DOCSLIB.ORG

JAMES 2:24: RETRANSLATION REQUIRED (Part 1 of 3)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
JAMES 2:24: RETRANSLATION REQUIRED (Part 1 of 3) JAMES 2:24: RETRANSLATION REQUIRED (Part 1 of 3) by John Niemelä Introduction: Sola Fide Requires Sola Scriptura How easy it is to assume sola fide as axiomatic to Christi- anity without comprehending the tremendous battles Martin Lu- ther and other Reformers fought. Luther’s nailing of his 95 Theses to the door of the Church at Wittenburg marked an auspi- cious beginning on October 31, 1517. One of Luther’s greatest contributions to the Reformation was his translation of the Bible into a language accessible to the common man. However trans- lating from Hebrew, Greek and Latin texts into German was a massive task. Did Luther have lexicons of today’s caliber? Did he have access to an established scholarly community dedicated to biblical languages? Did Luther have any of the modern pub- lishing tools let alone a computer? And, yet the Reformation’s success not only depended upon sola fide (faith alone), but also sola Scriptura (Scripture alone). Indeed, Martin Luther and his contemporaries argued that departures from the Scripture authorized by the pope and various councils obscured the biblical doctrine of eternal justification, sola fide. In other words, sola fide was a compelling argument only if sola Scriptura were true. Luther’s enemies not only rejected sola fide, but also sola Scrip- tura, while those who embraced sola fide, of necessity, embraced sola Scriptura. The two doctrines stand or fall together. Luther quickly saw the practical ramifications of sola Scriptura: People who read the Bible for themselves could dis- cover (or verify) that eternal justification comes by faith alone. Those who could not read it were dependant on those who could. Unfortunately, most who could read a Latin Bible were clergy- men of a church that rejected sola fide and sola Scriptura. If Lu- 14 CTS Journal 7 (January–March 2001) ther were to translate the Bible into German, the recently in- vented printing press would allow him to distribute German Bi- bles widely. If people could read the Bible for themselves, not only would they be reading Scripture, but also they could person- ally verify sola fide. Thus, five years after nailing his 95 Theses on the door at Wittenburg, he released his first German New Testament. During the remaining years of his life, he produced almost twenty revised editions of the New Testament and four of the whole Bible.1 For Luther an accurate Bible translation was essential to both sola Scriptura and sola fide; however, the Bible contains some problem passages, which on the surface seem to contradict faith alone for eternal justification. What would he do? Was Lu- ther to compromise the doctrine of sola Scriptura through an un- reliable translation of the original text?2 Or, was he to compromise sola fide with reliable translations of problem texts for which he (and his contemporaries) lacked exegetical answers? 1 A critical edition of every version produced during Luther’s personal super- vision exists: Heinrich Ernst Birdseil and Hermann Agathon Niemeyer, eds., Dr. Martin Luther’s Bibelübersetzung nach der Letzten Original-Ausgabe, 7 vols. (Halle, Germany: Canstein’sche Bibel-anstalt, 1845–55). For those de- siring a summary, Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 7, Mod- ern Christianity: The German Reformation, 2d ed. (New York: Scribner, 1910; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 346–49, discusses the many editions of his New Testament and/or complete Bible that he released in his lifetime. 2 Martin Luther, On Translating: An Open Letter, trans. Charles M. Jacobs, rev. by E. Theodore Bachmann, in Luther’s Works, ed. Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 35, Word and Sacrament, ed. E. Theodore Bachmann (Philadelphia: Mul- lenberg, 1960), 182, 187–88, and 195, defends his insertion of the word allein (“alone”) into Romans 3:28, despite admitting that the Latin lacks it. The Greek also lacks it. Luther does correctly understand the sense of the passage, but Paul did not say alone here. It was not necessary for him to tinker with the text. A literal translation is quite sufficient because the burden of proof would be upon anyone who would add anything to faith in Romans 3:28. Unfortu- nately, Luther was not gracious toward those who questioned his paraphrase (cf. ibid., 181–202. James 2:24: Retranslation Required 15 Few contemporary theologians have faced such tremendous consequences for their work. Quite simply, if through the incor- rect interpretation of difficult passages, the reformation in its in- fancy could be throttled by those amenable to the position of the Catholic Church, the impetus needed to publish the Bible in other languages might stall. James 2:24 remains the quintessential ex- ample of