Book of James and Protestants

[Hodos]

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

Except for the fact that your characterizations are frequently out of context and ignore the nearly 30 volumes of Luther’s writings throughout his career where Luther’s opinions were either predicated due to a specific historical event to which he was responding to, or concern he may have been addressing, or may have even evolved as his understanding of specific passages of scripture grew. Again, Luther’s early view of James is different than his mature view of James. So, no, it is quite accurate when I say that you are literally in this case erecting a straw man.

We are all called to wrestle with questions. We are not called to rebel against the Church.

In this specific instance Luther did not rebel did he? Is James included in Luther’s translation or not? More generally speaking though, Luther did not rebel against the Church. He raised legitimate and important doctrinal concerns that the Church was in error about. However, at the time his opponents were less concerned with doctrinal purity than with financial concerns. Keep in mind it was Pope Leo X that initiated ex-communication for what were legitimate doctrinal concerns, not Luther’s own initiative.

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.

Obviously we disagree on both the legitimacy and the nature of the challenge to authority. There is such a thing as a rightful challenge to authority when the temporal authority is in error. The prophets of the Old Testament for example challenged both the secular king and the religious authorities to correct their doctrine and practice. We would probably have a disagreement on the Biblical relationship between the two realms, temporal and vertical, and how they interact with one another. That is another conversation for another time and forum thread I am sure. Lastly, the Hussites might disagree with you on where and when the violence was initiated.

 

[De_Maria]

…Again, Luther’s early view of James is different than his mature view of James. So, no, it is quite accurate when I say that you are literally in this case erecting a straw man.

I’ve got a statement, from the preface to the Epistle of St. James, where Luther
calls it the epistle of straw. Do you have anything from his, so-called, mature view
which says anything different. If you do, provide it.

In this specific instance Luther did not rebel did he?

Yes.

Is James included in Luther’s translation or not?

Against his will. As we can all gather from his disparaging comment.

More generally speaking though, Luther did not rebel against the Church. He raised legitimate and important doctrinal concerns that the Church was in error about.

So, calling the Pope, anti-Christ. Leaving the Church and teaching opposition against the Church is not rebelling. Pray tell, what is rebellion in your eyes?

However, at the time his opponents were less concerned with doctrinal purity than with financial concerns.

I don’t see anything wrong in Catholic Doctrine, then or now. You’ll have to be more specific.

Keep in mind it was Pope Leo X that initiated ex-communication for what were legitimate doctrinal concerns, not Luther’s own initiative.

On the contrary, they were not legitimate. They were simply the ravings of a man who wants to usurp authority from the Church which Jesus Christ established.

Obviously we disagree on both the legitimacy and the nature of the challenge to authority.

Where it comes to Luther, yes.

There is such a thing as a rightful challenge to authority when the temporal authority is in error.

Sure. But the Catholic Church is not simply a temporal authority. She was established by the King of Heaven. And she has such authority that all which she binds on earth is ratified in heaven.

The prophets of the Old Testament for example challenged both the secular king and the religious authorities to correct their doctrine and practice.

The prophets of the Old Testament were sent by God. Who sent Luther?

We would probably have a disagreement on the Biblical relationship between the two realms, temporal and vertical, and how they interact with one another. That is another conversation for another time and forum thread I am sure. Lastly, the Hussites might disagree with you on where and when the violence was initiated.

The German peasants which Luther ordered be killed, would disagree with you.

Bottomline, Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church. All who oppose or rebel against her, oppose Jesus Christ.

 

[Hodos]

I’ve got a statement, from the preface to the Epistle of St. James, where Luther
calls it the epistle of straw. Do you have anything from his, so-called, mature view
which says anything different. If you do, provide it.

Yes, he writes extensively about James in his commentary on Romans. Another example is his harmonization of Romans and James, Sermons of Martin Luther 2:2:308. It is also noteworthy, that as I said before, Luther’s objection to James was primarily due to whether the epistle was written by James or falsely attributed to him, which, again, the early Church fathers record in their own discussions of the canon (Eusebius for example).

Against his will. As we can all gather from his disparaging comment.

