Book of James and Protestants

  • Thread starter Thread starter Viv135
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Viv135

Guest
Why did Martin Luther reject the book of James? why would he say all the truths are in the bible but have parts removed from it? I’ve always wondered this?

Can someone provide me with an answer to this.
 
thats not really sola scripture then…that sounds like picking things you like and ditching the things you dont like
 
Martin Luther did not reject the book of James. In some of his letters he said that James was a book of straw because he felt the gospel was not as clearly proclaimed as in the Pauline corpus for example, but his comments reflected the early church comments about the book of James which struggled for canonicity. That being said, it is a false statement that Luther rejected the book of James. Although he was honest enough to publicly state his views about James, he always included it in his canon as can be seen in the Luther Bible which in fact includes James in the New Testament. This is a common fallacy proposed by opponents of Luther and is dishonest in its characterizations of Luther’s full corpus. Luther actually used James in his letters and sermons for instruction.
 
I don’t have an answer to it. Be careful when you ask questions about “Protestants”, because a Lutheran is going to have a different answer than a Methodist, a Methodist a different one than an Anglican, an Anglican a different one than a Presbyterian, a Presbyterian different than an American Baptist, etc. Now, are you asking what Luther’s view on it specifically was? I think it’s because he knew it contradicted his theology.
 
Viv135 said:
Why did Martin Luther reject the book of James?
Click to expand...
Because it explicitly teaches salvation by faith and works.

James 2:24 See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.
why would he say all the truths are in the bible but have parts removed from it?
Click to expand...
He seemed a very confused person.
I’ve always wondered this?

Can someone provide me with an answer to this.
Click to expand...
Sorry I couldn’t help.
 
Idk Luther’s Bible contained more texts than are in the Catholic Bible; as did the 1611 KJV.
 
Just a few days someone posted a pic of the contents page of Luther’s New Testament, showing three books sectioned off at the end – James plus (I think) Hebrews and Revelation. I was just looking for it but I don’t remember what thread it was on. What exactly was his rationale for that?

[Add]
Found it. Four books, not three:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
“I will have it in my fireplace” - ML
IIRC, didn’t like Hebrews, 2 Peter, 3 John and a few others.
 
But wait! There’s more! ML was largely persuaded to leave hands off the NT by none other than Philipp Melanchthon, his fawning lieutenant, who wrote a lengthy apologia harmonizing James with the writings of Saint Paul. It worked.

Why else go to all that trouble over a letter that was long settled scripture?
 
Not all of them do so consciously, but yes, that’s accurate. Either cherrypick, or make excuses for the passages they do or do not like. I know I did both of those as a Protestant
 
po18guy said:
But wait! There’s more! ML was largely persuaded to leave hands off the NT by none other than Philipp Melanchthon, his fawning lieutenant, who wrote a lengthy apologia harmonizing James with the writings of Saint Paul. It worked.

Why else go to all that trouble over a letter that was long settled scripture?
Click to expand...
I don’t know, why do you guys still open threads on Catholic forums asking questions about what the early Christians believed? Why did the Catholic Church remove Psalm 151 and 3 and 4 Maccabees from the canon of scripture since they were included in the Septuagint? How could the Catholic Church deign to question the inspiration of these books (some sarcasm intended)! Interesting how you have a very fluid view of what the canon was and is, but then castigate those who ask the same questions today, even though Luther included James, Hebrews, 2 Peter, and Revelation (all question by the early Church as whether they should be included in the NT canon) in the Bible and used them throughout his career in liturgy and sermons. We call that type of double-standard intellectual dishonesty.
 
Last edited:
The irony now is that Protestant offshoots spend a whole lot of time and energy on interpreting Revelation’s eschatology while the Catholic Church has a few sections in the Catechism concerning “the ant-christ”, “the thousand years”, and final trial.
 
This is actually a great question that demonstrates the straw man often erected about Luther by Roman Catholic apologists. As we stated Luther reflected the questions the early Christian Church has about the authorship and in some cases content of the works that were questioned and later accepted as canonical. As you can see from your photo, though Luther had no qualms with wrestling with those questions in his own day; however, he maintained them in his translation of the Bible demonstrating the fundamentally conservative nature of the Lutheran Reformation. Rather than being the unhinged radical he is portrayed as frequently in these forums, Luther was extremely conservative even where he may have had personal doubts.
 
Last edited:
Hodos said:
This is actually a great question that demonstrates the straw man often erected about Luther by Roman Catholic apologists.
Click to expand...
Uh, sounds like you’re spinning the truth.

First, we have not made a straw man. We simply speak to Luther’s own words.
Luther will tell you why he wanted to remove the book of James from the canonical Scriptures:

“St. James’ Epistle is really an epistle of straw, for it has nothing of the nature of the Gospel about it.” — Martin Luther
As we stated Luther reflected the questions the early Christian Church has about the authorship and in some cases content of the works that were questioned and later accepted as canonical. As you can see from your photo, though Luther had no qualms with wrestling with those questions in his own day;
Click to expand...
We are all called to wrestle with questions. We are not called to rebel against the Church.
however, he maintained them in his translation of the Bible demonstrating the fundamentally conservative nature of the Lutheran Reformation. Rather than being the unhinged radical he is portrayed as frequently in these forums, Luther was extremely conservative even where he may have had personal doubts.
Click to expand...
The Lutheran rebellion was a violent attack on the authority of Jesus Christ, through His Church. There is no other way around it. There was no legitimacy in it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top