Luther’s dilemma, a passage that translators still ob- scure. Luther’s Dilemma In regard to James 2:24 Luther, the accomplished debater, seems to have prevailed though the use of a two-tiered approach. First, he tinkered with the translation in an effort to salvage sola fide.3 Second, if anyone challenged his translation (or interpreta- tion), he simply expressed reservations about James being ca- nonical.4 In the short run, this approach is quite clever, for if anyone disagreed with his translation, he could then, based upon the strength of their own argument, cite their opposition as reason to question the canonicity of James. Five centuries later most theologians still assume that Lu- ther’s translation was right. This is a situation where an illustra- tion by former Canadian Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, applies. He said Canada’s relationship with the United States is like sharing a bed with an elephant. No matter how friendly the ele- phant (United States), Canada suffers when the elephant rolls 3 Luther worked with both Erasmus’ Greek text and the Latin Vulgate. Lu- ther’s translation misconstrued the Greek grammar here, but it violated both Latin grammar and lexicography. Furthermore, Melanchthan, who knew more Greek than Luther, became involved in checking the translation for the many revised editions. Furthermore, Luther’s translation handled monon versus monos correctly elsewhere. One cannot attribute the rendering of James 2:24 to ignorance of the other (the only legitimate) option. 4 Cf. Martin Luther, Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, trans. Charles M. Jacobs, rev. by E. Theodore Bachmann, in Luther’s Works, ed. Helmut T. Lehmann, vol. 35, Word and Sacrament, ed. E. Theodore Bach- mann (Philadelphia: Mullenberg, 1960), 395–97. 16 CTS Journal 7 (January–March 2001) over. Likewise, Luther’s opinions carried so much weight in the realm of sola fide and sola Scriptura that his tinkering with the translation squeezed the literal rendering out of Protestant Bibles. Indeed, Luther’s approach to the verse has dominated not only most English versions, but also most theological discussions of James 2:24. In this sense, the elephant has been alive and well in Protestant circles for five centuries. However, because modern theologians are not willing to accept Luther’s second tier (to question the canonicity of James), both sola Scriptura and sola fide have suffered under this burden. In other words, what was clever in the short run has in the long run been rejected: The error in translation requires correction, for Luther’s second tier has be- come untenable and rightly so. Context: James 2:21–24 and the Roman Epistle What models of faith without works are conceivable in the epistle of James? What interpretive choices did Luther face?5 Why did Luther find one less repugnant than the other? What is the basis for saying that Luther’s translation is incorrect? Models of Faith without Works The CTS Journal recently published an article titled, “Faith without Works: A Definition,”6 in which two distinct models of faith without works were formulated and described in detail based upon James 2:18–21. These two models are as follows: The Subtraction Model Formula: Faith – Works = Something less than Faith Picture: A Bicycle – A Frame = Something less than a Bicycle 5 Luther exercised a non-option as though it were a valid grammatical choice. 6 John Niemelä, “Faith without Works: A Definition,” CTS Journal 6 (April–June 2000): 2–18. That article goes into greater depth on the basis for adopting the Addition Model within the context of James. James 2:24: Retranslation Required 17 The Addition Model Formula: Faith + (0 _ Works) = Faith Picture: A Bicycle + (0 _ Riders) = A Bicycle Most interpreters understand James based upon the Sub- traction Model. Just as one cannot ride a bicycle that lacks a frame (which is not really a bicycle anyway), they say that such a faith cannot give eternal salvation. Furthermore, this view argues that the addition of works to a defective kind of faith does not convert it into saving faith. Ultimately, the Subtraction Model asserts that the problem is with the faith, not the works. However, the model is unfaithful to James. The Addition Model recognizes that a bicycle without a rider does not go anywhere. Even though they believe certain biblical truths, regenerate believers, who fail to apply these truths, will not receive deliverance from the deadly power of sin in their lives. If a regenerate person believes that the Bible forbids stealing, but he cheats on his income tax, he is not being ‘saved’ from sin’s deadly grip on his life. Will he go to heaven? Yes. Is his Christian experience one of deliverance? Ab- solutely not! Adjectival or Adverbial Usages of Monon Although Luther would never have articulated his argument in terms of these two models. His translation of verse 2:24 treated monon or “only” as an adjective and in so doing presupposed the validity of the Subtraction Model.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sola Fide and Sola Gratia in Early Christianity
