Luther Added The Word "Alone" to Romans 3:28?

                                                                 By James Swan

Have you ever been in a discussion in which it was asserted that Martin Luther added words to the Bible?

Here Are Some "choice" comments from the depths of cyber-space:

"Martin Luther ADDED words to the Bible that were not there. When he was confronted with this sin of adding to the Bible he replied: "Bacause Dr. Martin Luther will have it so!" This man was one ego-maniac with delusions of popehood." [Source]

"Romans 3:28 states, "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law" (NKJV). Martin Luther, in his German translation of the Bible, specifically added the word "allein" (English 'alone') to Romans 3:28-a word that is not in the original Greek. Martin Luther reportedly said, "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 passage strongly suggests that Martin Luther viewed his opinions, and not the actual Bible as the primary authority--a concept which this author will name prima Luther." [Source]

"By September 1522, Luther had translated the New Testament into his version of the German Bible. It is to be noted that Luther taught a false doctrine that man was saved by faith alone, and upon his own recognizance and without any authority, he added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28, ... thereby ignoring all of the verses which admonish anyone not to add to or take away from, the Holy Word of GOD. He displayed his inflated ego and total arrogance, when he wrote the following regarding his addition:"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. Demonizing again! My My, tsk tsk, such language Dr Luther, and didn't he elevate himself above everyone on earth?This is the example set by the first Protestant, for his version of the command of Jesus Christ of, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Matthew 22:36-40)." [Source]

"...Luther insists on his own (in effect) absolute infallibility. In defending his addition of the word "alone" to Romans 3:28 ("faith alone"), Luther railed: Thus I will have it, thus I order it, my will is reason enough . . . Dr. Luther will have it so, and . . . he is a Doctor above all Doctors in the whole of Popery. (O'Connor, 25; Letter to Wenceslaus Link in 1530)One wonders whether Luther uttered these absurd sentiments with a smile on his face, or with tongue in cheek. In any event, such boastful, essentially silly and foolish rhetoric is not uncommon in Luther's voluminous writings." [Source]

The arguments above are fairly simple: Luther simply inserted the word “alone” into Romans 3:28. Luther is painted as outrageous: he shows a total disregard for the sacred text, simply making it say what he wanted it to.

How to respond:

1. First, locate the context.

The main text of Luther used for these type of comments are his Open Letter on Translating (1530). Luther says in the introduction:

“…there has been much discussion about the translating of the Old and New Testaments. It has been charged by the enemies of truth that the text has been modified and even falsified in many places, which has startled and shocked many simple Christians, even among the educated who do not know the Hebrew and Greek languages. It is devoutly to be hoped that with this publication the slander of the godless will be stopped and the scruples of the devout removed, at least in part. Perhaps it may even give rise to more writing on such questions and matters such as these. Therefore I ask all lovers of the truth to take this work to heart seriously, and faithfully to pray to God for a right understanding of the divine Scriptures, to the improvement and increase of our common Christendom.”

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 (Emser) did just that:

“We have seen that scribbler from Dresden play the master to my New Testament. I will not mention his name again in my books, as he has his Judge now, and is already well-known. He admits that my German is sweet and good. He saw that he could not improve upon it. Yet, eager to dishonor it, he took my New Testament nearly word for word as it was written, and removed my prefaces and notes, replaced them with his own, and thus published my New Testament under his name!”

2. Put this context into the quotes being misued.

With this context in mind, point out that Luther was blasting away at his Papal critics:

“If your papist wishes to make a great fuss about the word sola (alone), say this to him: "Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and he says that a papist and a donkey are the same thing." …For we are not going to be students and disciples of the papists. Rather, we will become their teachers and judges. For once, we also are going to be proud and brag, with these blockheads; and just as Paul brags against his mad raving saints, I will brag against these donkeys of mine! Are they doctors? So am I. Are they scholars? 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 logicians? So am I. Do they lecture? So do I. Do they write books? So do I.”

“I will go even further with my boasting: I can expound the psalms and the prophets, and they cannot. I can translate, and they cannot. I can read the Holy Scriptures, and they cannot. I can pray, they cannot. Coming down to their level, “I can use their rhetoric and philosophy better than all of them put together. Plus I know that not one of them understands his Aristotle. If any one of them can correctly understand one preface or chapter of Aristotle, I will eat my hat! No, I am not overdoing it, for I have been schooled in and have practiced their science from my youth. I recognize how deep and broad it is. They, too, are well aware that I can do everything they can do. Yet they treat me as a stranger in their discipline, these incurable fellows, as if I had just arrived this morning and had never seen or heard what they teach and know. How they do brilliantly parade around with their science, teaching me what I outgrew twenty years ago! To all their noise and shouting I sing, with the harlot, "I have known for seven years that horseshoe nails are iron.”

