Why do people find the book of James controversial?

[Ken Rank]

Paul is more focused on the faith, whereas James puts emphasis on the consequence thereof.

That is well said. One is centered on the unseen (hearing) and the other apparently on the seen (actions that stem from hearing). But what we shouldn't do is pit one against the other. Instead... allow them both, side by side, to reconcile one another.

 

[Ken Rank]

I hear that a lot. What does "tried to get it removed" mean, specifically? Because he made his own translation of the Bible, was acknowledged as the leading Bible authority in Germany, and was the key figure in the Reformation...if he had wanted to remove it, he probably would have removed it, right?

He did indeed desire to remove it, and according to Charles Ryrie, it was because he did not see doctrinal value in James (nor Jude, Hebrews, or Revelation). It's part of history.

 

[Albion]

Faith without works is dead is not the statement that's at issue. This is:

Jas 2:24 - You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

James plainly states that our works are part of our salvation. That has been the teaching of Christianity since the beginning. .

Of course that it so. No one disputes it. The issue is concerned solely with whether or not the good works that are the fruit of a true and lively faith will, in themselves, enhance ones chances of salvation.

 

[Albion]

He did indeed desire to remove it, and according to Charles Ryrie, it was because he did not see doctrinal value in James (nor Jude, Hebrews, or Revelation). It's part of history.

Then why, if this is so, did he not remove it or call for it to be removed?

 

[Albion]

Faith without works is dead being alone.

It's more that faith without works isn't really faith. That's the point of the Epistle of James in a nutshell.

 

[Ken Rank]

Then why, if this is so, did he not remove it or call for it to be removed?

I can't answer that. I just know that we have writings from him and also a plethora of historians that all make this same claim of Luther with consistency. Perhaps write one of them, and honestly, if you do and get an answer, could you track me down and share it with me? Thanks.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Faith without works is dead is not the statement that's at issue. This is:

Jas 2:24 - You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only.

James plainly states that our works are part of our salvation. That has been the teaching of Christianity since the beginning.

If you read line by line the letters of Paul, and list how many times he says we are justified by faith and not works, then list what he actually said, that being "works of the law" you will begin to see the mistake so many have made in reading Paul.

We are not justified by the works "of the law", that's why Christianity has never required its adherents to perform the works "of the law".

Your taking that verse out of context

"Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is considered righteous by what they do and not by faith alone. ...... As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead."

Of course if you actually believe anything that belief will affect your actions... If your truly saved your life will show that change, your actions will show a new creature in Christ.

What those actions don't do, is save you. They only reflect the condition of your heart.

 

[mark kennedy]

There is also the issue of one losing their salvation, you don't do the works and your faith dies in effect. The problem there is what people think those works are, because its not the sacraments.

 

[Albion]

I can't answer that. I just know that we have writings from him and also a plethora of historians that all make this same claim of Luther with consistency. Perhaps write one of them, and honestly, if you do and get an answer, could you track me down and share it with me? Thanks.

I believe that this frequently-heard claim that Luther wanted to remove the book of James is incorrect but that he questioned its place in Scripture, just as he questioned whether Penance (Confession) should be considered one of the Sacraments along with Baptism and the Lords Supper. In a sense, his reforms were a work in progress and he ultimately
decided against removing James, even as he went the other way with the Apocrypha.

 

[timewerx]

I did a careful study of this short book, it is very clear that faith will naturally produce good works, also to be steadfast and faithful not double-minded or in the mist of the world.

Good works are the mark of the disciple is what I learned from it. And to turn to God's grace instead of the worldly desires.

Wait 'til you read the Epistles of John.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

James was among the various disputed books, antilegomena, considered to be canonical. Some made it into the canon, such as Hebrews and Revelation. Others, like the Shepherd of Hermas, did not. Luther felt that he was simply continuing the question if James should be in the canon.

 

[HTacianas]

Faith without works is dead being alone. It is the same as shema in Hebrew which means "hear and do." I don't have any issue reconciling this to any book in the bible.

I would suggest... especially when it comes to Paul... that we determine which WORKS he is talking about. Additions to God's law by Pharisees? Salvation is a gift given through mercy, nothing else. But the saved are expected to live by faith and faith includes works.

Paul gives an example of the works of the law in his letter to the Colossians:

Col 2:20 - Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations

Col 2:21 - “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle

Those laws of ritual purity found in the Jewish law are not a part of Christianity.

 

[mark kennedy]

Which it doesn't. All James states is that saving faith brings about good works. I remember reading a cool phrase somewhere: "Faith alone saves, but saving faith is never alone." Or something like that.
This goes hand in hand with what Paul says. Paul is more focused on the faith, whereas James puts emphasis on the consequence thereof.

Exactly, saved by grace through faith alone, but saving faith is never alone, sanctification must follow. Faith is never alone because the believer is never alone, we believe the gospel and recieve the Holy Spirit of promise. There is a reason he is called the 'Holy' Spirit, it is his ministry to make believer holy. That means bearing the peacable fruits of righteousness. Thats not required for salvation, that is salvation, James calls it the royal law.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Hazelelponi]

James was among the various disputed books, antilegomena, considered to be canonical. Some made it into the canon, such as Hebrews and Revelation. Others, like the Shepherd of Hermas, did not. Luther felt that he was simply continuing the question if James should be in the canon.

I thought Jude was the only truly questionable Book that made it into Canon?

 

[Ken Rank]

Paul gives an example of the works of the law in his letter to the Colossians:

Col 2:20 - Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations

Col 2:21 - “Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle

Those laws of ritual purity found in the Jewish law are not a part of Christianity.

 

[Ken Rank]

I believe that this frequently-heard claim that Luther wanted to remove the book of James is incorrect but that he questioned its place in Scripture, just as he questioned whether Penance (Confession) should be considered one of the Sacraments along with Baptism and the Lords Supper. In a sense, his reforms were a work in progress and he ultimately
decided against removing James, even as he went the other way with the Apocrypha.

Here is Luther's own words in the preface to his translation. “St. James’s epistle is really a right strawy epistle, compared to these others [Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, 1 Peter, and 1 John], for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.” Clearly he did not or could not reconcile James to the gospel.at least, his understanding of it.

 

[mark kennedy]

I thought Jude was the only truly questionable Book that made it into Canon?

Hebrews, 2 Peter and even Revelations had some serious issues as well. When the canon was recognized it was pretty much unanimous.

 

[RDKirk]

Protestants don't like the book of James because it refutes their doctrine of sola fide.

I've never met a Protestant who disliked James. I've never met one who quoted scripture at all who didn't quote from James as well.

Where did you get such an absurd idea?

 

[Hazelelponi]

Hebrews, 2 Peter and even Revelations had some serious issues as well. When the canon was recognized it was pretty much unanimous.

Its just a curiosity, but do you have any links where I can read the discussion of this?

You can just send me a PM so as not to go off topic on the thread.

 

[mark kennedy]

Its just a curiosity, but do you have any links where I can read the discussion of this?

I'm at work right now but I can look it up in the morning. I expect there is a lot about this online. Try googling 'controversial books in the canon of Scripture'

 

[Hazelelponi]

I'm at work right now but I can look it up in the morning. I expect there is a lot about this online. Try googling 'controversial books in the canon of Scripture'

Okay cool thank you..

I'm still coming up with questionable sourcing on the topic but I'll keep looking and seeing what I can find.