Luther's View of James

[Not David]

Work out, don't work for. The saved work out applications of their faith. And they do so not in order to be saved, but rather because they have been saved and are eternally secure, having been born of God. It's their nature.

In contrast those who work for their salvation don't believe the gospel. For Paul writes, "Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness." Rom 4:4,5

What happens if you have a nice body and you don't workout? You lose it.

 

[bcbsr]

Because the Church founded by Christ is a man-made stuff?
And I see you didn't answer me with the age of your church.
You know that all of Christians for 1000 or 1500 years believed something closer to me than to you?
I guess every single one of them was wrong.

The "Church" is not an institution. It's a body composed of all genuine believers in Christ. What you imply is that if you're not a member of the Orthodox denomination, then you're not a member of the "Church". That's bogus. I'm not a member of your Orthodox denomination. As a believer in Christ, am I not a member of the "Church"?

 

[Not David]

Yet plenty, including yourself, view salvation as being contingent upon one's ongoing performance. Thus such people put their faith in their own performance to save them rather than putting their faith in Christ.

Like Jason said in another thread, it is hypocritical to denounce Calvinism yet believe in OSAS because you practically believe God takes away your free will.

 

[Not David]

The "Church" is not an institution. It's a body composed of all genuine believers in Christ. What you imply is that if you're not a member of the Orthodox denomination, then you're not a member of the "Church". That's bogus. I'm not a member of your Orthodox denomination. As a believer in Christ, am I not a member of the "Church"?

The Orthodox Christians are members of the Church, I am not God to say who else is part of it.

 

[mark kennedy]

Luther’s View of James

While not comprehensive, these are the relevant quotes I'll focus on.

"this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients" Martin Luther and "I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle, and my reasons follow.

In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works (Jam 2:24). It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac (Jam 2:20); Though in Romans 4 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15:6. Although it would be possible to "save" the epistle by a gloss giving a correct explanation of justification here ascribed to works, it is impossible to deny that it does refer to Moses' words in Genesis 15 (which speaks not of Abraham's works but of his faith, just as Paul makes plain in Romans 4) to Abraham's works. This fault proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle." Martin Luther

"In a word, he (James) wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task in spirit, thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture. He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore I cannot include him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. Therefore I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. One man is no man in worldly things; how then, should this single man alone avail against Paul and all Scripture." Martin Luther

Luther later removed those comments in green, though not modifying his fundamental analysis of James.

Luther did not regard the epistle of James as the writing of an apostle. Why? Basically because James contradicts Paul and the rest of scripture. and Paul and the rest of scripture trump James. “it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works” While he did give additional reasons I didn’t include here, this is his first and main reason.

His proof was based upon an apparent contradiction between James 2:20-26 in contrast to Romans 4:1-8

James 2:20-26 You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor 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," (Gen 15:6) and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

In contrast with

Rom 4:1-6 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about— but not before God. What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." (Gen 15:6) Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him."

Luther notices two contradictions here. First is encapsulated in James 2:24 "You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone." in contrast to the Romans 4 passage. Secondly is the contradiction between how James and Paul interpret Gen 15:6. In both cases they apply Gen 15:6 to their argument which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." In Romans 4 Paul uses this verse as proof that justification is by faith alone apart from works, interpreting the Gen 15:6 as being fulfilled right then in Gen 15:6 prior to Abraham doing any works. Whereas James views Gen 15:6 as a prediction, a prophecy not being fulfilled until Gen 22, when Abraham did a work of faith. For to James, justification is not attained until one has both faith and works.

Note how James phrases James 2:23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." Every time in the Bible when this kind of phrase is used it's always referring to the scripture as being a prophecy, a prediction of a future event.

Thus James views Abraham as either not believing God in Gen 15, or believing God, but not being reckoned righteous until Gen 22, prior to which Abraham had faith but no works, of which James refers to as dead faith and not able to save. James 2:17 "faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." Thus James views Abraham as not saved until Gen 22 when he offered Isaac as a work.