“Let this be the answer to your first question. Please do not give these donkeys any other answer to their useless braying about that word sola than simply this: "Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the doctors of the pope." Let it rest there. I will from now on hold them in contempt, and have already held them in contempt, as long as they are the kind of people (or rather donkeys) that they are.”

One can almost feel Luther’s anger towards his Papal critics. They discredited him as a doctor of theology, a degree he earned in a rather quick period of time, and his academic abilities were above most. Indeed, he had done the work necessary to be taken seriously. His critics criticized his German translation while at the same time stealing it for their own translation- this infuriated him, and rightly so.

3. Luther's actual reasoning for using "alone" in Romans 3:28

This is the sad part about those who use Luther's Open Letter On Translating against him. He actually goes on to give a detailed explanation of why he uses the word "alone" in Romans 3:28. In the same document, in a calmer tone, Luther gives his reasoning for those with ears to hear:

“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.”

Luther continues to give multiple examples of the implied sense of meaning in translating words into German. He then offers an interpretive context of Romans:

“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.”

4. Previous translations of the word “alone” in Romans 3:28

Luther offers another line of reasoning in his “Open Letter on Translating” that many of the current Cyber-Roman Catholics ignore (and most Protestants are not aware of):

“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.”

Now here comes the fun part in this discussion.

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.

Robert Bellarmine listed eight earlier authors who used sola (Disputatio de controversiis: De justificatione 1.25 [Naples: G. Giuliano, 1856], 4.501-3):

Origen, Commentarius in Ep. ad Romanos, cap. 3 (PG 14.952).

Hilary, Commentarius in Matthaeum 8:6 (PL 9.961).

Basil, Hom. de humilitate 20.3 (PG 31.529C).

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).

John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ep. ad Titum 3.3 (PG 62.679 [not in Greek text]).

Cyril of Alexandria, In Joannis Evangelium 10.15.7 (PG 74.368 [but alludes to Jas 2:19]).

Bernard, In Canticum serm. 22.8 (PL 183.881): “solam justificatur per fidem,” is justified by faith alone.

Theophylact, Expositio in ep. ad Galatas 3.12-13 (PG 124.988).

To these eight Lyonnet added two others (Quaestiones, 114-18):

Theodoret, Affectionum curatio 7 (PG 93.100; ed. J. Raeder [Teubner], 189.20-24).

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]).

See further:

Theodore of Mopsuestia, In ep. ad Galatas (ed. H. B. Swete), 1.31.15.

Marius Victorinus (ep. Pauli ad Galatas (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15-16: “Ipsa enim fides sola iustificationem dat-et sanctificationem” (For faith itself alone gives justification and sanctification); In ep. Pauli Ephesios (ed. A. Locher), ad 2.15: “Sed sola fides in Christum nobis salus est” (But only faith in Christ is salvation for us).

Augustine, De fide et operibus, 22.40 (CSEL 41.84-85): “licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intellegatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur” (Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love”). Migne Latin Text: Venire quippe debet etiam illud in mentem, quod scriptum est, In hoc cognoscimus eum, si mandata ejus servemus. Qui dicit, Quia cognovi eum, et mandata ejus non servat, mendax est, et in hoc veritas non est (I Joan. II, 3, 4). Et ne quisquam existimet mandata ejus ad solam fidem pertinere: quanquam dicere hoc nullus est ausus, praesertim quia mandata dixit, quae ne multitudine cogitationem spargerent [Note: [Col. 0223] Sic Mss. Editi vero, cogitationes parerent.], In illis duobus tota Lex pendet et Prophetae (Matth. XXII, 40): licet recte dici possit ad solam fidem pertinere Dei mandata, si non mortua, sed viva illa intelligatur fides, quae per dilectionem operatur; tamen postea Joannes ipse aperuit quid diceret, cum ait: Hoc est mandatum ejus, ut credamus nomini Filii ejus Jesu Christi, et diligamns invicem (I Joan. III, 23) See De fide et operibus, Cap. XXII, §40, PL 40:223.

Source: Joseph A. Fitzmyer Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993) 360-361.

Even some 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.”

