The Augsburg Discussion

Sola1517 · May 17, 2019

Resha Caner said:
The book of James is part of the canon.

You didn't answer the question.

ViaCrucis · May 17, 2019

Sola1517 said:
You didn't answer the question.

Just my input, and shouldn't be taken as anything more than that:

James is a difficult text, in fact Luther even called it, paraphrasing slightly, "an epistle of straw without any gospel in it". The reason for this can be seen immediately, as if you take what Paul writes in all his letters, and then put them side-by-side with what James writes in his letter here, it certainly seems like they are in direct contradiction to each other. In fact James specifically tries to use the same illustration of Abraham that Paul does to seemingly say the exact opposite that Paul says.

So this presents quite the conundrum. Do we have a conflict here? Or are we simply not reading the texts properly?

I don't think Resha was trying to be flippant answering your question the way he did, saying it is part of the Canon is an answer: it means we can't, or at least shouldn't, simply dismiss it out of hand. That means we have to engage in the hard task of actually engaging with it and wrestling with it. Simpling dropping it from the New Testament would be the easy way out, but we aren't afforded that luxury--we aren't the ones who get to decide what is and isn't canonical. That's also, by the way, why we can't simply dismiss or drop the Deuterocanonical books from the Bible either, and so the question of their canonicity remains a continued point of debate and inquiry that isn't going to be settled by because some people say one thing and some people say another, it's a far too important and big of an issue to be trivialized like that.

Fundamentally here is where I, personally, come down on the matter with James:

We must allow the clear and consistent teaching of Scripture form our rule, not obscure, unclear, and inconsistent statements. So if when we read the entire breadth of Scripture and we find it says X nine times, and it says Y one time, the rule should not be Y but X. It is then necessary for us to ask the hard questions about X and Y. Sometimes we also just have to admit that we aren't going to figure it out, and that Scripture presents us with paradoxes that we must confess, such as the paradox between God's unconditional election and universal work of atonement with man's willful damnation of himself (i.e. the Crux Theologorum).

This doesn't necessarily get us to a clear answer about James, but I think it provides us with a way forward. But what this does mean is that we can't simply dismiss the clear and consistent message of the Gospel, of God's grace toward sinners in Christ, and justification being freely by grace alone through faith alone; that is the fixed rule by the clear, unambiguous, and consistent teaching of Scripture. And so what we read in James is the outlier, or at least seems to be the outlier.

So it boils down to this:

1) Either James is contradicting St. Paul and we would be wise not to believe what James says here for he is preaching false gospel if this is the case.

2) Or James is not contradicting St. Paul and we must understand what James means in light of what Paul has written, and within the proper view of the Gospel.

I would make my vote with the second choice, and that James perhaps means something very different by "faith" then what Paul means by "faith". Notice how James says, "Even the demons believe", this is not a sensible statement in the context of how Paul speaks of faith--as a gift from God by which we trust in Jesus Christ and His work. The demons don't trust in Christ, they have not received God's gift of faith; so their "faith" here is not faith at all, but merely the mere knowledge of God. And, of course, we can agree that no one is justified by knowledge, nobody is justified by mere mental assent to a proposition. It is a very different thing to acknowledge that there is, indeed, a castle that exists, and quite another to take refuge in that castle, trusting in its fortifications against the assailments of the invading army.

-CryptoLutheran

Resha Caner · May 18, 2019

Sola1517 said:
You didn't answer the question.

I think the answer from @ViaCrucis was sufficient, but I will add a few comments to underscore my previous answer.

First of all, this is starting to feel more like a debate than a request for explanation. You're not asking new questions, but reinforcing an opposing view by replying to each post with a different verse: what about this? what about that? The answer to all of them is much the same, and so my opinion is that ViaCrucis' answer, as it moves toward an explanation of proper exegesis rather than a specific theological point, covers all the bases.

Whether you intended debate or not, my answer was meant to prevent this heading in the wrong direction. When it appears to me a discussion is stuck and becoming repetitive, my answers tend to become very blunt, and many people don't appreciate that. So, just making sure I didn't give such an answer.

ViaCrucis said:
I don't think Resha was trying to be flippant answering your question the way he did, saying it is part of the Canon is an answer: it means we can't, or at least shouldn't, simply dismiss it out of hand. That means we have to engage in the hard task of actually engaging with it and wrestling with it.

Yes.

ViaCrucis said:
We must allow the clear and consistent teaching of Scripture form our rule, not obscure, unclear, and inconsistent statements. So if when we read the entire breadth of Scripture and we find it says X nine times, and it says Y one time, the rule should not be Y but X. It is then necessary for us to ask the hard questions about X and Y. Sometimes we also just have to admit that we aren't going to figure it out, and that Scripture presents us with paradoxes that we must confess, such as the paradox between God's unconditional election and universal work of atonement with man's willful damnation of himself (i.e. the Crux Theologorum).