If James interpretation is correct concerning Gen 15:6, then Paul can't use it to prove his point in Romans 4. Conversely if Paul's interpretation of Gen 15:6 is correct and thus Abraham was justified by faith alone apart from works, then James is wrong. And thus Luther said, "it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works"

Gloss Readings of James

Luther does mention Although it would be possible to "save" the epistle by a gloss giving a correct explanation of justification here ascribed to works, it is impossible to deny that it does refer to Moses' words in Genesis 15 (which speaks not of Abraham's works but of his faith, just as Paul makes plain in Romans 4) to Abraham's works.

The gloss he's talking about is the standard Protestant view of resolving the contradiction, reading Paul into James and largely only dealing with James 2:14-20 by saying that James is talking about works as evidence of saving faith rather than a condition for salvation. And claiming that what James means by "justification" is not justification in the eyes of God, but rather in the eyes of men. That is, merely appearing to be justified. The problem is it doesn't interpret James in light of James. It doesn't deal honestly with the whole passage. Luther's view is that if you were to interpret James in light of what James actually wrote, the gloss doesn't work.

Both Paul and James refer to justification reference Gen 15:6, so both were talking about the same justification, namely justification in the eyes of God. The last part of James 2 does indeed contradict Paul, if one interprets James in light of James. And as such it also sheds light on James' meaning of the James 2:14-20. If faith without works is dead, then a person must have both faith and works to be saved. Yet James' example of Abraham's work of faith that saved him didn't occur till many years after Gen 15:6. In contrast Paul indicates that Abraham was saved right after believing the promise, long before the sacrifice of Gen 22. And so the contradiction.

Protestants interpret James in light of Paul, reading Paul into James
Catholics interpret Paul in light of James. reading James into Paul
Luther interprets Paul in light of Paul, and James in light of James.
And it's from that perspective he came to his conclusion.

Luther might have resolved this had he looked atbwhat works James is concerned with, namely the mistreatment of the poor. Paul deals with the same problem in 1 Cor. 11 saying, some of you are sick and some sleep (thanatos died). James is talking about fulfilling the royal law, love your neighbor as yourself. Who would argue that the fruit of the Holy Spirit is optional for believers?

 

[bcbsr]

What happens if you have a nice body and you don't workout? You lose it.

So? What kind of analogy are you trying make? Given your history I take it you're grasping at straws, reading into some kind of analogy to justify your performance based salvation concept. Gee, I could be wrong, but I don't think so. Talking to a Berean you might want to stick with what the scripture actually says.

 

[bcbsr]

The Orthodox Christians are members of the Church, I am not God to say who else is part of it.

Well since you reckon that one doesn't have to be a member of the Orthodox denomination to be a member of the "Church", then you're logically conceding that the Orthodox denomination is not the "Church". I agree with you there.

 

[Not David]

I will just ignore. I am tired of correcting you in your strawman about "saved by works". If you want to believe someone who wanted to take off a book of the Bible because it didn't fit with his theology, then do it.
I'm off to an invisible yet.

 

[bcbsr]

Luther might have resolved this had he looked atbwhat works James is concerned with, namely the mistreatment of the poor. Paul deals with the same problem in 1 Cor. 11 saying, some of you are sick and some sleep (thanatos died). James is talking about fulfilling the royal law, love your neighbor as yourself. Who would argue that the fruit of the Holy Spirit is optional for believers?

I don't see how that speaks to, let alone resolves the contradictions in James chapter 2 mentioned in the OP. But since you brought up these other issues, Luther did speak on those matters as well. I just hadn't quoted that part of Luther's intro. Allow me to summarize other issues in James which support Luther's conclusion of his writings not being that of an apostle.

Is the Curse of the Law Freedom?

James 2:10-13 "For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. For He who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment."

James advocates the idea that we will be judged by the law, and that such law brings freedom (that is, if you follow it perfectly) In contrast Paul views the law as a curse. "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them." But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "the just shall live by faith." Yet the law is not of faith, but "the man who does them shall live by them." Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law." Gal 3:10-13

According to James justification is by works, and yes, the works of the law, and that in opposition to Paul.

James' Hypocrisy and Prejudice

James 2:1 "My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality."

He goes on to speak of not treating the rich with partiality over the poor. But if you were to replace "rich" with "Jew" and "poor" with Gentile, James is guilty of that very thing.