    Salvation sola fide and sola gratia in early Christianity Published in: P.N. Holtrop, F. De Lange, R. Roukema (eds), Passion of Protestants, Kampen 2004, 27-48 Riemer Roukema Martin Luther‟s passion was to proclaim his discovery that man is justified by faith in Christ. This meant to him that, in man‟s relationship with God, he does not have to correspond to God‟s „righteousness‟ by his own „works‟ or efforts, but that God freely bestows the righteousness of Christ on everyone who believes in Christ as Saviour.1 Luther even intro- duced his discovery into his translation of Rom. 3:28. Whereas Paul wrote there that „man is justified by faith apart from works of the law‟, Luther translated that „man is justified without works of the law, only by faith‟.2 Although this translation was fiercely criticized, he vigorously defended it, saying that a version including „only‟ made up a more natural German sentence than without this adverb. Moreover, he referred to Ambrose and Augustine who said before him that faith alone makes one righteous.3 In Latin, „only by faith‟ is sola fide; combined with sola gratia, „only by grace‟, these words became important slogans of Lutheran and Calvinist Protestantism. For sola gratia, one may refer to Rom. 3:24, „justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus‟ (RSV), and to Eph. 2:8-9a, „For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God, not because of works‟ (RSV).
    [Show full text]
  • The Five Solas of the Reformation
    The Five Solas of the Reformation Contents Background ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Sola Gratia ........................................................................................................................................ 6 Indulgences .................................................................................................................................. 6 Definition of Grace ...................................................................................................................... 7 Grace Alone ................................................................................................................................. 9 Grace is Part of the Character of God ...................................................................................... 9 Grace is Clearly Displayed by the Cross of Jesus .................................................................. 11 Grace is Expressed in Different Ways ................................................................................... 12 Grace is Pure .......................................................................................................................... 14 Grace is Sovereign ................................................................................................................. 14 Grace in Relation to the Law ................................................................................................. 16 Grace is Given
    [Show full text]
  • Turning Point: Luther at the Diet of Worms (1521)
    Turning Point: Luther at the Diet of Worms (1521) Mark Noll, Turning Points, ch. 7 Key texts to start with: The Freedom of a Christian, On the Bondage of the Will, The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, The 95 Theses. Augsburg Confession of the Lutheran churches (1530). Luther on reading and teaching the Gospel narratives. Luther's amazing sermon on John 1:29. Luther's blistering commentary on Galatians. Guys who blog quite a bit on Luther - Ron Frost, Peter Mead, Glen Scrivener. Carl Trueman on Luther at the Clarus Conference 2005 - audio. Martin Luther in 30 minutes from MTC. A Mighty Fortress is Our God: The Story of Martin Luther - available at iServe Africa bookstore Graham Tomlin, Luther and his World – available in the iServe Africa library Michael Reeves, Unquenchable Flame / On Giant’s Shoulders Some of the key issues: Authority of Church versus authority of Word – “my conscience is captive to the Word of God” Against Papacy that Luther saw to be slamming the door to the kingdom in people’s faces, not going in and preventing others from entering Sacraments reduced to Baptism and Lord’s Supper (versus 7 catholic sacraments) Luther’s ‘theology of the Cross’ (from 1517 onwards) - increasingly seeing that the will is bound, can do no good of ourselves (and if we think that we can, that is evil); it is in powerlessness that there is power. This was an extension of Augustinianism that the church could no longer contain. Summary of Alister McGrath’s Luther’s Theology of the Cross, 1985 McGrath starts by placing Luther is his setting as a late medieval theologian of the via moderna.
