Why do people find the book of James controversial?

[Albion]

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.

Apparently not at that point in time, but he still didn't remove it from the Bible.

 

[HTacianas]

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?

Where? Martin Luther.

 

[Albion]

Where? Martin Luther.

I seriously doubt that Luther said our colleague would meet people who actually dislike the Epistle of James.

 

[HTacianas]

I seriously doubt that Luther said our colleague would meet people who actually dislike the Epistle of James.

Luther made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (notably, he perceived them to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide)[citation needed] but this was not generally accepted among his followers. However, these books are ordered last in the German-language Luther Bible to this day.[5]

Luther's canon - Wikipedia

 

[Ken Rank]

Apparently not at that point in time, but he still didn't remove it from the Bible.

No, he didn't... and I didn't say he did, brother. I said he desired to remove it. My point in saying this, then, is that he viewed James (and Jude, Hebrews, and 2 Peter) as books that shouldn't have made the canon. He placed less weight on them than we do. That was my only point.

 

[Albion]

The following, which was written by Pastor Steve Bauer and published in the Website Christianity, certainly does not say what that article from Wikipedia (!)says:

With this key exegetical principle, that the doctrine of justification is paramount,3 Luther found a critical standard for the individual biblical writings. The Epistle of James,4 Second Maccabees, Revelation, and Esther did not meet that standard in his eyes. He was so hostile to them that he wished they didn't even exist: he wanted to "almost put them out of the bible."5

Why was Martin Luther attempting to change the canon? Pastor Bauer is, from what I know, correctly framing the matter in this reply to the question as something close to wishful thinking, as something that would make his studies easier--just like many difficult parts of the Bible that many of us have wrestled with ourselves. But that is not to say that there was any intention or plan actually to strike James from the Bible, although that is what people like to claim. Luther was a scholar, but he was also one given to sarcastic comments, inside jokes, that sort of thing. Six hundred years later, people reading his remarks often mistake the context.

 

[bcbsr]

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.

Paul in Romans 4:2-6
"if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works"

James 2:20,21
"But do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the altar?"
James 2:24
"You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only."

 

[RDKirk]

Where? Martin Luther.

A. I've never met Martin Luther

B. I'm not Lutheran

C. I've never met a Lutheran who didn't like James

You see, Martin Luther for Protestants is not like the Pope for Catholics.

 

[RDKirk]

Luther made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (notably, he perceived them to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide)[citation needed] but this was not generally accepted among his followers.

And you can stop there with the bolded text. Your argument about Martin Luther ended when Martin Luther died.

 

[HTacianas]

And you can stop there with the bolded text. Your argument about Martin Luther ended when Martin Luther died.

The traditions of Martin Luther are still alive among protestants today. I was baptized in a Baptist church when I was 8 years old so I am familiar with protestant theology.

Luther's "faith alone" and "scripture alone" are still the cornerstones of protestantism. Those are not "the faith delivered once for all to the saints" and neither are they the "pillar and foundation of truth". They are carte blanche for any layman to create his own religion.

It is time for that to stop.

 

[Athanasius377]

Luther was referring to the fact that Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation were antilegomena, meaning "spoken against". These books were disputed in the early church with regards to their authorship and authority. Eusebius, Jerome and later Cardinal Cajetan and Erasmus expressed doubts about some or all of these books. Luther has hardly the first to question the authenticity of these books. Luther wrote in his preface to his 1522 New Testament that James was an "epistle of straw" but included the book anyway. He later retracted his thought on James and the comment does not appear in later editions of his New Testament.

 

[RDKirk]

The traditions of Martin Luther are still alive among protestants today. I was baptized in a Baptist church when I was 8 years old so I am familiar with protestant theology.

Luther's "faith alone" and "scripture alone" are still the cornerstones of protestantism. Those are not "the faith delivered once for all to the saints" and neither are they the "pillar and foundation of truth". They are carte blanche for any layman to create his own religion.

It is time for that to stop.

If you pay attention to what Protestants here are telling you, rather than what you thought you learned that you abandoned, you'd discover that "faith alone" and "scripture alone" are more nuanced than you learned back in that Baptist church.

However, I suspect confirmation bias is at work in your refusal to understand those nuances.

 

[HTacianas]

If you pay attention to what Protestants here are telling you, rather than what you thought you learned that you abandoned, you'd discover that "faith alone" and "scripture alone" are more nuanced than you learned back in that Baptist church.

However, I suspect confirmation bias is at work in your refusal to understand those nuances.

That we must cooperate with grace to attain salvation, and we must do nothing are opposed to each other. So much so that some will deny the words of Christ, so that they label baptism a "work", and being a "work" it's irrelevant.