Yes.

ViaCrucis said:
So it boils down to this:

1) Either James is contradicting St. Paul and we would be wise not to believe what James says here for he is preaching false gospel if this is the case.

2) Or James is not contradicting St. Paul and we must understand what James means in light of what Paul has written, and within the proper view of the Gospel.

I am firmly of the position of #2. I wrestled with James just as many others have, so I don't mean to make light of the struggle. But it's no longer an issue for me. Sometimes that actually makes it harder for me to explain such things - to remember that what seems so obvious to me now wasn't always so obvious.

My view goes back to what I said in post #15. James is simply discussing a different facet of faith - something that is inseparable from faith rather than something that opposes faith. He does make the distinction between knowledge of God and faith in God as ViaCrucis points out. But for me the key verse that puts James 2:26 in its proper context is James 1:16-18. To me this is an elegantly designed epistle and those verses are a preamble which declare, "Don't take what I'm about to say the wrong way. Faith comes from God alone, not from us (i.e. our works)."

Sola1517 · May 18, 2019

ViaCrucis said:
The reason for this can be seen immediately, as if you take what Paul writes in all his letters, and then put them side-by-side with what James writes in his letter here, it certainly seems like they are in direct contradiction to each other.

Yes. I have thought so too.

ViaCrucis said:
So this presents quite the conundrum. Do we have a conflict here? Or are we simply not reading the texts properly?

That is the question I think about every time I read that passage.

ViaCrucis said:
I don't think Resha was trying to be flippant answering your question the way he did, saying it is part of the Canon is an answer: it means we can't, or at least shouldn't, simply dismiss it out of hand.

Agreed.

ViaCrucis said:
So if when we read the entire breadth of
Scripture and we find it says X nine times, and it says Y one time, the rule should not be Y but X.

Makes sense.

ViaCrucis said:
James perhaps means something very different by "faith" then what Paul means by "faith".

Makes sense.

ViaCrucis said:
The demons don't trust in Christ, they have not received God's gift of faith; so their "faith" here is not faith at all, but merely the mere knowledge of God. And, of course, we can agree that no one is justified by knowledge, nobody is justified by mere mental assent to a proposition.

True.

Resha Caner said:
First of all, this is starting to feel more like a debate than a request for explanation. You're not asking new questions, but reinforcing an opposing view by replying to each post with a different verse: what about this? what about that? The answer to all of them is much the same, and so my opinion is that ViaCrucis' answer, as it moves toward an explanation of proper exegesis rather than a specific theological point, covers all the bases.

Correct exegesis of the Scriptures leads to correct theology. The only reason why I bring up random verses is because I have been taught Baptist theology/exegesis and it is on contradiction to what you are saying. Based on what I have learned over the course of 24 years the Bible says one thing, and that is the end of discussion. Change my mind.

Resha Caner said:
James is simply discussing a different facet of faith - something that is inseparable from faith rather than something that opposes faith. He does make the distinction between knowledge of God and faith in God as ViaCrucis points out. But for me the key verse that puts James 2:26 in its proper context is James 1:16-18. To me this is an elegantly designed epistle and those verses are a preamble which declare, "Don't take what I'm about to say the wrong way. Faith comes from God alone, not from us (i.e. our works)."

Okay, so basically Abraham's behavior was a type of confirmation of faith, and not a work that justified his faith. Right?

Resha Caner · May 18, 2019

Sola1517 said:
Change my mind.

I'm not interested in changing your mind. If that were my goal, this would definitely go bad.

Sola1517 said:
Okay, so basically Abraham's behavior was a type of confirmation of faith, and not a work that justified his faith. Right?

It was not a work that justified his faith. Correct. But neither did it confirm it. Rather, Abraham's behavior flowed from his faith.

I suppose there is a sense in which people's behavior confirms their faith to us - not to God, but to us. In that way maybe it's helpful in maintaining a cooperative community. Maybe it points toward how we can better serve those who are struggling. But it's not good to dwell on it too much.

Sola1517 · May 18, 2019

Resha Caner said:
I suppose there is a sense in which people's behavior confirms their faith to us

Yes, and would you say that Abraham's test of faith confirmed his faith to him or to God? The way I see it, God know all things.

Resha Caner · May 18, 2019

Sola1517 said:
Yes, and would you say that Abraham's test of faith confirmed his faith to him or to God?