But let's consider even in his epistle, does James treat the rich impartially? No.

"Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming upon you! Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver are corroded, and their corrosion will be a witness against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have heaped up treasure in the last days. Indeed the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the reapers have reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. You have lived on the earth in pleasure and luxury; you have fattened your hearts as in a day of slaughter. You have condemned, you have murdered the just; he does not resist you." James 5:1-6

He categorically condemns the rich. While he commands "Do not grumble against one another, brethren, lest you be condemned." James 5:9, yet he grumbles against the rich. In James 4:12 he asks rhetorically "Who are you to judge another?" Well who are you James to judge another? Who do you think you are? He says, "Do not speak evil of one another" James 4:11 Yet he speaks evil of the rich.

James is partial to the poor, and how conveniently being one of them. And this is how James responds to the generosity shown him by rich Gentile Christians whom he would never have welcomed into his church without them first getting circumcised (see Gal 2:3) who had sent donations to the poor saints in Jerusalem.

Where do you suppose Cornelius - a Gentile convert who was generous to the Jews - went to church? Certainly not in James' church. He would have never been welcomed there despite being converted by Peter himself.

James shows himself partial, ungrateful, proud and demeaning towards Gentile Christians, of whom he imposes his own personal cherry picked regulations upon while washing his hands of them with regards to ministry. (See Gal 2 and Acts 15)

The Most Important Thing

What is the most important thing to James? "But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath. But let your "Yes," be "Yes," and your "No," "No," lest you fall into judgment." James 5:12 The most important thing to James is to not swear an oath. Compare that with Paul. Col 3:14 But above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfection.

James obsesses about the external - words, works. But Paul emphasizes attitude. James obsesses over condemnation and judgement. "Do not grumble against one another, brethren, lest you be condemned." James 5:9 While Paul emphasizes attitude, grace, hope, love, one's security in Christ.

The Spirit and the Body

James' backwards theology is further illustrated in his saying, "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." James 2:26 Here James associates the body with one's faith, and the spirit with one's works. That's backwards. A person's faith is internal. One's works, like one's body is an expression of that which is internal. And faith should be associated with one's spirit in this analogy, and works with one's body. And seeing as the spiritual man is alive even though his body may be dead, yes you can say that a man is justified by faith apart from works, just as Paul declared Abraham justified (alive to God) in Gen 15:6, whereas James considered him dead until Gen 22. Paul says, "if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness." Rom 8:10 The body is dead in that one's works (the body) are not taken into account with regards to one's justification, unlike the gospel of James. So while James could have said "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so works without faith is dead" or "For as the spirit can be alive apart from the body (2Cor 5:6), so also one's faith may be a living faith without works", but he couldn't say what he did say.

 

[FireDragon76]

It is not a document that we hold to as a source of theology, nor does it clearly proclaim the Gospel, however, we read James in our churches as part of the cycle of lectionary readings.

Some people might be confused by the fact that Luther did not accept everything within the bound pages of the received canon as Gospel. That is a given in our approach to the Scriptures. Our reading of the Bible is more sophisticated than the naive, and highly modern form of biblicism that pervades American fundamentalist churches. We do not necessarily believe in some kind of dictationary view of the inspiration of the Bible, nor do we necessarily regard it as a magical book. It is holy because it contains Christ, but without Christ and his Gospel, it is just another book that human beings put together.

 

[Halbhh]

From my experience on CF I'd say about half of the people view salvation as conditioned upon one's performance.

Do you mean many reject a OSAS idea? I believe Christ's words in Mathew 7:24-27 and in Mark chapter 4 show it's possible to have faith for a time, but fail to follow Him and keep His word. Then the outcomes He said happen in that case will happen. He said this in quite a few places, including John chapter 15 for the branches without fruit. Yet another is the parable how the servants that work will have more added to them, but the one who does not will have what little he has taken away.

 

[mark kennedy]

I don't see how that speaks to, let alone resolves the contradictions in James chapter 2 mentioned in the OP. But since you brought up these other issues, Luther did speak on those matters as well. I just hadn't quoted that part of Luther's intro. Allow me to summarize other issues in James which support Luther's conclusion of his writings not being that of an apostle.

