eis spes iustificationis, sed in sola fide. Rom. III, 28: arbitramur iustificari hominem per fidem sine operibus legis.

2. “reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam”; In ep. ad Galatas 2.4 (Parma ed., 13.397b):

I found the context for this quote on this link. Scroll to page 45. I also found it here.

Deinde *** dicit ei vero, etc., ostendit qualiter se habeat merces aeterna ad fidem, dicens ei vero qui non
operatur, scilicet exteriora opera, puta quia non habet tempus operandi, sicut patet in baptizato statim mortuo, credenti in eum qui iustificat impium, scilicet in Deum, de quo dicitur infra, VIII, 18. Deus qui iustificat, reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam, id est, ut per eam iustus dicatur, et iustitiae praemium accipiat, sicut si opera iustitiae fecisset, secundum illud infra, X, 10 corde creditur ad iustitiam, et hoc secundum propositum gratiae Dei, id est, secundum quod Deus proponit ex gratia sua homines salvare. Infra VIII, 28: his qui secundum propositum vocati sunt sancti. 

3. “solum ex fide Christi” [Opera 20.437, b41]).

I found the context, here.

Infra IV, 9: conversi estis ad egena elementa, id est, gratiam non conferentia, neque gratiam in se continentia. Sacramenta vero novae legis, licet sint elementa materialia, non tamen sunt elementa egena, quia in se gratiam continent, unde et iustificare possunt. Si qui autem in veteri lege iusti erant, non erant iusti ex operibus legis, sed solum ex fide Christi, quem Deus proposuit propitiatorem per fidem, ut dicitur Rom. III, 20. Unde et ipsa sacramenta veteris legis non fuerunt nisi quaedam protestationes fidei Christi, sicut et nostra sacramenta, sed differenter, quia illa sacramenta gratiam Christi configurabant quasi futuram; nostra autem sacramenta protestantur quasi continentia gratiam praesentem.

I don't believe these references are from the "Parma ed" as cited by Joseph A. Fitzmyer, but they do appear to be the contexts.

You say, "The fact that 'faith alone' appears side by side in the works of a few Catholic doctors does not mean this is the "faith Alone" Martin Luther taught." Perhaps you missed this In my previous comment. I stated, 

It is entirely possible Luther’s understanding of 'faith alone' differs from those before him, but that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the thrust of Romans 3:28 implies “alone.” Others previous to Luther may have differed in theological interpretation, yet saw the thrust of the words implied “alone.” Hence, as a translator, Luther holds company with others, and cannot be charged with a mistranslation. If he’s guilty of such a charge, so are many before him.

In other words, my new friend, I grant that Aquinas probably didn't understand justification the same way as Luther. However, Aquinas appears to have read Romans 3:28 in a similar way. So when your compatriots want to charge Luther with mistranslating Romans 3:28, pointing to Fitzmyer list of those previous to Luther is to simply demonstrate that other besides Luther see "alone" as implicit in the meaning of that verse.

Addendum
Here are the pages from Fitzmyer:

Discussion about Sola Fide at Called to Communion

Discussion with Bryan Cross and another Roman Catholic about Sola Fide at Called to Communion:
Comments # 353 to 362
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/does-the-bible-teach-sola-fide/#comment-180690

Addendum:  there is more after # 362 and more after this one below.

As I wrote before at Beggar’s All, and quoted Anthony Lane, the problem with infant baptism that is ex opere operato in Roman Catholicism: “the teaching on grace is pushed back to a forgotten infancy” Anthony Lane, see below. Psychologically, infant baptism, especially the ex opere operato type of Roman Catholicism, tends to lead to a kind of semi-pelagianism in history from the council of Orange in 529 AD to the time of Luther and then dogmatized in the Council of Trent. Wycliffe, Hus, Luther, Calvin, etc. were recognizing the eclipsing of the doctrine of justification by faith alone in accordance with grace alone. In RC circles, if a baby was already baptized, then their whole life teaching that they are getting is assuming they are already in a state of grace (because they were baptized and it regenerated them), and that tends to short-circuit the need for teaching on the essense of the gospel in evangelism. (that they are sinners, condemned to hell, and need to repent and trust Christ, and that justification is by faith alone in Christ alone – not prayers to Mary or good deeds, etc.)

