I found this very interesting

[Tietjen]

Oh come on. What’s the difference between saying someone denies the book of James vs. denying the teachings of the book of James? In my mind they are the same. Sorry if I misunderstood you. Again, I know of no Protestants who deny the book of James, meaning also they do not deny teaching of the book.

Do you have any objective evidence that any Protestant group, community, church, whatever, denies either the book of James or the teachings therein?

Yes. First, do a search here on the topic “sola fide”. Then do a search on “faith alone”. Now read each and every post in each in every thread paying attention to what the Protestants who are taking part in the discussions are saying. Now, if that isn’t enough for you, search the internet for “sola fide” paying attention to Protestant websites. The book of James says faith and works; MOST protestants say faith alone. So… a rational person could easily come to the conclusion that if Protestants are saying the opposite of what James is saying that they must be rejecting what the book of James says concerning faith and works. However, I realize that you will not accept my word on this subject, so here are the words of several Protestant denominations straight from their websites:

Lutheran (Missouri Synod) - Being “Lutheran,” our congregations accept and teach Bible-based teachings of Martin Luther that inspired the reformation of the Christian Church in the 16th century. The teaching of Luther and the reformers can be summarized in three short phrases: Grace alone, Faith alone, Scripture alone.

Anglican - We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort; as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification. (Thirty-nine articles of Religion Article XI)

[Reformed ](The Belgic Confession 23)- We believe that our blessedness lies in the forgiveness of our sins because of Jesus Christ, and that in it our righteousness before God is contained, as David and Paul teach us when they declare that man blessed to whom God grants righteousness apart from works. (Article 23)

United Methodist - We are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by faith, only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort. (Art IX - Of the Justification of Man)

World Evangelical Alliance - We believe in…The Salvation of lost and sinful man through the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ by faith apart from works, and regeneration by the Holy Spirit… (Statement of Faith)

I can go on if you would like, but I think you have enough reading in front of you for now. When you’ve finished reading the hundreds (if not thousands) of posts by Protestants that say that they believe in faith alone and you finish reading these denominations’ creeds and statements of faith, I’ll be around to further show you that Protestants (by enlarge) reject the teaching of James, specifically James 2. God bless.

 

[SteveGC]

While I would agree that many Protestant communities deny James 2, I would say that they mainly deny it in phraseology only, and not entirely in substance. (and yes, digger, big difference between denying an entire book, and denying some teachings found within it).

Most protestant faiths do not deny the significance of works, nor claim that they are not essential to faith. Many will even concede that they are atleast indirectly related to salvation, inasmuch as they believe works are a natural, automatic response to what they would term “saving faith”.

In fact, if these Protestant communities would drop the mantra of “faith alone”, and come to the table with Catholics to take an honest, in-depth look at what we all believe regarding works, we might very well find that we are all quite close in theology. “Faith Alone” is merely a mantra born out of protest to the Church, and the misunderstanding of works theology within the Church. When Catholics then see “faith alone” spewed
everywhere, our likely response is that they must completely disregard works in their Christian faith, that they’ve reduced Christianity down to easy believism. This is what I used to think. But I’ve learned that sola fide protestants, by and large, do not do this. They know that works are significant.

Where we actually separate is in how works tie in to faith, and more specifically, free will. Sola Fide proponents will say that good works will naturally flow from sufficient faith. In other words, if you are properly disposed in the faith, not only will good works be revealed to you, but your disposition in the faith will necessarily draw you into the execution of those works. The Catholic position agrees with the former concept, but disagrees with the latter. IOW, yes…our faith allows us to graciously see the revealed work God has laid out for us…but we are still free to reject that work, it will not necessarily be an automatic response based on our level of faith. Free will is never manipulated to the point that our belief drives our action. The Sola Fide person will look at that and say therefore that the Catholic works are of man, not of God…but this is not true. The work is all of God, not only in the sense that it is revealed to us by Him through faith, but when we make the free will choice to cooperate with that work, to fulfill it in action, that cooperation is a cooperation with grace, and our doing the work is therefore done through the power of God in us. But we must freely make a choice to cooperate…whereas the Sola Fide believer will say that the choice was already made at the point that faith was sufficient, that doing the work at that point would be inevitable…and if one does not do it, it is then a sign of lacking faith. This all gets much more complicated if the Sola Fide believer also believes in OSAS, as that delves into having to wait to see if one is doing the work which proves their sufficient faith, and hence negates the “once saved” concept. And then they have to confirm that they continue to have sufficient faith by demonstrating those works, and thus the “always saved” is negated.