Who ever said James was an Apostle, he was the brother of Jesus and as such, regarded as Judean royalty, he to was from the line of David. He presided over the Council of Jerusalem and obviously highly esteemed in the early church. The Apostolic witness is well represented in his letter, probably writing to a largely Jewish audience that had yet to shed their earthly attitudes of the rich being superior to the poor. I'll get more into an exposition of the passage in James as I respond to our beloved patriarch of the Protestant Reformation.

Is the Curse of the Law Freedom?

James 2:10-13 "For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, he is guilty of all. For He who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so do as those who will be judged by the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment."

WC Fields one day was sitting in his easy chair reading the Bible when he son walked in. He asks what his father is doing, WC says, 'looking for loopholes'. That cute little anecdote is actually insightful, there is a loophole with regards to the Law which indicates 'judgment without mercy to the one who has shown no mercy'. The gospel is to whosoever will and slaves could receive the gospel just like anyone else and be accepted in the fellowship. They had a class system just like we have today, the rich are envied with the poor are despised. We are all guilty under the Mosaic Law and the Jerusalem Council definitively determined that the 'yoke' of the Law was something neither the Jewish fathers not the Apostles could bear the weight. The gospel is crystal clear, there is no difference, James is dealing with the exact same thing Paul does in 1 Corinthians 11 and if you are shown mercy, you must be merciful.

James advocates the idea that we will be judged by the law, and that such law brings freedom (that is, if you follow it perfectly) In contrast Paul views the law as a curse. "For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them." But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "the just shall live by faith." Yet the law is not of faith, but "the man who does them shall live by them." Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law." Gal 3:10-13

Again, the Council of Jerusalem definitively settled this matter with justification by grace through faith. The letter to the Galatians was written to the newly converted Gentiles from Paul's first missionary journey and warned not to take on the burden of the Mosaic Law our Christ would do them no good.

According to James justification is by works, and yes, the works of the law, and that in opposition to Paul.

No, absolutely not, that is not what the Council of Jerusalem decided and if Paul was opposed he had ample space to condemn the Council of Jerusalem in the strongest possible terms in the letter to the Galatians. James, John and Peter were available to Paul, Paul even called Peter a hypocrite, saying he lived like a Gentile but said the Gentiles should live like Jews. He was being sarcastic, Peter who say the first out pouring of the Holy Spirit under his preaching would fellowship with the Gentiles until the Jews came to town and then acted like he didn't know them. He was acting like an adolescent teen in junior high who would hang out with the less popular kids until the cool kids came around. Paul rebuked him sharply and the matter was resolved.

James' Hypocrisy and Prejudice

James 2:1 "My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality."

He goes on to speak of not treating the rich with partiality over the poor. But if you were to replace "rich" with "Jew" and "poor" with Gentile, James is guilty of that very thing.

But let's consider even in his epistle, does James treat the rich impartially? No.

You at this point have completely abandoned the text, the context and the message of James.

Listen, my dear brothers and sisters: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? Are they not the ones who are blaspheming the noble name of him to whom you belong?

If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing right. But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. (James 2:5-9)
​

Paul dealt with the same problem when the poor were being treated unfairly in the love feasts of Corinth.

In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval. So then, when you come together, it is not the Lord’s Supper you eat, for when you are eating, some of you go ahead with your own private suppers. As a result, one person remains hungry and another gets drunk. (1 Corinthians 11:18-21)
​

Both Paul and James speak at length on justification by grace through faith and if you want a comparative exposition on that point of doctrine you have only to ask, but I warn you, it's almost word for word the same thing.

"Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries that are coming upon you! Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are moth-eaten. Your gold and silver are corroded, and their corrosion will be a witness against you and will eat your flesh like fire. You have heaped up treasure in the last days. Indeed the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, cry out; and the cries of the reapers have reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. You have lived on the earth in pleasure and luxury; you have fattened your hearts as in a day of slaughter. You have condemned, you have murdered the just; he does not resist you."