Tradition In The Early Church

[Tertullian] insisted that Christians must not pick and choose doctrines according to their whims; their sole authorities were the apostles, who had themselves faithfully transmitted Christ’s teaching. Both [Tertullian and Irenaeus] on occasion described this original message as tradition, using the word to denote the teaching delivered by the apostles, without any implied contrast between tradition and Scripture. (p.36)

On the other hand, Irenaeus took it for granted that the apostolic tradition had also been deposited in written documents. As he says, “what the apostles at first proclaimed by word of mouth, they afterwards by God’s will conveyed to us in Scriptures.” (p. 37-38)

Did Irenaeus then subordinate Scripture to unwritten tradition?…. his real defense of orthodoxy was founded on Scripture. Indeed, tradition itself, on his view, was confirmed by Scripture, which was “the foundation and pillar of our faith.” Secondly, Irenaeus admittedly suggested that a firm grasp of “the canon of truth” received at baptism would prevent a man from distorting the sense of Scripture. But this “canon,” so far from being something distinct from Scripture, was simply a condensation of the message contained in it. … The whole point of his teaching was, in fact, that Scripture and the Church’s unwritten tradition are identical in content, both being vehicles of the revelation. (p. 38-39)

[Tertullian] was emphatic that no secret tradition existed, and that it was incredible that the apostles did not know, or failed to pass on, the revelation in its entirety. (p. 40)

Like Irenaeus, Tertullian is convinced that Scripture is consonant in all its parts, and that its meaning should be clear if it is read as a whole. But where controversy with heretics breaks out, the right interpretation can be found only where the true Christian faith and discipline have been maintained, i.e. in the Church. The heretics, he complained, were able to make Scripture say what they liked because they disregarded the regula. (p. 40)

It was the Bible, declared Clement of Alexandria about A.D. 200, which as interpreted by the Church, was the source of Christian teaching. His greater disciple Origen was a thorough-going Biblicist who appealed again and again to Scripture as the decisive criterion of dogma. The Church drew her catechetical material, he stated, from the prophets, the gospels and the apostles’ writings; her faith, he suggested, was buttressed by Holy Scripture supported by common sense. “The holy and inspired Scriptures,” wrote Athanasius a century later, “are fully sufficient for the proclamation of the truth”; while his contemporary, Cyril of Jerusalem, laid it down that “with regard to the divine and saving mysteries of faith no doctrine, however trivial, may be taught without the backing of the divine Scriptures…. For our saving faith derives its force, not from capricious reasonings, but from what may be proved out of the Bible.” Later in the same century John Chrysostom bade his congregation seek no other teacher that the oracles of God; everything was straightforward and clear in the Bible, and the sum of necessary knowledge could be extracted from it. In the West Augustine declared that “in the plain teaching of Scripture we find all that concerns our belief and moral conduct”; while a little later Vincent of Lerins (d. c. 450) took it as an axiom the Scriptural canon was “sufficient, and more than sufficient, for all purposes.” (p. 42-43)

Further, it was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish its Scriptural basis. (p. 46)

J.N.D Kelly, "Early Christian Doctrines"

Does John 10:34 Support The Mormon Teaching That Men Can Become Gods?

          Mormons interpret the phrase "you are gods" in John 10:34 (which is a citation of Psalm 82:6) to mean that we can become gods in the afterlife. This idea goes hand in hand with their teaching on celestial marriage.

          Jesus Christ never said, "You are able to become gods." Taken out of context, this minuscule phrase reads, "You are gods." This is in the present tense, which makes the Mormon interpretation inconsistent because Mormon theology does not teach that human beings who are present on earth are gods. Rather, it is a doctrine of Mormonism that men can become gods in the afterlife. Mormonism does not teach that Mormons are gods while alive here on this earth.

          Psalm 82 speaks of divinely appointed human judges, who would "die like men" (Psalm 82:7). In John 10, Christ was simply pointing to the fact that the Jewish teachers of His time were fatally erring in their doctrine. They were doing so in the same manner as the judges of Psalm 82 erred. Christ was criticizing the grave doctrinal errors of the scribes and Pharisees who constantly challenged His teachings. He referred to them as being "whitewashed tombs" (Matthew 23:37) and said that their father was the devil (John 8:44).

          There is only one God. Isaiah 43:10 says, "...before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me." Isaiah 44:6-8 says, "Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any." Thus, we cannot become gods in the afterlife. There is no one like Him in existence. While it is true that Christians will eventually receive perfected, glorified bodies in the eternal state, the fact still remains that we cannot become gods.

