Did Luther Invent Sola Fide?
What the Church Believed before Martin Luther
You can listen to the audio narration of this article here, and read the first and second articles in this justification series.
Introduction:
Don’t you know that Martin Luther invented the doctrine of justification by faith alone? Literally nobody for a millennium and a half before him had even heard of such a thing. Surely you don’t think the opinion of some German monk outweighs fifteen hundred years of church history! In fact, when Luther was translating the Bible into German (which Catholics had done years before him, I might add), he inserted the word “alone” into Romans 3:28! The text didn’t say what he wanted, and so he changed it to fit his made-up doctrine.
I’ve had countless discussions with Roman Catholics in which they’ve made exactly these claims. And despite the fervor with which they are incessantly repeated, they are either simply false or gross distortions of the facts. In this article, we’ll dismantle these claims point by point.
Who Said “Faith Alone” First?
Luther’s insertion of “alone” is the most common (and often only) piece of evidence produced to support the theory of his supposed “invention” of sola fide. And we must grant the Catholics this much: Luther did indeed insert the word “alone” despite there being no corresponding word in the underlying Greek. However, that is really all they can be granted. They often claim (explicitly or implicitly) that Luther was attempting to sneak his doctrine in or hoodwink people. In reality, Luther openly acknowledged his decision and publicly explained his reasoning in so translating the verse.
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…. 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, 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. But it is the nature of our language that in speaking about two things, one which is affirmed, the other denied, we use the word allein [only] along with the word nicht [not] or kein [no]. For example, we say “the farmer brings allein grain and kein money…” There are countless cases like this in daily usage.1
Some Catholics will argue Luther’s translation was perhaps not malicious, but nevertheless a biased translation, grossly mistaken, and an unprecedented break from scholarly consensus. However, numerous Roman Catholic translations decades before Luther had translated the verse the exact same way. Says Charles Hodge:
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.”2
In no way can Luther’s use of the term “faith alone” be seen as an invention on his part. Not only did Luther’s rendering agree with earlier Roman translations, in fact, as Hodge mentions and as we will shortly see, many early church fathers used the term “faith alone” in their exegesis of Paul’s writings. Lest the testimony of Protestant scholar Hodge seem biased to some, Roman Catholic scholar Joseph Fitzmyer listed twelve instances of the fathers using “faith alone” in his commentary on Romans.3
A Survey of Church History:
What will follow is an assembly of some of the most important passages from numerous fathers on justification by faith. But before commencing, some preliminary considerations are in order. As always when studying church history, we must be careful not to engage in anachronism. We cannot read later ideas (or articulations thereof) into earlier writers. We cannot rightly call the early fathers either Protestant or Roman Catholic. Such categories would have had little meaning to them. But we can note where their ideas line up with more modern theologians. And here, a Catholic might object that while the early fathers may have used the same wording as the Reformation fathers, they had a very different idea in mind; while the translation may have been identical, the interpretation was dissimilar. At this point, I would point readers to the first article in our justification series, which defined the Roman and Reformed doctrines of justification, and simply invite them to compare what follows to both positions and judge for themselves with which side these fathers seem more aligned.
Ante-Nicene Writings:
The Odes of Solomon:
While this collection of poems was not written by Solomon and contains its fair share of theological weirdness, nevertheless, this is an important source on the thought of early Christians. From Ode 17:
And I was justified by my Lord, for my salvation is incorruptible. I have been freed from vanities, and am not condemned. My chains were cut off by His hands, I received the face and likeness of a new person, and I walked in Him and was saved.