James 5:1-6

He categorically condemns the rich. While he commands "Do not grumble against one another, brethren, lest you be condemned." James 5:9, yet he grumbles against the rich. In James 4:12 he asks rhetorically "Who are you to judge another?" Well who are you James to judge another? Who do you think you are? He says, "Do not speak evil of one another" James 4:11 Yet he speaks evil of the rich.

James is partial to the poor, and how conveniently being one of them. And this is how James responds to the generosity shown him by rich Gentile Christians whom he would never have welcomed into his church without them first getting circumcised (see Gal 2:3) who had sent donations to the poor saints in Jerusalem.

Jesus was partial to the poor in the Beatitudes, how does he get off the hook? The rich man and Lazarus definitively tells us that a rich man who failed to offer any comfort to a poor beggar who sat outside his home his whole life went to hell and Lazarus went to heaven. Care to cast spiteful aspersions on our Lord for this? The poor saints in Jerusalem you might like to know were probably the church and the Apostles. I could get more into that if you like but it would require a pretty extensive exposition you might not have the patience for, let me know if your actually interested.

Where do you suppose Cornelius - a Gentile convert who was generous to the Jews - went to church? Certainly not in James' church. He would have never been welcomed there despite being converted by Peter himself.

Absolutely no reason to think that. I won't dignify it with a response.

James shows himself partial, ungrateful, proud and demeaning towards Gentile Christians, of whom he imposes his own personal cherry picked regulations upon while washing his hands of them with regards to ministry. (See Gal 2 and Acts 15)

The Most Important Thing

What is the most important thing to James? "But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath. But let your "Yes," be "Yes," and your "No," "No," lest you fall into judgment." James 5:12 The most important thing to James is to not swear an oath. Compare that with Paul. Col 3:14 But above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfection.

James obsesses about the external - words, works. But Paul emphasizes attitude. James obsesses over condemnation and judgement. "Do not grumble against one another, brethren, lest you be condemned." James 5:9 While Paul emphasizes attitude, grace, hope, love, one's security in Christ.

The Spirit and the Body

James' backwards theology is further illustrated in his saying, "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." James 2:26 Here James associates the body with one's faith, and the spirit with one's works. That's backwards. A person's faith is internal. One's works, like one's body is an expression of that which is internal. And faith should be associated with one's spirit in this analogy, and works with one's body. And seeing as the spiritual man is alive even though his body may be dead, yes you can say that a man is justified by faith apart from works, just as Paul declared Abraham justified (alive to God) in Gen 15:6, whereas James considered him dead until Gen 22. Paul says, "if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness." Rom 8:10 The body is dead in that one's works (the body) are not taken into account with regards to one's justification, unlike the gospel of James. So while James could have said "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so works without faith is dead" or "For as the spirit can be alive apart from the body (2Cor 5:6), so also one's faith may be a living faith without works", but he couldn't say what he did say.

This is getting tiresome, you jerking texts out of their natural context and twisting them into a scathing indictment that does not stand up to close scrutiny. Now I'll happily engage you on these points later but the primary doctrinal issues have to be given preference before these anecdotal inferences, completely taken out of context.

Three points to consider, Paul and James were dealing with the exact same problem in James 2 and 1 Corinthians 11. Secondly, the Apostolic witness clearly rejects the Mosaic Law as instrumental in providing righteousness, the Council of Jerusalem and the letter to the Galatians being definitive proof of exactly that. Finally, justification by grace through faith was taught by James and Paul in almost the exact same terms, the theological expression is the imputation of the righteousness of God in Christ.

Now unless your just meandering around from text to text I invite you to a discussion of essential doctrine before we delve into anecdotal inferences. I think it would be mutually beneficial if you have the time and patience for an actual exposition of the requisite text. Otherwise I have no intention of chasing this down a rabbit hole.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Halbhh]

...as I respond to our beloved patriarch of the Protestant Reformation [Luther]

Just so you know, we think of Luther as a kind of...rather imperfect, pretty flawed (human) person, and don't make him a 'saint', at least in the Lutheran church, meaning all the people I've talked to, and listened to, which is more than just 2 or 3, because we had classes on the Reformation, because of the 500th anniversary).