No Archaeological Evidence Supporting The Book Of Mormon

        The Church of Latter-day Saints, which is traditionally known as the Mormon Church, is notorious for its claims regarding a total apostasy. This world religion claims to be a restoration of lost spiritual truth. It is argued that Christianity drifted into a complete state of corruption and that biblical revelation has also been lost. The Mormon Church claims that Joseph Smith, its founder, had received special revelation from God in Palmyra, New York, to start a completely new religion to recover the original teachings of the Christian religion. This group claims that the Book of Mormon was translated by Joseph Smith from Golden Nephi Plates.

        There is abundant historical evidence for the ancient cities, rivers, nations, leaders, and events that are recorded in the Bible. This religious text accurately identifies ancient cities. It confirms the antiquity of different religious customs and ways of life. The original languages used in the process of recording the Bible into manuscript form were used in Israel and the Greco-Roman world for centuries (Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic). As for the text of the New Testament, it has thousands of manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts backing it up. Bible translations are not simply translations of translations, but are translated directly from the best manuscripts available. It is consistent with world history and does not contradict archaeological finds. 

        The Book of Mormon is rejected in toto by historians and archaeologists. Globally famous scientific research and educational institutions such as the Smithsonian Institute and the National Geographic Society have come to the conclusion that the Book of Mormon is essentially a worthless guide when it comes to archaeology. There is no evidence existing whatsoever for the cities, or even names found on inscriptions, to support the Book of Mormon. The material is simply the product of one's own imagination or forgery.

         The Book of Mormon has no standard to verify its accuracy because the “Angel Maroni” supposedly took the Golden Nephi Plates from the hands of Joseph Smith. Not only does the world not have the Golden Nephi Plates to examine, but the Book of Mormon also contains thousands of verbatim quotations, including translation errors, from the 1611 King James Version peppered throughout its pages. It has been estimated that 27,000 words have been reproduced from this translation and incorporated into the text of the Book of Mormon. How could this be when Mormonism claims that the entire text can be dated before A.D. 421? How does this process of translating "reformed Egyptian" into the English language appear identically as if one is translating Koine Greek to English?

        "...compare Isaiah, chapter 53 in the King James translation of the Bible with Mosiah, chapter 14, in the Book of Mormon. This reveals that the King James translation has been copied almost word for word. Also compare Matthew, chapter 6, verses 1 through 23, with the Photo-reproduction No. 11, of page 482 of the 1830 Edition of the Book of Mormon. Here the King James translation has been copied even using the word "which" for "who" which was perfectly proper at the time of the King James translation but not so in 1830 when the Book of Mormon was written. On this page 482 of the Original Edition the words, "Father which" occurs seven times, but in later editions of the Book of Mormon, but "which" has been changed to "who" (See 3 Nephi 13:1-18)." (Arthur Budvarson, The Book of Mormon: True or False?, p. 25)

        Furthermore, there have been approximately four thousand alterations to the Book of Mormon since it was originally published in A.D. 1830. Moreover, there is no known evidence for the language called "reformed Egyptian," which was the language that Joseph Smith supposedly translated from the Golden Nephi Plates into the Book of Mormon. This language remains completely hidden from Egyptologists. Any notion of ancient Hebrew people living on the ancient American continent is foreign to the pages of history.

         The earliest Christian writers after biblical times make no mention of any uniquely Mormon doctrines. One can read through the writings of early Christians such as Ignatius of Antioch, Clement, Eusebius, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Polycarp, and others only to find no mention of any peculiarly Mormon doctrines. We find no mention of any major articles of the Mormon faith such as polytheism, polygamy, celestial marriage, temple ceremonies, or any other distinctive. We do not even find an inkling of the coming of a complete apostasy of the church in the volumes of writings produced by the earliest Christians. If the Mormon Church today is the prototype of the original churches of the first century, then we should find mention of distinctly Mormon doctrines in every corner of the early church. But this is certainly not the case.

We Walk By Faith; Not By Sight

          "So we are always confident, knowing that while we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. For we walk by faith, not by sight. We are confident, yes, well pleased rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord. Therefore we make it our aim, whether present or absent, to be well pleasing to Him. For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad." (2 Corinthians 5:6-10)

          In context, the Apostle Paul is exhorting the Church of Corinth to not be focused solely on the earthly aspects of life. He places greater emphasis on the things of the supernatural, transcendent realm of God the Creator. We should not center our lives around worldly passions because the things of this world are fading away. It is to be our desired purpose to serve Him faithfully, no matter where we are in life. That is what God wills and recognizes for our lives.

          The phrase "walking by faith" is a reference to how we should conduct ourselves in this life. It describes how our lifestyles ought to be in Christ. When we walk by faith, we are considering the possible eternal consequences of our actions. We are looking through a lens of faith into the future. Walking by faith entails having the courage to stand for the things of God.