I hear all the time on this site that you can disagree with a Church teaching but still be obedient to it. Again, another example of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty. Just because Luther was unafraid to voice his concerns about specific passages throughout his career does not mean he was disobedient to what it stated. Again, a little intellectual honesty and charity might be refreshing here.

On the contrary, they were not legitimate. They were simply the ravings of a man who wants to usurp authority from the Church which Jesus Christ established.

I don’t recall the authority to grant forgiveness of sins in exchange for money. That was an abuse of authority that Luther rightly pointed out. Also, Luther was an ordained minister of the Word and doctor of the Church. He was well within the authority of his office to object to questionable practices and doctrine.

Sure. But the Catholic Church is not simply a temporal authority. She was established by the King of Heaven. And she has such authority that all which she binds on earth is ratified in heaven.

Interesting that you extend the power to forgive sins to the power to declare doctrine that conflicts with God’s word. That is quite an abuse of Matthew 16. Even Christ didn’t deign to revoke the law, but fulfilled it.

The prophets of the Old Testament were sent by God. Who sent Luther?

The same triune God of the Old Testament.

The German peasants which Luther ordered be killed, would disagree with you.

You will need to be more specific. I have no idea what you are talking about, probably you don’t either. It was Luther who came out of hiding at the Wortburg Castle who urged the people engaging in the peasants’ rebellion to be obedient to the princes.

Bottomline, Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church. All who oppose or rebel against her, oppose Jesus Christ.

We agree on one point! We disagree on what constitutes the Church, but hey, we are making progress.

 

[De_Maria]

Yes, he writes extensively about James in his commentary on Romans.

Well, what does he say?

Another example is his harmonization of Romans and James, Sermons of Martin Luther 2:2:308.

You mean when he says that the Papists make much of him calling it faith “alein” but he doesn’t care, he will have it that way?

It is also noteworthy, that as I said before, Luther’s objection to James was primarily due to whether the epistle was written by James or falsely attributed to him, which, again, the early Church fathers record in their own discussions of the canon (Eusebius for example).

How about this one:

“We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school [Wittenberg], for it doesn’t amount to much. It contains not a syllable about Christ. Not once does it mention Christ, except at the beginning. I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any.” (Lecture at Wittenberg, 54, 424-425)

I hear all the time on this site that you can disagree with a Church teaching but still be obedient to it. Again, another example of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.

You’ll be able to prove that if you can show me where Luther was obedient to the Church.

Was he obedient when he denied the inspiration of the deuterocanonicals?
Was he obedient when he broke his vows?
Was he obedient when he ranted like a sailor? He was known to have become a very vulgar man.

Please point out to me an occasion of obedience to the Church.

Just because Luther was unafraid to voice his concerns about specific passages throughout his career does not mean he was disobedient to what it stated. Again, a little intellectual honesty and charity might be refreshing here.

First, God requires obedience on all matters.
Second, if not obedient on all matters, God requires repentance.

Show me where Luther was obedient on any matter and also, where he was repentant on any matter which he disobeyed.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

I don’t recall the authority to grant forgiveness of sins in exchange for money.

It is God who did that. Have you read the Scriptures?

Luke 11:41 But rather give alms of such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.

That was an abuse of authority that Luther rightly pointed out.

The abuser was Luther, for twisting the Word of God.

Also, Luther was an ordained minister of the Word and doctor of the Church. He was well within the authority of his office to object to questionable practices and doctrine.

No. He was ordained by the Catholic Church and was not within the authority to disobey the Church nor to break his vows to God and the Church.

Interesting that you extend the power to forgive sins to the power to declare doctrine that conflicts with God’s word.

It is Protestants who declare doctrines which conflict with God’s word. The Catholic Church is the voice of God in this world. God speaks through the Catholic Church.

That is quite an abuse of Matthew 16. Even Christ didn’t deign to revoke the law, but fulfilled it.

The Catholic Church is God’s saving instrument in this world. Protestants object to that and in so doing, oppose God.

The same triune God of the Old Testament.

Lol! I don’t think even Luther made that claim. But, if he did, that is another
reason to class him as an anti-christ.