My favorite thing to quote of Luther's: "Whoever drinks beer, he is quick to sleep; whoever sleeps long, does not sin; whoever does not sin, enters Heaven! Thus, let us drink beer!" lol, sadly...I've just found there is some dispute (surprise) about whether he said that, hah hah. Anyway here's some more from a CT article: 'Let us drink beer!' The wisdom of Martin Luther in 12 quotes
Anyway, it's good to remember the Lutheran Church only sees Luther as the mixed and flaw man he evidently was, not something elevated out of proportion. Anything but 'patriarch' (though no doubt there must be a Lutheran or two in the world that may feel something like that, it's just not the rule at all).

Ah...here's a more helpful Luther quote, in this context of this thread:

"We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone." -- Martin Luther

An interesting quote from one of our associated pastors during our Reformation classes a couple years back, (something like) -- "If Martin Luther could show up here, when he saw his name on the sign of our church, he would blow a gasket." I found this very encouraging.

 

[mark kennedy]

Just so you know, we think of Luther as a kind of...rather imperfect, pretty flawed (human) person, and don't make him a 'saint', at least in the Lutheran church, meaning all the people I've talked to, and listened to, which is more than just 2 or 3, because we had classes on the Reformation, because of the 500th anniversary).

My favorite thing to quote of Luther's: "Whoever drinks beer, he is quick to sleep; whoever sleeps long, does not sin; whoever does not sin, enters Heaven! Thus, let us drink beer!" lol, sadly...I've just found there is some dispute (surprise) about whether he said that, hah hah. Anyway here's some more from a CT article: 'Let us drink beer!' The wisdom of Martin Luther in 12 quotes
Anyway, it's good to remember the Lutheran Church only sees Luther as the mixed and flaw man he evidently was, not something elevated out of proportion. Anything but 'patriarch' (though no doubt there must be a Lutheran or two in the world that may feel something like that, it's just not the rule at all).

Ah...here's a more helpful Luther quote, in this context of this thread:

"We are saved by faith alone, but the faith that saves is never alone." -- Martin Luther

He had baggage, there is no two ways about that and as a Calvinist I try not to judge. Yet he defied Rome when that had real peril. I know he was imperfect, I know he had baggage but the one without baggage let him cast the first stone. I don't like the analogy of grace being snow on top of manure, that's not how grace works. Maybe justification at first but God wants and needs us to be righteous, there is no other way.

I'm just saying that his take on James is mistaken, there is ample reason to conclude that. Not to make light of it but if I met him and James with Paul in heaven, I would suggest we sit down to a Bible study and work this out. Of course by then they would all be in agreement, admitting at some level they were all a little off the mark. That little quip aside, James and Paul taught the same thing.

I'm not an apologist for Luther, I respect what he did and know the stakes were high when he did it. It took real courage and I've long appreciated that about him.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Halbhh]

He had baggage, there is no two ways about that and as a Calvinist I try not to judge. Yet he defied Rome when that had real peril. I know he was imperfect, I know he had baggage but the one without baggage let him cast the first stone. I don't like the analogy of grace being snow on top of manure, that's not how grace works. Maybe justification at first but God wants and needs us to be righteous, there is no other way.

I'm just saying that his take on James is mistaken, there is ample reason to conclude that. Not to make light of it but if I met him and James with Paul in heaven, I would suggest we sit down to a Bible study and work this out. Of course by then they would all be in agreement, admitting at some level they were all a little off the mark. That little quip aside, James and Paul taught the same thing.

I'm not an apologist for Luther, I respect what he did and know the stakes were high when he did it. It took real courage and I've long appreciated that about him.

Grace and peace,
Mark

As I think of it, not only is James at least partly addressing another side (than Romans) of faith-and-the-evidence-of-faith (about whether we should visibly Christian ; we should -- Christ said a lamp should not be hidden in a bowl or a bed, but put on a lampstand), but the epistle is in a very different style of language than Romans, much more direct and immediate.

But Romans gets to the same themes in a more round-a-bout way, and different wording, that requires much more reading to gather.

To "walk in the spirit" (Romans ch 8) is to "remain in the vine" -- John chapter 15....

...and when James has James 1:22 Be doers of the word, and not hearers only. Otherwise, you are deceiving yourselves.
it's just like in John chapter 14 --
23 Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me."