          To walk by faith involves continually entertaining the things of God. Those who obey God are promised heavenly rewards. Those who reject Him and die in that state stand eternally condemned. To walk by faith requires acting against the corrupted whims of society. We live according to His moral precepts by grace. Christians need to focus on the unseen realities of this world. That would be God Himself and our eternal destinies. 

          The bema seat was an elevated platform in which victors in athletic contests would be rewarded with crowns. That imagery is used here in regard to Christians receiving commendation from Christ for their service to God. The true nature of our ministerial work will be brought to light on that day. It will be shown for what it really is. Works done with selfish or impure motives will be cast aside. Those works will not be grounds for being given praise by God.

Peace Is Perfection

          The promotion of peace in our world is a fight that takes place daily. However, human beings have the inherent tendency to act contrary to such principles by provoking other people to anger and despair. As a result of our fallen nature, Jesus Christ became incarnate so that He could enter into this world to make the perfect, final propitiatory sacrifice to God for our salvation. Because of the sacrificial work of His only begotten Son, God has appointed members of His church to be ambassadors to spread the good news, followed by repentance and a life of holiness. Some plant the seeds of conversion; others water to provide spiritual nourishment for weak souls. God is the One causes the growth on the foundation of the Christian religion, which is Jesus Christ. We can promote peace in this world by spreading the message of salvation to the lost and by revealing clemency to those who wrong us.

          Giving others an understanding of the character of the Lord Jesus Christ will stimulate their knowledge of Him as being the Prince of Peace. Christ taught us to love our neighbors as ourselves. He has also instructed Christians to love their enemies. We have been called to love the Lord our God with all of our mind and all our heart. We should emulate His example on the Cross by giving up ourselves for other people who are in need. When we serve others, we are also serving Jesus Christ. The foundation of peace is mercy. The two concepts are inseparable. They presuppose the existence of each other. Peace and mercy spring forth from the fountain of love. In order to promote tranquility, we must always find ways to become reconciled as much as can possibly be done. We promote peace by preaching the gospel because its heart pumps on the Blood of Peace.

          We must choose to be merciful as Christ instructed us. It is vital for us to be merciful, whether we be insulted by words or physically injured by enemies. Us repaying evil for evil never works because of the continual intensifying of hatred, jealousy, wrath, and bitterness. If people refuse to be reconciled with each other because of vituperative actions or words, then such disputes can infect the minds of other people in ways we never imagined. How can we thrive if there is a constant state of bitterness and anarchy? Only through a state of peace can we see things in life clearly. It therefore helps us to maintain a sense of rationality. Life makes sense because of peace. We find true and lasting peace in Christ. Having peace is a commandment of the Lord our God. Christ is merciful to us when we implore His mercy through our prayers. Mercy is an underlying component of peace. It is a built on the foundation of lovingkindness.

          Promoting peace is an essential aspect of Christian ministry. In fact, it is a necessary element for human survival. Consequently, we need to ask ourselves how what we can do to promote a peaceful environment. We also need to know how to maintain a state of peace within ourselves and others. We can do these things by preaching the gospel of everlasting life to lost sinners, reflecting on the moral principles taught therein, and by being merciful to those who work to harm us. Helping others to understand that Jesus Christ is the Prince of Peace would equip them with the knowledge necessary for growing the seeds of His teachings in the minds of inquisitive people. We must be merciful as Jesus Christ taught us to be, even if people continually work to hurt us physically or mentally.

Is Confession Of Sins To A Priest Biblical?

• Defining The Issues:

          -The Church of Rome teaches that in order to obtain God's forgiveness of "mortal" sins, we must confess them to an ordained, ministerial priest in a small room called a confessional booth (CCC # 980). According to the Roman Catholic Church, this practice and water baptism are absolutely necessary for the salvation of our souls (CCC # 1257; 2020). Roman Catholicism further maintains that Jesus Christ gave the twelve apostles the authority to absolve sins confessed to them. The primary biblical support for this concept is John 20:23. 

          -The premise of this teaching is elaborated on by the claim that apostolic authority was passed on to apostolic successors (i.e. Catholic bishops and priests of future generations). Roman Catholics are required by Rome to embrace the practice of confessing mortal sins to a priest, under penalty of anathema. This teaching of confessing sins to a priest is also found in Eastern Orthodoxy, but the focus of this article is mostly the Roman Catholic Church.