    [Show full text]
  • Sola Fide the Relevance of Remembering the Reformation
    Concordia Seminary - Saint Louis Scholarly Resources from Concordia Seminary ConcordiaPages Resources for Ministry 1-1-2018 Sola Fide The Relevance of Remembering the Reformation Erik Herrmann Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.csl.edu/concordiapages Part of the History of Christianity Commons Recommended Citation Herrmann, Erik, "Sola Fide The Relevance of Remembering the Reformation" (2018). ConcordiaPages. 6. https://scholar.csl.edu/concordiapages/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Resources for Ministry at Scholarly Resources from Concordia Seminary. It has been accepted for inclusion in ConcordiaPages by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Resources from Concordia Seminary. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SOLA FIDE THE RELEVANCE OF REMEMBERING THE REFORMATION ERIK HERRMANN pages SOLA FIDE THE RELEVANCE OF REMEMBERING THE REFORMATION ERIK HERRMANN About the Author Erik Herrmann r. Erik Herrmann is associate professor of historical theology, chairman of the Department of Historical Theology, director of Concordia Theology, and director of the Center for Reformation Research at Concordia Seminary, St. Louis. DHerrmann joined the faculty of Concordia Seminary in 2005 after serving as an assistant pastor at Timothy Lutheran Church in St. Louis. He received his Ph.D. (2005) and Master of Divinity (2000) from Concordia Seminary. His earned his bachelor’s degree (1995) from Concordia University Wisconsin. His areas of interest and expertise include the history of biblical interpretation, with a particular focus on Martin Luther and the Reformation period; history of Medieval and Reformation/early modern Europe; 20th–century interpretations of Martin Luther and his theology; and the history of American Lutheranism.
    [Show full text]
  • Content I II IV V
    Content I IV io Forewords 20 Finding Luther 136 Luther as a Monk, Scholar and Preacher io Greeting 22 The Luther Family in Mansfeld Frank-Walter Steinmeier 24 The “ Luther Pit” in Mansfeld: 140 Luther’s Academic Background Federal Minister for Foreign Affairs What their Garbage Tells Us about 145 Leucorea 12 Foreword the Luther Family Harald Meller, Martin Eberle, 154 The Ninety-Five Theses 38 The Counts of Mansfeld and the Copper Ulrike Kretzschmar and Stefan Rhein Shale Mines of Mansfeld 160 From Likeness to Image: 15 Foreword Early Portraits of Luther 44 Dawn of a New Era Kay win Feldman 165 The Imperial Diet of Worms 17 Foreword Colin B. Bailey II 19 Contributors to the Catalogue V 46 Worldly Power and Courtly Art 180 Luther’s Theology 183 Sola Fide - 52 The Emperor and the Papacy Justification by Faith Alone 59 The Joint Exercise of Clerical and 186 Law and Grace- Worldly Power A Pictorial Subject of the Reformation 62 The Rulers of Saxony 198 The Eucharist 73 The Cranach Family in Wittenberg 203 Luther’s Translation of the Bible III 92 Pre-Reformation Piety 94 Parochial Churches and Divine Service prior to the Reformation 114 Piety in the Late Middle Ages 130 The System of Indulgences in the Catholic Church VI VIII 226 Luther in Wittenberg 358 Luther’s Legacy 455 Appendix 230 Hitched with Luther: 363 The Death of Martin Luther 456 References The Marriage between Katharina von 480 Printed Sources 374 In Memory of Luther: Bora and Martin Luther 481 Archival Primary Sources Museum, Memorial and Relic 240 Katharina von Bora (1499-1552)
    [Show full text]
  • Thomas More on Luther's Sola Fide: Just Or Unjust?
    ANGELICUM90 (2013) 761-798 761 Thomas More on Luther's Sola Fide: Just or Unjust? CHRISTOPHER J. MALLOY THE UNIVERSITY OF DALLAS (DALLAS, U.SA.) Thomas More's Dialogue Concerning Heresies contains a sustained, inci­ sive polemic against Luther's doctrine iustificatio sola fide sine operibus or justification by faith alone without works'. Most contemporary schol­ ars, both Catholic and Protestant, hold that the work of the early Catholic controversialists was largely a failure in responding to both the spiritual and theological concerns of Martin Luther2• One chief contention is that the controversialists failed to understand Luther correctly. This essay ar­ gues, against the consensus, that More's presentation of the Lutheran doc­ trine so/a.fide is substantially correct. The Dialogue, composed and edited A.D. 1528-1532, is presented as More's account to Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall (who appointed More cen­ sor of heretical texts) of a lengthy set of his conversations with a certain 1 Thomas MoRE, Dialogue Concerning Heresies, rendered in Modem English by Mary Gottschalk. New York, Scepter Publishers, Inc., 2006, Part IV, §11, 428-55. 2 See David V.N. BAGClll, Luther's Earliest Opponents: Catholic Controversialists 1518-1525. Minneapolis, Fortress Press, 1991, 9-14; Mark U. EDWARDS, Printing, Pro­ paganda, and Martin Luther. Berkeley, University of California Press, 1994, 158; John M. FRYMIRE, The Primacy of the Postils: Catholics, Protestants, and the Dissemination ofIdeas in Early Modern Germany. Leiden, Brill, 2010, 41-42; Joseph LORTZ, "Wert und Grenzen der katholischen Kontroverstheologie in der ersten Hiilfte des 16. Jahrhunderts", in: August FRANZEN, ed, Um Reform und Reformation: Zur Frage nach dem Wesen des "Reformatorischen" bei Martin Luther.