 

[mark kennedy]

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.

This one isn't bad, some fairly reliable source material:

Three books that almost didn’t make it into our Bible, and why. Of the several books questioned by early Church authorities, the three most commonly challenged were: Hebrews, James and Jude. Hebrews was questioned because its authorship was uncertain. James seemed to contradict the Pauline letters and Jude seemed to make reference to an Apocryphal book, which was being rejected as canonical. (Dane’s Place. How Our Bible Came to Be)
​

I don't have a lot of great source material but I'm trying to get you a few half way decent places to start, this is a pretty good discussion of 2 Peter:

Of all the epistles accepted into the New Testament canon, the book of 2 Peter remains the most difficult. Understanding with certainty the epistle’s complex issues feels like trying to untie a tightly woven knot—only to find more little knots to untie. However, if the issue of authorship can be reasonably determined, most of the knots considerably loosen themselves. (Is 2 Peter Peter’s? Bible.org)
​

Just consider the article on it's own merits and understand, these things were resolved. These scrolls had been read and copied their entire history, the church knew the books that belonged and the ones that didn't.

Revelations is a mess, a very popular book that has the least amount of manuscript evidence in the NT, last time I checked. It's still better authenticated then anything else from antiquity with the exception of everything else in the NT. Revelations is a complicated discussion and I'm not really up to a detailed exposition of the source material I have tracked down in the past. I just wanted to give you an idea of how painstaking it was for those who confirmed the canon of Scripture and some of the issues they were dealing with.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[~Zao~]

Most that find it controversial simply don't understand what faith is. Now I realize some might be offended at even me saying that, so I need to explain.

Paul said that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. So we have to "hear" the word of God.

Paul also said that faith is the evidence of things not seen and James said that faith without works is dead.

When we put these 3 things together, we have to first hear from God. Then we act on what we hear. Hearing is not seen, it is unseen... thus we hear (unseen) and then act on what we hear (evidence of the unseen). Faith without works is dead because faith is hearing God and then doing what He tells us to do.

It's actually pretty simple... but in a culture where "works" are played down because apparently some think they can work toward salvation... James ends up not even read by some because they can't reconcile "faith without works is dead" because of their "no works during salvation" position.

But I think I just showed that faith and works go hand in hand.

Agree to this concept. His voice speaks to the soul, obedience to what is heard gives way to yielding to the revealed Word. Much in the same way one wants to praise one's earthly mentor for righteous leading when context of the lesson is gained, heartfelt praise can be the motivating factor as much as expressing the new concept received.

 

[~Zao~]

John 8:43
Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say.

The compacity first of all to hear the divine word is needed to hear everything Jesus says. Before someone is healed the capacity isn’t there. Mark 7:34
Hearing signifies the perception of what’s being said. But ‘knowing’ is the understanding in giving the assent to the illumination by the light of the knowledge of what is said.

 

[A_Thinker]

That we must cooperate with grace to attain salvation, and we must do nothing are opposed to each other. So much so that some will deny the words of Christ, so that they label baptism a "work", and being a "work" it's irrelevant.

Might I make the bold proposition ... that there are no professed (as opposed to secret) christians who do not have works.

Professing Christ is a work (as did the thief on the cross).
Joining with a Christian body is a work.
Praying is a work.
Fellowshipping with other Christians is a work.

Now, I realize that James was arguing for more here (i.e. feed the poor, rather than just wish them "God-speed"), ... but the fact is that simply the action of publicly confessing Christ is in the realm of works. As christians, we should continue in such as these.

Now, as for "secret" christians (i.e. un-professed), the matter may be a bit more nuanced, but even Nicodemus ultimately came to Jesus by night.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

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.

Antilegomena - Wikipedia
Includes: Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, the Book of Revelation, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Apocalypse of Peter, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Didache.

 

[FireDragon76]

There is disagreement among the Church Fathers as to whether James was apostolic. Therefore its status in our canon is called Antilegomena, and cannot be the basis for doctrine in Lutheran churches.

The Epistle of James is read in our churches, however. It expounds the Law: it shows us our sinfulness and is a guide to conduct in life. But it's not the Gospel.

 

[A_Thinker]

Apparently not at that point in time, but he still didn't remove it from the Bible.

You know ... James is a very practical writing (epistle/letter), ... not that the writings of Paul aren't so practical, but contain a great deal of theology, as well.

Sometimes, we get so caught up with the issues of faith and works, ... that we'll miss the very practical admonitions that James gives us in his writings. The very issue of faith and works begins, and is concluded, in James' admonition to GIVE to those in need.

James 2

14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?

17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.