• Confession To A Ministerial Priest Is Contrary To Biblical Teaching:

          -The New Testament Scriptures are silent about an ordained ministerial priesthood. Never do we see the Greek word "hiereus," which is the Greek word for priest, filling in the role of any New Testament church offices. Instead, we are told that all Christians have been called to be priests (biblical references where the Greek word "hiereus" is used) who offer spiritual sacrifices to God under the High Priesthood of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:5-9; Revelation 1:6; 5:10). We serve God through the preaching of the gospel and and living according its principles.
          -In the Bible, we see that confession of sin took place in the presence of the offended individuals (Matthew 3:6; 18:15-17; Mark 1:4-5; Acts 19:18-19; James 5:16). In the New Testament, confession of sin was never done privately, as is the manner of style found within the modern Church of Rome. It was a public act for all members of the church to see and hear. The most primitive Christians confessed their sins to another. In Scripture, we always see people praying directly to God for mercy (Psalm 32:5; Matthew 6:9-12; Acts 8:20-22; Luke 18:13-14). 

• Do Matthew 16:19 And John 20:23 Support The Notion That We Must Confess Our Sins To A Priest Or That They Have Been Given Power To Forgive Them?:

          -These verses say nothing about the confession of sins. These passages say nothing about apostolic authority being passed on to future leaders of the Christian church through apostolic succession. In the New Testament, we never see the apostles acting as if they had been given the authority to absolve sins. In fact, the New Testament epistles mention nothing about having opportunities to get forgiven for sins as a result of private confession to a priest. Matthew 16:19 and John 20:23 do not even limit the ability of "binding and loosing" or "forgiving and retaining sins" to the leaders of the church.
          -The "keys" represent the authority to proclaim the salvation of converts and the condemnation of sinners (Luke 10:16). The keys are knowledge of the Kingdom of God (Matthew 23:13; Luke 11:52). The door of salvation is opened to those who accept the message of the gospel, whereas the door of condemnation is opened to those who reject the salvific message of the gospel (Acts 14:27; Romans 1:16). This passage is definitely within the context of the Great Commission, which is defined as the mission of preaching of the gospel to the world through the enlightenment of the Holy Ghost (Matthew 28:16-20; Mark 16:14-18; Luke 24:45-49). 

          -In the Book of Acts, converts such as Paul and Cornelius received the gift of the Holy Spirit. They rejoiced as a result of hearing the proclamation of eternal salvation. But notice how the Lord Jesus Christ instructed His original disciples to shake the dust off their feet when they encountered cities who rejected them for preaching the gospel message (Matthew 10:14-15; Mark 6:11; Acts 13:51). This is a perfect way of applying the principle of "loosing," or announcing the condemnation of sinners. Today, we serve as ambassadors for Christ by performing the ministry of reconciliation through the preaching of the gospel and conversion of perishing souls (2 Corinthians 5:17-21). Christians have been authorized to declare the terms of forgiveness as provided by the gospel. John 20:23 is a more declarative or judicial way of sending the disciples into the world to declare the message of salvation.

• Sins Have Been Forgiven Or Have Already Been Forgiven?:

          -The Greek grammar of John 20:23 is unique. The first pair of verbs found in this passage, which are "forgive" and "retain," are in the present tense. In the same verse, both of the second pair of verb phrases (i.e. "are forgiven" and "are retained") are in the perfect tense, which points to an action that happened in the past but is still taking place. The grammatical structure of John 20:23 strongly suggests that God responds accordingly to a man's reaction to the gospel being made known to him before the proclamation of that decision to accept or reject the message of salvation. It is simply a proclamation of what God has already done in response to a person's decision to either accept or reject the gospel. This verse seems to read, "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins HAVE ALREADY BEEN (or "shall have been") forgiven." Thus, Jesus simply gave His disciples the authority to proclaim the forgiveness of people who were already justified in the sight of God. We simply announce and confirm what God has already done through the words that He has given us.

• Background Information On The Historical Development Of Auricular Confession:

          -The idea of auricular confession evolved over centuries, influenced by various cultural, theological, and pastoral needs. While it’s lovely to anchor practices in tradition, we must remember that religious practices are inherently historical and subject to change. To declare that the Catholic Church’s process of confession was “always understood” in a certain way neglects the evolution and flexibility present in the early Christian community. For example, St. Augustine’s confessions were personal reflections more than a template for communal practice, and his interpretations cannot be straightforwardly equated with modern sacramental confession.

          -The early Christians viewed confession as a public matter. It was specifically pertinent to grave sins against other people. Confession of sin could only be done once to an offended party. The early church did not see sins forgiven through a priest through judicial absolution when confessed. It was not until the end of the second to early third centuries that we begin to see penances being introduced into the Christian church as a means of obtaining forgiveness of sins from God. 