    [Show full text]
  • Retrieval and the Doing of Theology
    Volume 23 · Number 2 Summer 2019 Retrieval and the Doing of Theology Vol. 23 • Num. 2 Retrieval and the Doing of Theology Stephen J. Wellum 3 Editorial: Reflections on Retrieval and the Doing of Theology Kevin J. Vanhoozer 7 Staurology, Ontology, and the Travail of Biblical Narrative: Once More unto the Biblical Theological Breach Stephen J. Wellum 35 Retrieval, Christology, and Sola Scriptura Gregg R. Allison 61 The Prospects for a “Mere Ecclesiology” Matthew Barrett 85 Will the Son Rise on a Fourth Horizon? The Heresy of Contemporaneity within Evangelical Biblicism and the Return of the Hermeneutical Boomerang for Dogmatic Exegesis Peter J. Gentry 105 A Preliminary Evaluation and Critique of Prosopological Exegesis Pierre Constant 123 Promise, Law, and the Gospel: Reading the Biblical Narrative with Paul SBJT Forum 137 Gregg R. Allison 157 Four Theses Concerning Human Embodiment Book Reviews 181 Editor-in-Chief: R. Albert Mohler, Jr. • Editor: Stephen J. Wellum • Associate Editor: Brian Vickers • Book Review Editor: John D. Wilsey • Assistant Editor: Brent E. Parker • Editorial Board: Matthew J. Hall, Hershael York, Paul Akin, Timothy Paul Jones, Kody C. Gibson • Typographer: Benjamin Aho • Editorial Office: SBTS Box 832, 2825 Lexington Rd., Louisville, KY 40280, (800) 626-5525, x 4413 • Editorial E-Mail: [email protected] Editorial: Reflections on Retrieval and the Doing of Theology Stephen J. Wellum Stephen J. Wellum is Professor of Christian Theology at The Southern Baptist Theo- logical Seminary and editor of Southern Baptist
    [Show full text]
  • Infallible?" (Hans Küng, 1970)
    On "Infallible?" (Hans Küng, 1970) First published (in German) as "Unfehlbar?", 1970; transl. E.Mosbacher, Collins, 1971 © C.Jeynes, Guildford, 2nd June 2012 (revised 24th August 2012 and 17th February 2014) Infallibility: a question for all Christians Küng is a prominent German theologian of the Roman Church. He is notorious for attacking Roman doctrines, and, in particular in this book, Infallible?, he attacks the Roman doctrine of Papal infallibility. It was for this book that his licence to teach Roman theology was revoked by the Roman authorities. He remains as emeritus Professor of ecumenical theology at the University of Tübingen. Let me parenthetically comment here that in this review I systematically refer to the "Roman" Church, not the "Roman Catholic" Church, since the question of what is really "catholic" ("universal") is at the heart of this book.1 For example, I would say that Luther was the catholic where the then Pope was the heretic. I would say that any Christian with acceptable doctrine is "catholic" since he or she thereby belongs to the body of believers, the "cloud of witnesses" (Heb.12:1). But is the Roman Church "catholic"? But why should we be interested in such apparently arcane matters of Roman theology? It turns out that we2 have a similar doctrine, of inerrancy: We believe the Bible to be the only inspired, infallible, authoritative Word of God, inerrant in its original manuscripts. http://epsomcf.org.uk/about-us/what-we-believe/ (downloaded 14th May 2012) This statement follows recent conservative theological positions, and in particular the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy"3 (1978) which was signed by nearly 300 scholars including J.I.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Solas' of the Reformation
    THE ‘‘SOLAS’’ OF THE REFORMATION The Reformation’s theological basis, though deep, was simple, resting on a handful of fundamental principles. Our salvation is entirely by God’s grace and not of our own doing. We receive that grace, and are justified, through faith, and not by any works we do. These principles were set forth in Article IV of the Augsburg Confession. 1 To these material principles of the Reformation is added the formal principle, stated in the Formula of Concord, that the sole norm and rule of doctrine is the Holy Scripture. These three principles are referred to as the ‘‘three solas’’------by grace alone, through faith alone, learned from Scripture alone. Some writers, especially among the Reformed, would add two other ‘‘solas’’------for the sake of Christ alone, and to God alone the glory. 