“Another problem with the Council of Orange was that it said that grace comes to the soul in water baptism and begins regeneration and heals the will so that one can choose. (ex opere operato) And most everyone by that time in the western culture was baptized as a baby, so, the need to understand sin, repentance and faith for the first time in one’s life was hidden and non-discernable; and people began to trust in their water baptism as a baby – that it saved them. Sad. 

As Tony Lane wrote in his analysis of Orange in the section on the Council of Orange of 529 AD:

“The canons affirm our need for grace, but this grace is tied to the sacraments. Free-will is healed by the grace of baptism. With the grace of baptism and the aid and co-operation of Jesus Christ, we have the power to do all that is necessary for salvation, if we so desire. By this time infant baptism was universal, so the teaching on grace is pushed back to a forgotten infancy.” (Exploring Christian Thought, page 81)”

Earlier comment on Semi-Pelagianism and the quote from Anthony Lane.

The Real Story of the Reformation? Guest on Catholic Answers Says Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura Not Invented by Luther

This is another follow-up to my earlier post (and this post) on the recent Catholic Answers broadcast, The Real Story of the Reformation with Steve Weidenkopf, a lecturer of Church History at the Notre Dame Graduate School of Christendom College.

Here's an odd occurrence in this broadcast. For those of you involved with Roman Catholicism, you've probably heard the oft-repeated sentiment that Luther created sola fide and sola scriptura and that these doctrines did not exist previous to his alleged invention of them. For instance, Catholic Answers states, "The Bible nowhere uses the expressions 'justification by faith alone' or 'salvation by faith alone.' The first was directly the invention of Luther; the second his by implication. Luther inserted "alone" into the German translation of Romans 3:28 to give credence to his new doctrine." And also Catholic Answers has stated:

Some Christians claim, "The Bible is all I need," but this notion is not taught in the Bible itself. In fact, the Bible teaches the contrary idea (2 Pet. 1:20–21, 3:15–16). The "Bible alone" theory was not believed by anyone in the early Church. It is new, having arisen only in the 1500s during the Protestant Reformation. The theory is a "tradition of men" that nullifies the Word of God, distorts the true role of the Bible, and undermines the authority of the Church Jesus established (Mark 7:1–8).

So there you have it from two offerings from official pages from the Catholic Answers website. If you were to venture over to their discussion boards, it wouldn't be hard to multiply examples like this. Now here's where the odd occurrence comes in. At around 35 minutes into the broadcast, Professor Weidenkopf takes a question regarding the origins of sola fide and sola scriptura and if these were "Martin Luther creations." Based on his first 35 minutes of answers, I expected he would say Luther invented sola fide and sola scriptura.  At 36:21 minutes Professor Weidenkopf though gives the following answer:

And so, he wasn't the first individual who actually, uh, furthered these, er, proposed these doctrines. There were what we like to call in history the proto-Protestants. There were heretics before him, one in England by the name of John Wycliffe who lived in the 14th century and then also Jan Hus who was ah, a Bohemian heretic. Both of those individuals, John Wycliffe and John Hus also advocated sola fide and  sola scriptura, and railed against the church, and ah, advocated the changing of church teaching and even the getting rid of the church in many aspects in their own individual writings. So those individuals kind of um, began those teachings, and there were others who had those that heresy in mind as well, but why they come to be mostly associated with Luther is because he's the most vocal proponent of them. It's through his works and his writings and I should mention that Luther was a prodigious author, he wrote well over 400 500 some odd treatises in his lifetime, so many many many books, many many many pamphlets, he utilized the invention of printing by meta-movable type, and so his works were just, you know, um, published, printed, and spread all throughout Christendom, so that's why he again gets most of the credit, but they did do predate him, sola scriptura sola fide also brought further on by John Calvin in his work the Institutes of the Christian Religion where he attempts to try to systematize Protestant theology and give it some kind of form and give it more organization than what Luther had, but uh, but again, those doctrine... not his creation but he's definitely the main proponent of them.