Clement:
One of – if not the – earliest extra-biblical Christian letters, the epistle from the church in Rome to the church in Corinth,4 was probably written in the closing decades of the first century. In chapter 32, we read:
All [the patriarchs], therefore, were highly honoured, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
It’s clear from the context Romans 9 and Titus 3 are being paraphrased, where Paul stresses our election and justification being of sheer grace.5
Polycarp:
Polycarp, a disciple of John and bishop of Smyrna, writing in the early- to mid-second century, opens his Epistle to the Philippians thus:
I have greatly rejoiced with you in our Lord Jesus Christ, because you have followed the example of true love [as displayed by God], and have accompanied, as became you, those who were bound in chains, the fitting ornaments of saints, and which are indeed the diadems of the true elect of God and our Lord; and because the strong root of your faith, spoken of in days long gone by, endures even until now, and brings forth fruit to our Lord Jesus Christ, who for our sins suffered even unto death, [but] whom God raised from the dead, having loosed the bands of the grave. In whom, though now you see Him not, you believe, and believing, rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory; into which joy many desire to enter, knowing that by grace you are saved, not of works, but by the will of God through Jesus Christ.
Mathetes:
The clearest early writer on justification, Mathetes (which simply means “disciple”), uses indisputably proto-Protestant language in his Epistle to Diognetus (circa early- to mid-second century). The author is presenting and defending the faith, and in Chapter 9, he said:
As long then as the former time endured, He permitted us to be borne along by unruly impulses, being drawn away by the desire of pleasure and various lusts. This was not that He at all delighted in our sins, but that He simply endured them; nor that He approved the time of working iniquity which then was, but that He sought to form a mind conscious of righteousness, so that being convinced in that time of our unworthiness of attaining life through our own works, it should now, through the kindness of God, be vouchsafed to us; and having made it manifest that in ourselves we were unable to enter into the kingdom of God, we might through the power of God be made able. But when our wickedness had reached its height, and it had been clearly shown that its reward, punishment and death, was impending over us; and when the time had come which God had before appointed for manifesting His own kindness and power, how the one love of God, through exceeding regard for men, did not regard us with hatred, nor thrust us away, nor remember our iniquity against us, but showed great long-suffering, and bore with us, He Himself took on Him the burden of our iniquities, He gave His own Son as a ransom for us, the holy One for transgressors, the blameless One for the wicked, the righteous One for the unrighteous, the incorruptible One for the corruptible, the immortal One for those who are mortal. For what other thing was capable of covering our sins than His righteousness? By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! That the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors! Having therefore convinced us in the former time that our nature was unable to attain to life, and having now revealed the Saviour who is able to save even those things which it was [formerly] impossible to save, by both these facts He desired to lead us to trust in His kindness, to esteem Him our Nourisher, Father, Teacher, Counsellor, Healer, our Wisdom, Light, Honour, Glory, Power, and Life….
The echoes of Paul are undeniable here. We also see the phrase “His righteousness covered our sins,” which is the exactly the type of language the Reformers used to describe justification. Mathetes exults in the “sweet exchange” utterly foreign to – and indeed, anathematized by – Rome’s system.
Justin Martyr:
The early apologist, writing in the middle of the second century in chapter 23 of his Dialogue with Trypho, a Jewish interlocutor, says:
For when Abraham himself was in uncircumcision, he was justified and blessed by reason of the faith which he reposed in God, as the Scripture tells. Moreover, the Scriptures and the facts themselves compel us to admit that He received circumcision for a sign, and not for righteousness.
This echoes Paul’s argument in Romans 4 where he identifies faith resting in God as the sole cause of Abraham’s justification. And later in chapter 92, Justin likewise says:
For Abraham was declared by God to be righteous, not on account of circumcision, but on account of faith. For before he was circumcised the following statement was made regarding him: “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted unto him for righteousness.” And we, therefore, in the uncircumcision of our flesh, believing God through Christ, and having that circumcision which is of advantage to us who have acquired it – namely, that of the heart – we hope to appear righteous before and well-pleasing to God: since already we have received His testimony through the words of the prophets.
Justin is rebutting the view that one could be “justified by circumcision and the other ordinances – to wit, the Sabbath, and sacrifices, and libations, and offerings.” In other words, Justin is rebutting a prototype of Rome’s theology.