So, both James and Romans are simply elaborating exactly what Christ said.

I think it helps hugely to humbly suggest to people that they simply read through the Book of James, which will surprise them in not being how they imagined from the sense one may get from discussions like "Paul vs James?" -- it's far sweeter and better than people expect, and that sense only comes from reading through I think. Otherwise people are only in their notions about James, without the actual. So, if a person questions James they often are likely to be actually questioning an...illusion about James, not the actual, sweeter reality of all that epistle.

 

[Halbhh]

Luther’s View of James

While not comprehensive, these are the relevant quotes I'll focus on.

"this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients" Martin Luther and "I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle, and my reasons follow.

In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works (Jam 2:24). It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac (Jam 2:20); Though in Romans 4 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15:6. Although it would be possible to "save" the epistle by a gloss giving a correct explanation of justification here ascribed to works, it is impossible to deny that it does refer to Moses' words in Genesis 15 (which speaks not of Abraham's works but of his faith, just as Paul makes plain in Romans 4) to Abraham's works. This fault proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle." Martin Luther

"In a word, he (James) wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task in spirit, thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture. He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore I cannot include him among the chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. Therefore I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. One man is no man in worldly things; how then, should this single man alone avail against Paul and all Scripture." Martin Luther

Luther later removed those comments in green, though not modifying his fundamental analysis of James.

Luther did not regard the epistle of James as the writing of an apostle. Why? Basically because James contradicts Paul and the rest of scripture. and Paul and the rest of scripture trump James. “it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works” While he did give additional reasons I didn’t include here, this is his first and main reason.

His proof was based upon an apparent contradiction between James 2:20-26 in contrast to Romans 4:1-8

James 2:20-26 You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor 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," (Gen 15:6) and he was called God’s friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

In contrast with

Rom 4:1-6 What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather, discovered in this matter? If, in fact, Abraham was justified by works, he had something to boast about— but not before God. What does the Scripture say? "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness." (Gen 15:6) Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness. David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: "Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him."

Luther notices two contradictions here. First is encapsulated in James 2:24 "You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone." in contrast to the Romans 4 passage. Secondly is the contradiction between how James and Paul interpret Gen 15:6. In both cases they apply Gen 15:6 to their argument which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." In Romans 4 Paul uses this verse as proof that justification is by faith alone apart from works, interpreting the Gen 15:6 as being fulfilled right then in Gen 15:6 prior to Abraham doing any works. Whereas James views Gen 15:6 as a prediction, a prophecy not being fulfilled until Gen 22, when Abraham did a work of faith. For to James, justification is not attained until one has both faith and works.

Note how James phrases James 2:23 And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." Every time in the Bible when this kind of phrase is used it's always referring to the scripture as being a prophecy, a prediction of a future event.

Thus James views Abraham as either not believing God in Gen 15, or believing God, but not being reckoned righteous until Gen 22, prior to which Abraham had faith but no works, of which James refers to as dead faith and not able to save. James 2:17 "faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead." Thus James views Abraham as not saved until Gen 22 when he offered Isaac as a work.

If James interpretation is correct concerning Gen 15:6, then Paul can't use it to prove his point in Romans 4. Conversely if Paul's interpretation of Gen 15:6 is correct and thus Abraham was justified by faith alone apart from works, then James is wrong. And thus Luther said, "it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works"

Gloss Readings of James

Luther does mention Although it would be possible to "save" the epistle by a gloss giving a correct explanation of justification here ascribed to works, it is impossible to deny that it does refer to Moses' words in Genesis 15 (which speaks not of Abraham's works but of his faith, just as Paul makes plain in Romans 4) to Abraham's works.

The gloss he's talking about is the standard Protestant view of resolving the contradiction, reading Paul into James and largely only dealing with James 2:14-20 by saying that James is talking about works as evidence of saving faith rather than a condition for salvation. And claiming that what James means by "justification" is not justification in the eyes of God, but rather in the eyes of men. That is, merely appearing to be justified. The problem is it doesn't interpret James in light of James. It doesn't deal honestly with the whole passage. Luther's view is that if you were to interpret James in light of what James actually wrote, the gloss doesn't work.