If you're referring to Genesis 22, the text never mentions Abraham's reaction, so it would only be speculation on my part. I wouldn't reject the idea that Abraham's faith grew. It seems to me that what Abraham gained was further revelation of God's will and character.

But there's much more to the story that that. Isaac was there. What did it mean for him? It's an obvious christological allegory. And on and on. There's a lot to unpack.

Sola1517 · May 18, 2019

Resha Caner said:
If you're referring to Genesis 22, the text never mentions Abraham's reaction, so it would only be speculation on my part. I wouldn't reject the idea that Abraham's faith grew. It seems to me that what Abraham gained was further revelation of God's will and character.

But there's much more to the story that that. Isaac was there. What did it mean for him? It's an obvious christological allegory. And on and on. There's a lot to unpack.

Right, just talking.

Tigger45 · May 18, 2019

Keep in mind unlike what Joseph Smith is to Mormonism and the Pope is to Roman Catholicism, Martin Luther might be foundational but he is far from infallible within Lutheranism.

Sola1517 · May 19, 2019

Thank all of you for talking with me about these things. May the Lord bless and keep every one of you.

tampasteve · May 20, 2019

Just wanted to chime in that I did not forget about this thread, I truly intended to write a more thought out reply....but the ones already written were far better than something I could have cobbled together. This thread has been edifying to me as well.

MarkRohfrietsch · May 27, 2019

Replies are attached to the questions below.

Sola1517 said:
Hi. After reading the Augsburg Confession I would say that I agree with most of it. I would just like to pose a few questions that I would hope to be answered. I am church shopping, and I'm coming from a Southern Baptist background. But I'm open to change if it's biblical.

1. Article V states that through both the Word and Sacraments the Holy Ghost is given. Can this happen without the Sacraments. If no, how does one receive the Spirit through the sacraments? Yes, it is a mystery.

2. Article VIII talks about how the Sacraments and the Word are effectual even though the minister may not be perfect. Have I understood this right? Yes, were it otherwise, that would mean that we need to cooperate in our own grace; it is not about what we do, but what God does for us.

3. Article IX says that baptism is necessary to salvation. Does baptism produce justifying or non-justifying grace? Yes, both. However, we can still fall or reject that grace due to free will.

4. Article XIII says that there are promises set forth and offered in the Sacraments, what are they? Forgiveness of sins, spiritual and physical healing.

5. Article XV talks about how consciences are not to be burdened. What is legalism to a Lutheran, or is there such a thing? In Christianity, Lutheranism is one of the least legalistic of the Churches, again because it is not about what we do; as we could only fail; it is about what God does for us.

6. Article XVIII talks about freewill. What is total depravity, and is it a normal Lutheran belief? We are created in God's image, part of which is having free will; the stain of original sin means that we only have the willpower to reject God; yet through the Holy Spirit God brings us to him. The Prodigal Son explains it best; God's love and gifts are eternal, even though we reject them; when lead back to God, they are still freely given, and God rejoices!

7. Article XX talks about good works. Are we justified as Christians by grace through faith in Christ alone or are works apart of the equation? Good works proceed from faith; we gain no merit for doing good works; but if we have faith and fail to do good works as a result, our faith is empty or dead.

These are the 7 questions from the confession I have. Have fun y'all.

A Shield of Turquoise · Jun 3, 2019

I'm surprised no one here has referred Sola1517 to the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, which addresses this text from James along with many others that the Roman Confutatio cited against the reformers.

Tigger45 · Jun 3, 2019

A Shield of Turquoise said:
I'm surprised no one here has referred Sola1517 to the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, which addresses this text from James along with many others that the Roman Confutatio cited against the reformers.

@Sola1517

A Shield of Turquoise · Jun 4, 2019

The Lutheran divines argue consistently that, when they say justification by faith, they mean a living, deep faith which necessarily produces good works. A faith that does not produce these works is an empty intellectual or historical faith, not the saving faith insisted upon in the Augsburg confession. When St James says we are justified by faith and works, he is saying that a justifying faith will produce good works, not that works in themselves merit anything. For James also says that who keeps the law but stumbles on one point is guilty of all- only by mercy can we stand. So we put our faith in this mercy and show this mercy to others.

The Augsburg Discussion

Saint-in-Progress (Looking for a Church)

Confessional Lutheran

Expert Fool

Saint-in-Progress (Looking for a Church)

Expert Fool

Saint-in-Progress (Looking for a Church)

Expert Fool

Saint-in-Progress (Looking for a Church)

Pray like your life depends on it!

Saint-in-Progress (Looking for a Church)

Pray for peace in Israel

Unapologetic Apologist

Active Member

Pray like your life depends on it!

Active Member

Similar threads