Irenaeus:
Another early apologist, Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarp, in his magnum opus “Against Heresies,” wrote (IV.2):
For the law never hindered them from believing in the Son of God; nay, but it even exhorted them so to do, saying that men can be saved in no other way from the old wound of the serpent than by believing in Him who, in the likeness of sinful flesh, is lifted up from the earth upon the tree of martyrdom, and draws all things to Himself, and vivifies the dead.
And later (IV.5):
Since, therefore, Abraham was a prophet and saw in the Spirit the day of the Lord’s coming, and the dispensation of His suffering, through whom both he himself and all who, following the example of his faith, trust in God, should be saved, he rejoiced exceedingly. The Lord, therefore, was not unknown to Abraham, whose day he desired to see; nor, again, was the Lord’s Father, for he had learned from the Word of the Lord, and believed Him; wherefore it was accounted to him by the Lord for righteousness. For faith towards God justifies a man; and therefore he said, “I will stretch forth my hand to the most high God, who made the heaven and the earth.”
And finally (IV.9):
For the Lord is the good man of the house, who rules the entire house of His Father; and who delivers a law suited both for slaves and those who are as yet undisciplined; and gives fitting precepts to those that are free, and have been justified by faith, as well as throws His own inheritance open to those that are sons.
Tertullian:
The North African theologian and apologist Tertullian said, (Against Marcion, Book 5, Chapter 3):
In short, faith in one of two gods cannot possibly admit us to the dispensation of the other, so that it should impute righteousness to those who believe in him, and make the just live through him, and declare the Gentiles to be his children through faith. Such a dispensation as this belongs wholly to Him through whose appointment it was already made known by the call of this self-same Abraham, as is conclusively shown by the natural meaning.
Origen:
Based on my reading of Origen’s commentary on Romans, he surely didn’t believe anything close to the Reformed doctrine, yet he uses the phrase “faith alone”:
For the very same God justifies members of both peoples who believe, and this is based not upon the privilege of circumcision or uncircumcision but in consideration of faith alone.6
Post-Nicene Writings:
Chrysostom:
The prolific preacher of Constantinople in the late fourth century has several interesting statements on justification.
From his Homilies on Romans, Homily 8, Rom. 4:1-2:
For a person who had no works, to be justified by faith, was nothing unlikely. But for a person richly adorned with good deeds, not to be made just from hence, but from faith, this is the thing to cause wonder, and to set the power of faith in a strong light.
From his Homilies on 2 Corinthians, Homily 2, §8:
Attend to this, you who come to baptism at the close of life, for we indeed pray that after baptism ye may have also this deportment, but you are seeking and doing your utmost to depart without it. For, what though thou be justified: yet is it of faith only. But we pray that you should have as well the confidence that comes of good works.
And on Ephesians, he said:
God’s mission was not to save people in order that they may remain barren or inert. For Scripture says that faith has saved us. Put better: Since God willed it, faith has saved us. Now in what case, tell me, does faith save without itself doing anything at all? Faith’s workings themselves are a gift of God, lest anyone should boast. What then is Paul saying? Not that God has forbidden works but that he has forbidden us to be justified by works. No one, Paul says, is justified by works, precisely in order that the grace and benevolence of God may become apparent.7
Finally, from his Homilies on 1 Timothy, Homily 4, 1:15, 16:
That those who were enemies, and sinners, neither justified by the law, nor by works, should immediately through faith alone be advanced to the highest favor. Upon this head accordingly Paul has discoursed at length in his Epistle to the Romans, and here again at length. “This is a faithful saying, he says, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.”
As the Jews were chiefly attracted by this, he persuades them not to give heed to the law, since they could not attain salvation by it without faith. Against this he contends; for it seemed to them incredible, that a man who had mis-spent all his former life in vain and wicked actions, should afterwards be saved by his faith alone. On this account he says, “It is a saying to be believed.” But some not only disbelieved but even objected, as the Greeks do now. “Let us then do evil, that good may come.” This was the consequence they drew in derision of our faith, from his words, “Where sin abounded grace did much more abound.”