          -The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that the concept of confessing sins privately to a priest did not begin in the Western church until the seventh or eight centuries: "…During the seventh century Irish missionaries, inspired by the Eastern monastic tradition, took to continental Europe the “private” practice of penance, which does not require public and prolonged completion of penitential works before reconciliation with the Church. From that time on [i.e., from the seventh century], the sacrament has been performed in secret between penitent and priest. This new practice envisioned the possibility of repetition and so opened the way to a regular frequenting of this sacrament… " (CCC # 1447)

• The Words Of Church Historian J.N.D Kelly:

          -“With the dawn of the third century the rough outlines of a recognized penitential system were beginning to take shape. In spite of the ingenious arguments of certain scholars, there are still no signs of a sacrament of private penance (i.e. confession to a priest, followed by absolution and the imposition of a penance) such as Catholic Christendom knows to-day. The system which seems to have existed in the church at this time, and for centuries afterwards, was wholly public, involving confession, a period of penance and exclusion from communion, and formal absolution and restoration—the whole process being called exomologesis.” (“Early Christian Doctrines,” p. 216)

• Information From The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia Online:

          -“Great difficulty is caused by varying terminology and practice during the lengthy time expanse under consideration. The word “penance” was used to designate both the entire sacramental procedure and the satisfaction performed by the penitent… Though confession was a necessary presupposition to reception of the Church’s sacramental Penance, it is not always certain what sort of confession was required… But to repeat, documents of the patristic period are difficult to interpret on this score, and unanimous agreement has not been reached among scholars."

• The Words Of Roman Catholic Priest S. B. Smith, D.D., In His “Notes on the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore” (October 7-21, 1866):

          -"Public confession was practiced during the first ages of the Church. Yet it was restricted generally to sins that were public, or at least publicly committed. Not infrequently, however, secret crimes and sins were openly avowed. This was a voluntary confession on the part of the penitent. However, public confession soon gave rise to various abuses, and was consequently abolished under Leo I., in 459.” (Chapter XVII, paragraph 52, #237, page 208)

A Discussion On The Morality Of Homosexuality

• Homosexuality Is Incompatible With Biblical Christianity: 

          -The Levitical Law expressly forbade homosexuality and prescribed the sentence of death to those who partook in such actions (Leviticus 18:22-25; 20:13). In fact, God destroyed the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah because of sexual immorality, which included homosexuality (Genesis 19:4-13). Interestingly, Jude describes this instance of divine judgment happening as a result of men going after "strange flesh" (Jude 5-8). The Apostle Peter described those same people as "lawless" (2 Peter 2:7-10). Thus, sexual sin is associated with apostasy in the New Testament. Paul warns that any person who practices homosexuality will be excluded from the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:9-11). The Creator leaves those who exchange natural relations for unnatural to their own devices and destruction (Romans 1:25-27). Homosexuality involves the reversal of a creation ordinance. It degrades that which is sacred. In that same context, the Apostle Paul concurs with the Law that sinners are worthy of death (Romans 1:32). However, he also testifies to the graces of God that are so powerfully made known through Christ. Lastly, the consistent pattern of marriage described in Scripture is always a physical union between man and woman.

• Homosexual Behavior Is Plagued With Problems:

          -Homosexuality is unnatural for us in that all are born heterosexual by bodily design. It is, therefore, not a matter of when we chose to have that kind of orientation. Nor do homosexual unions result in the production of human life. If practiced on a wide enough scale, a populace would be guaranteed to face self-extinction. Homosexuality is destructive in that is carries with it risks of getting HIV, Syphilis, and AIDS. It even results in abnormal personality changes.

• What About Equal Rights?:

          -If the legalization of same-sex marriage means equal rights for members of the LGBTQ community, then why cannot there be equal rights for people who want more than one partner in marriage? If we redefine the concept of marriage to include two homosexual people, then why would it be wrong for us to also redefine marriage to include more than one person? The move to officially change the definition of marriage as being something other than a male and female union is unprecedented in history. Even societies like ancient Greece did not take matters this far, judging by available historical records.

• Interaction With The "Born Gay" Argument:

          -Homosexual desire is acted on, just as heterosexual desire is. It is in that way distinguished from our skin color, height, and gender, which are genetic traits. Those things are not behaviors. They exist independently of our thoughts and cannot be acted on.