2 Lutherans would not disagree with them as to that, though those two ‘‘solas’’ are actually solo propter Christum and soli Deo gloria . Nothing could be more important to each of us than knowing whether we are saved, whether we are destined for eternal life with God. There has been a certain tension in Christian doctrine from the very beginning. Christians agree that the saved have eternal life with God; “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life”3; “In my Father’s house are many mansions; if it we not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and 1 prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.” 4 All Christians likewise agree that our salvation comes by God’s grace.
    [Show full text]
  • History of the Lutheran Reformation
    Celebrating the 500 th Anniversary of the Protestant Reformation Sola Gratia Grace Alone Sola Fide Faith Alone Sola Scriptura Scripture Alone Martin Luther nailing his 95 Theses on the church door. Wittenberg, Germany. October 31, 1517 Contents Main People.............................................................................................1 Important Words......................................................................................2 Important Cities.......................................................................................4 Reformation Map ....................................................................................5 Chronology..............................................................................................6 Contents of the Book of Concord............................................................8 Luther's 95 Theses...................................................................................9 Luther's own description of the Reformation........................................14 Who Are Lutherans? .............................................................................19 The Lutheran Reformation Main People Earlier Reformers John Wycliffe (died 1384) -- England, translated the Latin Bible to English Jan (John) Hus (died 1415) -- Bohemia, executed (burned at the stake) People with Luther Johann Staupitz -- Luther's mentor, head of the Augustinian monastery Duke Frederick the Wise of Saxony -- Luther's protector Georg Spalatin -- Duke Frederick's assistant and problem solver in
    [Show full text]
  • Proquest Dissertations
    INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order. Bell & Howell Information and Leaming 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 UMI' PHILIP MELANCHTHON, THE FORMULA OF CONCORD, AND THE THIRD USE OF THE LAW DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Ken Ray Schurb, B.A., B.S.Ed., M.Div., M.A., S.T.M.
    [Show full text]
  • Jehovah's Witnesses, Arianism, and John
    Apologetics Position Paper #4 Jehovah’s Witnesses, Arianism, and John 1:1 by Greg Loren Durand d A Brief Survey of Early Christological Heresies “...[N]o heresy dwells among you; indeed, you do not even listen to anyone unless he speaks truly of Jesus Christ.” 1 Thus wrote Ignatius of Antioch in the early Second Century, commending the Ephesian church for their proper identifica- tion and worship of the Son of God. Martyred at Rome in A.D. 117, Ignatius did not live to see the crises that would arise shortly thereafter, as wave after wave of heresies regarding the Nature of Christ would engulf the fledgling Christian Church in heated controversy, and as they have continued to do so up to the present day. The first christological heresy was introduced by the 1. Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians , Chapter VI:2; Alexander Roberts, D.D. and James Donaldson, LL.D. (editors), The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1950), Volume I, pages 51-52. 1 2 Jehovah’s Witnesses, Arianism, and John 1:1 Gnostics even before the New Testament had been completed in the mid-First Century. These men, led by Simon Magus and Hermogenes, among others, taught that the “Logos” (the “Word”) was merely an impersonal emanation of God, which later descended upon Jesus of Nazareth when He was baptized by John in the Jordan River. It was at this moment that He was believed to have become the Christ, or the “Anointed One,” for prior to the event, He had been a mere mortal man.
    [Show full text]