The Catholic would actually concede that an abounding faith makes the decision to cooperate with revealed work, and follow through with the acting on it, an easier and more probable choice. But will stop short of saying that faith automates that decision. Free will does that, and regardless of the level of faith, the choice to refuse to do the work still remains.

Lots of nuance, lots of agreement exists where many of us feel we are in disagreement. But there is still significant differences in the overall theology of works.

 

[diggerdomer]

Yes. First, do a search here on the topic “sola fide”. Then do a search on “faith alone”. Now read each and every post in each in every thread paying attention to what the Protestants who are taking part in the discussions are saying. Now, if that isn’t enough for you, search the internet for “sola fide” paying attention to Protestant websites. The book of James says faith and works; MOST protestants say faith alone. So… a rational person could easily come to the conclusion that if Protestants are saying the opposite of what James is saying that they must be rejecting what the book of James says concerning faith and works. However, I realize that you will not accept my word on this subject, so here are the words of several Protestant denominations straight from their websites:

Lutheran (Missouri Synod) - Being “Lutheran,” our congregations accept and teach Bible-based teachings of Martin Luther that inspired the reformation of the Christian Church in the 16th century. The teaching of Luther and the reformers can be summarized in three short phrases: Grace alone, Faith alone, Scripture alone.

Anglican - We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore that we are justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort; as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification. (Thirty-nine articles of Religion Article XI)

[Reformed ](The Belgic Confession 23)- We believe that our blessedness lies in the forgiveness of our sins because of Jesus Christ, and that in it our righteousness before God is contained, as David and Paul teach us when they declare that man blessed to whom God grants righteousness apart from works. (Article 23)

United Methodist - We are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, by faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by faith, only, is a most wholesome doctrine, and very full of comfort. (Art IX - Of the Justification of Man)

World Evangelical Alliance - We believe in…The Salvation of lost and sinful man through the shed blood of the Lord Jesus Christ by faith apart from works, and regeneration by the Holy Spirit… (Statement of Faith)

I can go on if you would like, but I think you have enough reading in front of you for now. When you’ve finished reading the hundreds (if not thousands) of posts by Protestants that say that they believe in faith alone and you finish reading these denominations’ creeds and statements of faith, I’ll be around to further show you that Protestants (by enlarge) reject the teaching of James, specifically James 2. God bless.

Of course Christians disagree on their interpretation of James. That was not my question.

They agree, however, that James is part of the canon.

There’s a big difference between denying teachings (or books) and interpreting them differently.

 

[SteveGC]

Of course Christians disagree on their interpretation of James. That was not my question.

They agree, however, that James is part of the canon.

There’s a big difference between denying teachings (or books) and interpreting them differently.

Digger, respectfully…I think you should drop this whole thing with Tietjen. I don’t think anyone here but you thinks he meant that some Protestants deny the book of James is canonical. He clearly meant that many of them deny the true interpretation of James…the second chapter specifically. Why are you nit-picking him here? I don’t see how you could’ve read into his comment like that, and extract that he was talking about canonical acceptance.

Nevertheless, I still believe that those protestants Tietjen is referring to believe in the efficacy of works a bit more than Catholics might think, which I explained in my post above.

 

[Tietjen]

Of course Christians disagree on their interpretation of James. That was not my question.

They agree, however, that James is part of the canon.

There’s a big difference between denying teachings (or books) and interpreting them differently.

I do believe that you simply like to argue. LOL… well, regardless, I’m done here; twist this discussion however you want. I think it’s rather obvious as to what I was speaking about.

 

[DOShea]

All Christians share the same New Testament. If anyone knows differently please correct me.

My NT is authoritatively interpreted in light of Catholic Tradition and Teachings. Is yours “the same?” Is every Protestant’s?

You’re in dreamland if you are trying to suggest that Reformed religions do not read James with a different view than Catholics. There seems to be two dominant views in Protestantism; one, that faith alone is required and works are not required at all, and two, that faith alone is required and it will of itself result in good works. If it doesn’t, then the person was not “saved” to begin with.

The question then is, how is James read in light of Sole Fide. It is not read in the same way as Catholics read it, which is, that works ARE required, not some sort of automatic result of bone fide faith.

 

[diggerdomer]

I do believe that you simply like to argue. LOL… well, regardless, I’m done here; twist this discussion however you want. I think it’s rather obvious as to what I was speaking about.

Sorry if I misunderstood what you were saying. I don’t enjoy arguing. Peace.