          -Possible causes of homosexuality are environment, culture, and free will (i.e. genetic identity disorder, women getting abused by men, children getting abused by homosexuals, etc.). It involves a complex combination of factors.
          -Even assuming that genetics can influence homosexual behavior, being born with the potential to act in a certain manner in no way provides justification for any behavioral patterns. There is no genetic excuse for homosexuality, anymore than there is a genetic excuse for theft or lying. Note that the Apostle Paul himself placed all these acts in the category of sin (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

          -These tendencies, whether they are genetic or not, cannot simply be justified on the grounds of being born with proclivities for them. Human nature is the breeding ground for all sorts of atrocities. The presence of temptation in our hearts is not sin, but acting on such is. God forgives those who repent of their homosexual sin, just as He would forgive repentant thieves, adulterers, murderers, or anyone else (1 Corinthians 6:11). People who struggle with homosexuality are not without hope of redemption, but they may need ongoing counseling assistance.

• Refuting Attempts To Justify Homosexuality By Appeals To Nature: 

          -Just because animals do irrational things to each other, does not mean that human beings ought to follow suit. We should actually be able to rise above that of the life of beasts. The following behaviors have also been observed among various animal species: 1.) Raping other animals, 2.) Eating their young when threatened, 3.) Eating their sex partner, 4.) Injuring sex partners, and 5.) Having intercourse with their own offspring. If this means anything at all, then it would only be that homosexuality is brutish behavior. It represents the absence of culture.

Demonstrating His Love For Sinners

                                   Christ died on the cross because of His love,

                                   He ascended into heaven above.

                                   We spread His love by the words we preach,

                                   So others know it is not out of reach.

                                   We demonstrate God’s love through our good action,

                                    So more join Love’s magnetic attraction.

                                    We show love though generous deed,

                                     So that putrid sin will therefore impede.

Is Faith Irrational? (A Refutation Of Scientism)

• Introduction:

          -Atheists commonly portray Christians as establishing their beliefs on an empty shell of faith. It is claimed that religious people base their beliefs on superstitions or personal hunches. Religion is made out by atheists to be a mere coping mechanism. Many of them reject the validity of anything that cannot be tested or proven in a laboratory. People who subscribe to this view, known as scientism, automatically deem the supernatural realm to be nonexistent because it transcends the scope of the study of the natural world. A tendency of atheists is to automatically rule out the possibility of truth in anything miraculous because they subscribe to naturalism, which is the philosophy that nothing exists beyond the material world.

• The Inherent Inconsistency Of Scientism: 

          -It is unreasonable to dismiss any given idea (i.e. the miraculous) as being false when there is no scientific basis for establishing such a denial. Thus, people who subscribe to scientism (including famous proponents such as Richard Dawkins) are being inconsistent with their own ideological framework. Those who hold to this view are not making a verdict in accordance with established fact, which is how they claim to operate.

• Misrepresenting The Concept Of Biblical Faith To Advance An Argument:

          -Biblical faith is not simply a mental conviction that is founded without evidence or equivalent to blindly accepting ideas as true. It is not a form of wishful thinking. If biblical faith were any of these things, then God never would have sent prophets who foretold future events or take on human flesh and perform miracles for people. These are things which can be seen, heard, and felt. Our faith must be tested or proven (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Thus, biblical faith is not at odds with scientific investigation. It is based on what we know to be true and reasonable. What Christians argue against is a "science only" worldview, not science itself.

• Scientism Is An Unworkable Philosophy:

          -It is impossible to examine the truth of everything that we encounter on a daily basis. Our lives are simply too short to test the validity of everything that we may have learned, whether we obtained knowledge from experience or education. To doubt the truth behind everything would inevitably result in infinite regression. Asking ourselves how we know that things we see or hear are true past the point at which they can be broken down to their simplest forms renders truth unattainable to human reason. This only goes to show the interplay of faith in daily life. Human beings inescapably possess a degree of it in something or something else. Do atheists have faith in their own existence?

• The Limits Of Scientific Investigation Undermine Scientism:

          -Let us consider for a moment some of the essential features of human life. We have free will. We have conscience. We have rationality. We have intellect. We acknowledge the existence of moral truths. We know that human life has intrinsic value. We yearn for an ultimate purpose in life. Mathematics consists of several infallible formulas, proofs, and theorems. Universals, propositions, and possible worlds are examples of abstract realities. There are principles of beauty and artistic innovation, which are known as aesthetics. The universe came into being for a reason. Physical constants have a fine-tuning. Scientific laws themselves are based on foundational, yet empirically unverifiable, assumptions. If scientism is true, then all of the aforementioned ideas must be rejected as false because they cannot be verified by the scientific method. In fact, science itself would be self-refuting.