Basil of Caesarea:
The Cappadocian father, contemporaneous with Chrysostom, said:
Let him who boasts boast in the Lord, that Christ has been made by God for us righteousness, wisdom, justification, redemption. This is perfect and pure boasting in God, when one is not proud on account of his own righteousness but knows that he is indeed unworthy of the true righteousness and is justified solely by faith in Christ.8
Hilary of Poitiers:
Sometimes called “The Athanasius of the West,” Hilary was a stalwart defender of Nicene orthodoxy. He said:
It disturbed the scribes that sin was forgiven by a man (for they considered that Jesus Christ was only a man) and that he forgave sin, for which the Law was not able to grant absolution, since faith alone justifies.9
Ambrosiaster:
The anonymous writer dubbed “Ambrosiaster” is another who uses the term “faith alone,” three times, no less:10
They are justified freely because they have not done anything nor given anything in return, but by faith alone they have been made holy by the gift of God. Paul testifies that the grace of God is in Christ, because we have been redeemed by Christ according to the will of God so that once set free we may be justified, as he says to the Galatians: “Christ redeemed us by offering himself for us.”
This [Romans 4:5] refers to somebody who is bound by sin and who therefore does not do what the law commands. Paul says this because to an ungodly person, that is, to a Gentile, who believes in Christ without doing the works of the law, his faith is reckoned for righteousness just as Abraham’s was. How then can the Jews think that they have been justified by the works of the law in the same way as Abraham, when they see that Abraham was not justified by the works of the law but by faith alone? Therefore there is no need of the law when the ungodly is justified before God by faith alone.
God has decreed that a person who believes in Christ can be saved without works. By faith alone he receives the forgiveness of his sins.
Theodoret:
This 5th century theologian seems to recognize the reality of imputation saying Christ “assumed our sins”:
Let it [the Septuagint] therefore heed John’s loud cry, “Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world,” and the divinely inspired Paul’s words, “For us he made him to be sin who did not know sin so that we might become righteousness through him,” and again, “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law by becoming a curse for us.” So just as the one who was a fount of righteousness assumed our sin, and the one who was an ocean of blessing accepted a curse lying upon us, and scorning shame endured a cross, so too he uttered the words on our behalf. After all, if he willingly submitted to chastisement prescribed for us—“Chastisement of our peace is upon him,” the inspired author says—much more is it the case that it was on our behalf that he employed these words in our person, crying out, The words of my failings are far from saving me: do not have regard to the faults of nature, he is saying, but grant salvation in view of my sufferings.11
Augustine:
Augustine’s view of justification was not static, and while it improved over time, he never achieved the clarity of the reformers.12 However, he did use the term “faith alone” and distinguished between a living and dead faith:
Although it can be said that God’s commandments pertain to faith alone, if it is not a dead [faith], but rather understood as that live faith, which works through love…13
Bernard of Clairvaux:
Bernard asserts first here in his sermons on the Song of Solomon (22.8) that justification comes by faith alone:
The fragrance of your wisdom comes to us in what we hear, for if anyone needs wisdom let him but ask of you and you will give it to him. It is well known that you give to all freely and ungrudgingly. As for your justice, so great is the fragrance it diffuses that you are called not only just but even justice itself, the justice that makes men just. Your power to make men just is measured by your generosity in forgiving. Therefore the man who through sorrow for sin hungers and thirsts for justice, let him trust in the One who changes the sinner into a just man, and, judged righteous in terms of faith alone, he will have peace with God.