Now I found this answer fascinating, especially when he stated, "So those individuals kind of um, began those teachings, and there were others who had those that heresy in mind as well." I don't recall ever interacting with one of Rome's defenders willing to admit there were people previous to Luther advocating sola scriptura and sola fide. It just goes to show that when it comes to Roman Catholicism and history, Rome's defenders can pick and choose which version of history one wants.

For a look at the Reformers before the Reformers, see my earlier posts:

Reformers Before the Reformers #1, The Supremacy of Scripture

Reformers Before the Reformers #2, The Marriage Analogy of Johann von Staupitz

Reformers Before the Reformers #3: The Sole Infallible Authority of the Scriptures


Addendum
I'm trying to decide whether or not to purchase Steve Weidenkopf's mp3 from Catholic Answers on The Reformation. Catholic Answers wants $9.95 for a 90 minute mp3 which appears to me to be overpriced (as are many of the products offered by Catholic Answers).  I also found an online blog interview with Steve Weidenkopf: Reformation: Myths and Revolution with the same sort of material as that presented on Catholic Answers.

Roman Catholic Apologist Misunderstands Martin Luther on Saving Faith and its Relation to Good Works

I came across this Q and A entry from Roman Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis: How do we understand James 2:18 "I will show my faith by my works"? The entry isn't dated, but the hyperlink has August 2010:

Luther believed in the pure “faith alone” doctrine, that is, a faith that was not dependent on works in any way, shape or form. The reason he wanted to eliminate works is that if one tries to qualify his faith by the kind of works he does, then he will always wonder whether his works were good enough to qualify his faith, and thus he is back to the very problem Luther was trying to escape, that is, having to judge his works as good enough to meet God’s standards of righteousness. This is precisely why Luther, before he had is “faith alone” revelation, used to whip himself with chains – so that his works would be good enough (so he thought).

Luther certainly would have rejected the idea that works should be used to qualify faith as “saving faith,” for he knew that such a position would be more Catholic than Lutheran. This is precisely why he wanted to jettison the book of James. He didn’t want to have James insisting that faith and works worked together in any way.

It was only the later Lutherans, under Philip Melanchthon, who rejected Luther’s pure “faith alone” doctrine and began to integrate James back into the picture. They thought they did so by claiming that James was merely speaking about qualifying faith by works, but once they did so they came right back to the Catholic position, yet they camouflaged it by using different phraseology than what was used in Catholic doctrine. But they were really only fooling themselves. As a Protestant, one cannot use works to qualify faith, since one can never know whether his works were sufficient to do the job of qualifying.

In effect, pure Lutheranism only survived in Luther’s generation. No Protestant since Luther has ever really believed in the original “faith alone” doctrine, but they keep using the phrase to make it appear as if they are distant from Catholic doctrine, and few have caught on to it.

Note carefully what the picture above states: "We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone." Martin Luther adhered to this. Luther clearly taught the concept of living vs. dead faith throughout his writings. My paper here goes into this in great depth.  In that paper, I cited Roland Bainton quoting Luther: 

"Faith," wrote Luther, “is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith." [Roland Bainton, Here I Stand, a Life of Martin Luther (New York: Abingdon Press, 1950), p. 331; WA 8:361; LW 79:75-76].

Bainton cited WA 8:361. The comment from Luther is found translated into English in a 1521 sermon on Luke 17:11-19. In that context, Luther states the following:

See, this is what James means when he says, 2, 26: "Faith apart from works is dead." For as the body without the soul is dead, so is faith without works. Not that faith is in man and does not work, which is impossible. For faith is a living, active thing. But in order that men may not deceive themselves and think they have faith when they have not, they are to examine their works, whether they also love their neighbors and do good to them. If they do this, it is a sign that they have the true faith. If they do not do this, they only have the sound of faith, and it is with them as the one who sees himself in the glass and when he leaves it and sees himself no more, but sees other things, forgets the face in the glass, as James says in his first chapter, verses 23-24 (cf. LW 79:75-76).