You will need to be more specific. I have no idea what you are talking about, probably you don’t either. It was Luther who came out of hiding at the Wortburg Castle who urged the people engaging in the peasants’ rebellion to be obedient to the princes.

After he had told the authorities to kill the peasants.

We agree on one point! We disagree on what constitutes the Church, but hey, we are making progress.

That’s good. We can build upon that.

Now, if you believe we must obey the Church, which Church do you obey?

 

[po18guy]

You can lower your blood pressure by several points if you would only read Where We Got The Bible by Rev. Henry Graham.

I have a spare copy I’ll send you, for goodness’ sake!

The Church moves very slowly and mostly in response to heresy. There were more pressing issues than setting the canon in stone - until a certain German started messing with the very DNA of Christianity.

This mania, this obsession, this utter dependence upon the scripture as an imagined rock foundation is NOT NOT NOT how Jesus founded His Church.

Can you try to understand that? It is a modern, European man-made invention. And that is why you are so upset.

 

[Hodos]

Well, what does he say?

I intentionally provided you the sources to which I was referencing. Feel free to do your homework.

You mean when he says that the Papists make much of him calling it faith “alein” but he doesn’t care, he will have it that way?

Yeah, I am good with that statement in its context.

How about this one:

“We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school [Wittenberg], for it doesn’t amount to much. It contains not a syllable about Christ. Not once does it mention Christ, except at the beginning. I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any.” (Lecture at Wittenberg, 54, 424-425)

Two questions, what year was it written in comparison to when Luther wrote the two works I referenced above, and what was the specific context being addressed in that statement? That being said, again, I don’t have to agree with everything Luther says since I believe in Sola Scriptura.

You’ll be able to prove that if you can show me where Luther was obedient to the Church.

• Deuterocanonicals - let me just let you contemplate what that term means, who coined it, and why he did before you embarrass yourself further. So yes. Obedient. Also, this was 30 years before Trent.
• Vows - no I would say that Luther did break his monastic vows of celibacy. That being said plenty of your own priests do and receive forgiveness for making rash vows. Hypocrisy once again on your part.
• Vulgarity - I would agree with you. Luther was pretty earthy at times. That being said, your own priests can be as well and are forgiven are they not? Also, context, Luther was frequently responding to people who were extremely uncharitable in their writings and public speech, and oh yeah, they were trying to kill him for 30 years. So again, double-standard. The difference between us is I can be honest about Luther.

Please point out to me an occasion of obedience to the Church.

Luther’s stand at the Diet of Worms when he defended the gospel. Again, our definition of what the Church is would be at play here. Augsburg Confession, Art VII.

Second, if not obedient on all matters, God requires repentance.

Um, Luther was famous even in your circles for his personal piety and serious devotion to repentance. Keep in mind when you read the 95 Theses one of Luther’s issues with indulgences was that it muddied the message of repentance. Unfortunately that concern fell on deaf ears.

First, God requires obedience on all matters.

Obedience to whom and on what? Acts 4:17-20. And again, while you are correct, God requires obedience, he provides grace through faith. What wonderful comfort that Christ has died for our sins!

 

[De_Maria]

I intentionally provided you the sources to which I was referencing. Feel free to do your homework.

I’m certain that I’ve read EVERYTHING that Luther says about the Epistle of St. James. I suspect you don’t have anything so you’re bluffing.

Yeah, I am good with that statement in its context.

It’s an error, in or out of context.

Two questions, …

Do your homework.

That being said, again, I don’t have to agree with everything Luther says since I believe in Sola Scriptura.

So, basically, you’re washing your hands of Luther. I understand.

-Deuterocanonicals - let me just let you contemplate what that term means, who coined it, and why he did before you embarrass yourself further.

The only one embarrassing himself is you.

So yes. Obedient. Also, this was 30 years before Trent.

I missed the part where you claim he was being obedient.

• Vows - no I would say that Luther did break his monastic vows of celibacy…

Those who receive forgiveness, repent, amend their ways and ask for it. Did Luther repent, amend his ways and ask for forgiveness?

• Vulgarity - I would agree with you. Luther was pretty earthy at times. That being said, your own priests can be as well and are forgiven are they not?

See above.

