Zenaphobe

I think there was a tendency in the context of the Protestant Reformation to take the word "faith" as a resignation of one's own ability to merit anything in regards to salvation.

"Faithfulness", on the other hand, has the nuance of effort by the "faithful".

When talking about sola fide, the use of "faithfulness" gives the impression that the believer is somehow actively making efforts to remain in good standing.

I think this sort of emphasis on "faith" being a sort of passive reception is what gave Luther problems with the Epistle of James, which teaching seems to use the "faithfulness" angle on salvation. IMO, Luther took the pendulum of the Catholic abuses on buying salvation to the extreme end of salvation being a mental acquiesce to doctrinal positions.

XOVER

Exactly my thinking. "Faithfulness" implies effort. Doing. Action.

We all know that Protestantism is based on doing nothing -- not a thing. It is based on pure thought. No actions towards others or toward the rest of the world are required. Believe in the formula and you're ticket to heaven is punched.

The only place in the Bible I can think of that tells the Christian how to get to heaven is Matthew 25. And Matthew 25 is all about doing.

Here comes Protestantism and sweeps away all of Matthew 25. Nothing you do matters. Only thought counts. In fact, it's actually better to do nothing "lest anyone boast." Absurd.

Protestantism has to be the laziest religion in the world. Which probably accounts for its popularity. Most people prefer to be lazy.

And, as pointed out upthread, the really dumb thing is that Habakkuk's book has nothing to do with "eternal salvation or the story of Jesus. Rather, Habakkuk deals with faithfulness in living for God in spite of the Babylonian captivity."

The whole idea would be funny if so many people hadn't already died fighting over the meaning of ancient words in a book.

Petergdi

You seem to have very strange ideas about what Luther and protestants teach about faith.

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/...ther-faith.txt
is a fairly clear description by Luther of what he understands by faith.

Peter.

avi

Thank you Peter for this link to Luther's ideas on faith:
Ah, yes, Luther believed in fire. He agreed with John Calvin, and the Catholic Inquisition, that Michael Servetus should be burned at the stake as a heretic, for promoting the notion that the trinitarian doctrine was a Greek, not Jewish, invention....

avi

Zenaphobe

Luther seems to be quibbling over semantics of who has a right understanding of the operational process of how faith is produced. Those he chastises he accuses of dreaming that they can produce a working faith while Luther says a working faith comes from God. The person who doesn't have works isn't considered saved by Luther or those he is criticizing of "human dreams".

Luther wanted to use the Epistle of James to stoke his furnace, and yet, the book seems to argue that a faith that has no works is dead, just as Luther himself labors on about. Luther seemed caught up in a "chicken and the egg" fixation of what comes first, but humanly speaking, who can delineate between works flowing from salvation or salvation flowing from works? It's splitting hairs.

Going back to the OP though, would Luther's epiphany from Habakkuk taken place if it had been translated as "faithfulness" as opposed to "faith"? Why would the translators differ in just this one usage as opposed to the other 48 translations of "faithfulness"?

Though I agree with XOVER concerning modern Protestantisms seeming indifference to works following saving faith, I agree from the quote you supplied that Luther wasn't promoting fideism in that passage.

Zenaphobe

An ad hominem against Luther or Calvin doesn't address anything concerning the OP. We could throw out a reference to On the Jews and Their Lies as well, but that wouldn't get to the bottom of why Habakkuk is translated different than the 48 other incidents of a Hebrew word. :huh:

Petergdi

The chronology presents difficulties. Luther died in 1546. Perhaps you are thinking of Melancthon, who did encourage the prosecution of Servetus.

The reason you give for the prosecution is almost certainly incorrect. The official reason was that he taught a trinitarian heresy. Since many non-trinitarians lived publically in Geneva without getting into any trouble, it unlikely to be the sole real reason. Some people have attempted to argue that it was due to personal emnity with Calvin, but this thesis has been generally rejected by historians, not the least because of Melancthon's (and many other's) support of the prosecution. More likely, it was because that (unlike other people with similar opinions in his age) Servetus wished to take protestant orthodoxy head on and provoke a schism. That might explain the mild-mannered Melancthon who hated schism and its results. (This is not an inconsistency with the reformation - Luther was seen by Melancthon and others, quite reasonably, as an accidental schismatic who had really wanted internal reform by consensus. Surprisingly little of what Luther had argued for had been seen as heretical pre-reformation.)

None of this changes the fact that Xover's characterization is complete rubbish.

Peter.

Transient

So let's see... to get to the "real" "truth" as determined by these dudes we have to buy their books.
As if.
If there was a real god and if they have discovered some hidden truths then said god would make it free lol.
Can just imagine a guy called "Jesus" going around healing people for $500, resurrections $5000, sermons $100 (free meal included)
Yet another bunch of money making ratbags.

Zenaphobe

Yea, but everything to do with the OP was right on the page I linked. Any thoughts on that?

show_no_mercy

Nah, all of Christianity is one big sham due to the Greek rendering of Hebrew scripture