German text: Sihe, das meynet S. Jacob. Jaco. ij. "Der glawbe, so er nit wirckt, ist er todt. Und wie der leyb on seel todt ist, so ist auch der glaub on werck todt". Nit das der glaube ym menschen sey und nit wircke, wilchs nitt muglich ist, denn der glawb ist ein lebendig unrugig ding, sondern das sich die menschen nitt selb betriegen und meynen, sie haben den glawbenn, so sie doch nichts davon haben, sondern sollen ansehen yhr werck, ob sie auch yhrn nehisten lieben und yhm woll thun. Thun sie das, so ists ein zeychen, das sie dissen rechten glauben haben. Thun sie aber nit, so haben sie nur das gehore vom glawben. Und geschicht yhn, wie dem, der sich ym spiegel besihet: wenn er davon geht, szo sihet er sich nymmer, und durch ansehen anderer ding vorgisset er des spiegels gesicht, alsz auch Jaco. i. geschrieben stet (WA 8:361-362).

 Luther continues: 

This passage in James deceivers and blind masters have spun out so far, that they have demolished faith and established only works, as though righteousness and salvation did not rest on faith, but on our works. To this great darkness they afterwards added still more, and taught only good works which are no benefit to your neighbor, as fasting, repeating many prayers, observing festival days; not to eat meat, butter, eggs and milk; to build churches, cloisters, chapels, altars; to institute masses, vigils, hours; to wear gray, white and black clothes; to be spiritual; and innumerable things of the same kind, from which no man has any benefit or enjoyment; all which God condemns, and that justly. But St. James means that a Christian life is nothing but faith and love. Love is only being kind and useful to all men, to friends and enemies. And where faith is right, it also certainly loves, and does to another in love as Christ did to him in faith. Thus everyone should beware lest he has in his heart a dream and fancy instead of faith, and thus deceives himself. This he will not learn anywhere as well as in doing the works of love. As Christ also gives the same sign and says: "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." John 13, 35. Therefore St. James means to say: Beware, if your life is not in the service of others, and you live for yourself, and care nothing for your neighbor, then your faith is certainly nothing; for it does not do what Christ has done for him. Yea, he does not believe that Christ has done good to him, or he would not omit to do good to his neighbor [The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. 3:1 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), pp. 71-72; LW 79:76].

German text: Dissen spruch Jacobi haben die vorkurer und blinden meyster szo weyt gezogen, bysz das sie den glawben vortilget unnd nur die werck auff gericht haben, alsz stehe die gerechtickeyt und selickeyt nit ym glawben, szondern yn den wercken. Zu der grossen finsternisz haben sie darnach noch eyn gröszere thunn unnd nur die gutte werck geleret, die dem nehisten feyn nütz sind, alsz fasten, viel gepet sprechen, feyren, nit fleysch, putter, eyer, milch essen, kirchen, kloster, capeln, altar bawen, mesz, vigilien, horas stifften, graw, weisz, schwartz kleider tragen, geistlich werden, und der unzehlich gleichen, davon doch keyn mensch nütz noch geniesz hatt, wilch auch got alle vordampt, und billich. Aber S. Jacobus will das, sintemal eyn Christlich leben ist nichts denn glawbe unnd liebe. Liebe ist nichts denn eyttel woll thun und nuy seyn allen menschen, feynden und freunden. Unnd wo der glawb recht ist, szo liebt er auch gewiszlich und thut den andern ynn der liebe, wie yhm Christus than hatt ynn seynem glawben. Szo soll nu eyn iglicher sich fursehen, das er nit eynen trawm und geticht an stat des glaubens ym hertzen habe und sich selber betriege: das wirt er bey seynem ding alsz woll erkennen, alsz bey den wercken der liebe. Wie auch Christus dasselb zeychen gibt und spricht: "Da bey kan man wissen, das yhr meine iunger seyt, szo yhr euch untereinander liebt". Darumb will S. Jacob sagen: Sihe fur dich, steht dein leben nit also, das es andern diene, und du fur dich selbs lebist, nympst dich deynsz nehisten nit an, szo ist deyn glawbe gewiszlich nichts, denn er thut nit, wie yhm Christus than hatt.  Ja er glowbt nit, das yhm Christus woll than hat, sonst liesz er nitt, er thet seynem nehisten auch wol (WA 8:362).