Also, context, Luther was frequently responding to people who were extremely uncharitable in their writings and public speech, and oh yeah, they were trying to kill him for 30 years. So again, double-standard. The difference between us is I can be honest about Luther.

You’re the one trying to whitewash Luther. I’m the one being honest about him.

Basically, you have no proof of obedience nor of repentance.

Luther’s stand at the Diet of Worms when he defended the gospel.

Luther defended his perversion of the gospel.

Again, our definition of what the Church is would be at play here. Augsburg Confession, Art VII.

Luther’s convenient redefinition of the Church in order to get around obeying the Vicar of Christ.

Um, Luther was famous even in your circles for his personal piety and serious devotion to repentance.

He taught that grace abounds when one sins. So, I doubt that.

Keep in mind when you read the 95 Theses one of Luther’s issues with indulgences was that it muddied the message of repentance. Unfortunately that concern fell on deaf ears.

Keep in mind that Jesus Christ taught indulgences and that Luther was contradicting our Lord.

Obedience to whom and on what? Acts 4:17-20. And again, while you are correct, God requires obedience, he provides grace through faith. What wonderful comfort that Christ has died for our sins!

But not so that we could commit more without remorse.

 

[De_Maria]

He did make a defense based on scripture and reason, which is certainly more than can be said of his opposition.

Lol! Really? You think that claiming that St. James was preaching works alone is a defense based on Scripture and reason?

Have you read the Scripture?

Rather than defend their doctrine, they relied on the sword. Enough said.

On the contrary, it was Luther who depended upon violence. The Church sent preachers who destroyed Luther’s arguments at every turn in public debates.

And it’s 'nuff said! Excelsior!

 

[Unique_name]

They really don’t.

 

[po18guy]

Grossly over-simplifying. Just what did the reformers do to the Anabaptists and others, hmmmmm…

Right. The sword. Blood on all hands.

That argument = Epic fail.

So, what is your argument then? You are arguing, just as the “reformers” did, solely from opinion; from what appeals to you; what you are comfortable with; what you think partial revelation tells you.

No divine warrant whatsoever.

This is not team sports. This is a search for the truth. I believe that you have not found complete truth, but rather, comfort. You are defending your comfort zone.

If it is perfect, you need not defend it. If you are happy where you are, God bless you!

 

[Thom18]

Let’s make one thing very clear: if your church wasn’t founded by Christ, you belong to a false church. If you believe yours was founded by Christ, but had to get this information from some visible founder (Luther, etc.), then you’ve been lied to. And if you don’t even believe that your church has a divine origin, why belong to it? I believe that this is a fairly sufficient litmus test for determining who teaches Truth.

 

[Thom18]

Maybe a bit off topic, but:

If we can consider Israel to be a type of the Church, then I have this idea that the protestant revolt is the “fulfillment” (if we can call it that) of the Kingdom being split. Maybe the Orthodox will return to us like Benjamin returned to Judah, but what will become of the protestant sects? Well, what happened to the ten other tribes? Did they return from their captivity?

 

[steve-b]

thats not really sola scripture then…that sounds like picking things you like and ditching the things you dont like

Yep!

 

[steve-b]

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.

Re: Luther and James … From: American edition of Luther’s Works, vol 35 (St. Louis: Concordia, 1963), pp. 395-399 .

I’ll just add, that source is a Protestant source Michael Marlowe

AND Re: Luther’s canon

The apocrypha and scripture are 2 different things. The apocrypha is NOT scripture. Therefore, Luther did NOT list those books in his canon of scripture. He put them in the apocrypha status.

Luther said

"Apocrypha–that is, books which are not regarded as equal to the holy Scriptures, and yet are profitable and good to read.” KJV quoting Luther

Luther demoted 7 canonical books to apocryphal ( ≠ scripture ) status as did all the other Protestants. Therefore
1 & 2 Maccabees
Tobit
Sirach
Wisdom
Baruch
Judith

appear in the Lutheran bibles as apocrypha, NOT in the list of canonical books. The rest of Protestantism don’t even include the apocrypha, because it’s not scripture to them either, so why waste the paper and space.

 

[steve-b]

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.)

Good work,