And secondly, Bernard asserts that righteousness comes by imputation:
Man therefore was lawfully delivered up, but mercifully set free. Yet mercy was shown in such a way that a kind of justice was not lacking even in his liberation, since, as was most fitting for man’s recovery, it was part of the mercy of the liberator to employ justice rather than power against man’s enemy. For what could man, the slave of sin, fast bound by the devil, do of himself to recover that righteousness which he had formerly lost? Therefore he who lacked righteousness had another’s imputed to him, and in this way: The prince of this world came and found nothing in the Saviour, and because he notwithstanding laid hands on the Innocent he lost most justly those whom he held captive; since He who owed nothing to death, lawfully freed him who was subject to it, both from the debt of death, and the dominion of the devil, by accepting the injustice of death; for with what justice could that be exacted from man a second time? It was man who owed the debt, it was man who paid it. For if one, says S. Paul, died for all, then were all dead (2 Cor. 5:14), so that, as One bore the sins of all, the satisfaction of One is imputed to all. It is not that one forfeited, another satisfied; the Head and body is one, viz., Christ. The Head, therefore, satisfied for the members, Christ for His children, since, according to the Gospel of Paul, by which Peter’s falsehood is refuted, He who died for us, quickened us together with Himself, forgiving us all our trespasses, blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to His cross, having spoiled principalities and powers (Col. 2:13, 14).14
Thomas Aquinas:
In passing, Aquinas casually paraphrases Romans 3:28 “faith alone”:
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.15
Conclusion:
And so we see that Martin Luther did not invent the doctrine of justification by faith alone. In fact, he wasn’t the first person to use the phrase – numerous fathers beat him to it by over a thousand years. Nor was he the first to translate Romans 3:28 with the word “alone.” In fact, he was simply following the example of numerous Roman translators before him. And, most importantly, we see that many early and medieval fathers had quasi-Protestant views of justification. Many Roman Catholics love the triumphalism of Cardinal Newman’s quote, “To go deep into history is to cease to be Protestant.” What they seem to enjoy much less is actually reading the fathers and honestly reckoning with what they said.
From Luther’s “Open Letter on Translation,” a translation of which can be found here. The proprietor of the website is a friend of the blog and produces excellent content – be sure to check it out.
Hodge, Charles. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. E-book, AGES Digital Library, 1997. Pg. 156.
Fitzmyer, Joseph. “Romans.” The Anchor Bible. Doubleday, 1993, pp. 360-361.
Sometimes titled “First Clement,” this is a misleading name because the letter is addressed from the church in Rome to the church in Corinth and makes no mention of Clement, and, despite several spurious letters under his name, Clement didn’t write anything else we know of.
A papist could well object, “But just before this in chapter 30, it says, ‘Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words.’” This paraphrase of James 2 ought to be understood in a similar way. See our previous article on justification for an exegesis thereof.
Thomas P. Schenck, The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 103, Origen Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans Books 1–5 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2001), p. 230.
Homily on Ephesians 4.2.9. Mark J. Edwards, ed., Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, New Testament VI: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1998). Just before this, the editors include an additional quotation where Chrysostom rules out free will from being a factor in our salvation.
Homilia XX, Homilia de Humilitate, §3, as quoted in Examination of the Council of Trent by Martin Chemnitz, Vol. 1.
D. H. Williams, The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 125, St. Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on Matthew (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2012), pp. 100-101.
Ancient Commentary on Scripture, volume VI (InterVarsity Press, 1998) and VII (1999), edited by Gerald Bray, on verses Romans 3:24 & 4:5 and 1 Corinthians 1:4.
Robert C. Hill, The Fathers of the Church, Vol. 101, Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the Psalms, 1-72 (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2000), pp. 146-147.
See McGrath, Alister. Iustitia Dei. 3rd ed., Cambridge University Press. 2005. Part 1, §4.
As quoted by Fitzmyer; see Footnote 3.
Dom. John Mabillon, ed., Life and Works of Saint Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux, trans. Samuel J. Eales, Vol. II, Letter CXC – Against Certain Heads of Abaelard’s Heresies, 6.15 (London: Burns and Oates Limited, 1889).
Great research.