Elsewhere in The Sermons of Martin Luther, Luther states:

This is what St. James means when his says in his Epistle, 2:26: ‘"Faith without works is dead." That is, as the works do not follow, it is a sure sign that there is no faith there; but only an empty thought and dream, which they falsely call faith. Now we understand the word of Christ: "Make to yourselves friends by means of the mammon of unrighteousness." That is, prove your faith publically by your outward gifts, by which you win friends, that the poor may be witnesses of your public work, that your faith is genuine. For mere external giving in itself can never make friends, unless it proceed from faith, as Christ rejects the alms of the Pharisees in Mat. 6:2, that they thereby make no friends because their heart is false. Thus no heart can ever be right without faith, so that even nature forces the confession that no work makes one good, but that the heart must first be good and upright.  [The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. 2:2 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), p. 308; LW 78:324].

German text: Das meynet S. Jacobus yn seyner Epistel, da er spricht "Der glawb on werck ist todt". Das ist, weyll die werck nicht folgen, ists eyn gewiß heychen, das keyn glaub da sey, sondern eyn todter gedancke und trawm, den sie falschlich glawben nennen. Also verstehen wyr nu diß wortt Christi "Machet euch freundt von dem unrechten Mammon", das ist: beweyset offenbar mit eußerlichem geben ewren glawben, damit yhr freundt ubirkomet, das die armen ewrs offinbarn wercks zeugen seyn kunden, das yhr rechtschaffen glauben habt, denn das eußerlich geben von yhm selber mochte nymmer mehr freundt machen, wo es nicht auß dem glawben geschech. Sintemal Christus Matt. 6. Der Phariseer almoßen verwirfft, das sie keyn freundt damit machten, weyll das herz falsch war. Nu wirt yhe keyn herz recht on den glawben, das also auch die natur zwingt zu bekennen, das keyn werck frum macht, sondern das herz zuvor frum und gutt seyn muß (WA 10.3:288).

Conclusion 
In my old paper, I provided a number of quotes demonstrating Luther's understanding of saving faith and its relation to works. When Dr. Sungenis states, "Luther certainly would have rejected the idea that works should be used to qualify faith as 'saving faith,' for he knew that such a position would be more Catholic than Lutheran," he appears to not have any understanding of a basic part of Luther's theology: the relationship of faith and works.

Luther understood good works to be those that flow out of faith, out of gratitude for the righteousness of Christ, and the forgiveness of Christ. Works aren’t done because we want salvation and fear damnation, rather, they are the result of a living faith.  Luther taught a life under the cross, which is a life of discipleship of following after Christ. Our crosses though, do not save. They serve the neighbor. We are called to be neighbor to those around us. Luther says,

We receive Christ not only as a gift by faith, but also as an example of love toward our neighbor, whom we are to serve as Christ serves us. Faith brings and gives Christ to you with all his possessions. Love gives you to your neighbor with all your possessions. These two things constitute a true and complete Christian life; then follow suffering and persecution for such faith and love, and out of these grows hope and patience. [The Complete Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. 1:1 (Michigan: Baker Books, 2000), p. 34; LW 75:41-42; WA 10.1.2:37-38]. 

German text: Nu komen wyr auff das ander, auff die guten werck, das wyr Christum nit alleyn zur gabe empfahendurch den glawben, sondern auch zum exempel durch die liebe gegen unserm nehisten, dem wyr sollen dienen und gutt thun, wie uns Christus thut. Der glawb bringt und gibt dir Christum zu eygen, mit all seynen gutern. Die liebe gibt dich deynem nehisten mit alle deynen guttern, und inn den zweyen steht ein Christlich leben, lautter und volkomlich; darnach folget denn leyden und verfolgung umb solchs glawbens unnd liebe willen, darauß wechst denn hoffnung inn der gedult (WA 10.1.2:37-38). 

Revised March 2026