Both Paul and James refer to justification reference Gen 15:6, so both were talking about the same justification, namely justification in the eyes of God. The last part of James 2 does indeed contradict Paul, if one interprets James in light of James. And as such it also sheds light on James' meaning of the James 2:14-20. If faith without works is dead, then a person must have both faith and works to be saved. Yet James' example of Abraham's work of faith that saved him didn't occur till many years after Gen 15:6. In contrast Paul indicates that Abraham was saved right after believing the promise, long before the sacrifice of Gen 22. And so the contradiction.

Protestants interpret James in light of Paul, reading Paul into James
Catholics interpret Paul in light of James. reading James into Paul
Luther interprets Paul in light of Paul, and James in light of James.
And it's from that perspective he came to his conclusion.

As I think of it, not only is James at least partly addressing another side (than Romans) of faith-and-the-evidence-of-faith (about whether we should visibly Christian ; we should -- Christ said a lamp should not be hidden in a bowl or a bed, but put on a lampstand), but the epistle is in a very different style of language than Romans, much more direct and immediate.

But Romans gets to the same themes in a more round-a-bout way, and different wording, that requires much more reading to gather.

To "walk in the spirit" (Romans ch 8) is to "remain in the vine" -- John chapter 15....

...and when James has James 1:22 Be doers of the word, and not hearers only. Otherwise, you are deceiving yourselves.
it's just like in John chapter 14 --
23 Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me." (ESV)

OR:
23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. 24 Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me. (NIV)
John 14 NIV

(and Matthew 7:24-27 for another instance)

So, both James and Romans are simply elaborating exactly what Christ said.

I think it helps hugely to humbly suggest to people that they simply read through the Book of James, which will surprise them in not being how they imagined from the sense one may get from discussions like "Paul vs James?" -- it's far sweeter and better than people expect, and that sense only comes from reading through I think.

Let me put it this way -- I was surprised, even though I was reading it for at least the 3rd or 4th time in my life, that it is sweeter, and not at all like it seems in some isolated verses. Reading through it's very different than an isolated verse.

 

[mark kennedy]

As I think of it, not only is James at least partly addressing another side (than Romans) of faith-and-the-evidence-of-faith (about whether we should visibly Christian ; we should -- Christ said a lamp should not be hidden in a bowl or a bed, but put on a lampstand), but the epistle is in a very different style of language than Romans, much more direct and immediate.

But Romans gets to the same themes in a more round-a-bout way, and different wording, that requires much more reading to gather.

To "walk in the spirit" (Romans ch 8) is to "remain in the vine" -- John chapter 15....

...and when James has James 1:22 Be doers of the word, and not hearers only. Otherwise, you are deceiving yourselves.
it's just like in John chapter 14 --
23 Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. 24 Whoever does not love me does not keep my words. And the word that you hear is not mine but the Father’s who sent me."

So, both James and Romans are simply elaborating exactly what Christ said.

I think it helps hugely to humbly suggest to people that they simply read through the Book of James, which will surprise them in not being how they imagined from the sense one may get from discussions like "Paul vs James?" -- it's far sweeter and better than people expect, and that sense only comes from reading through I think. Otherwise people are only in their notions about James, without the actual. So, if a person questions James they often are likely to be actually questioning an...illusion about James, not the actual, sweeter reality of all that epistle.

What I keep coming back to is how much Paul and James are alike, the more I study them both the more I'm convinced. They cared about the same things.

Hang on a sec, I'm about to go off on a tangent but I think it's important. Onesimus was a run away slave and his master was a wealthy Christian in, forget the city, somewhere in Asia Minor. Anyway, Paul sends a letter to Philemon along with his run away slave and it became the letter to Philemon. This man became the pastor of Ephesus and later the bishop of Byzantinium. That is the miracle James wants to see and so does Paul, the miracle of the reality of believers embracing the fact that there is no difference.

Ok, tangent over. I've spent a lot of time on this, the expositions are crystal clear, Paul had James had no significant difference doctrinally when read in context. I'm more then happy to take the issue up again and again but I often wonder, why is it so hard to get into the text when we do?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Halbhh]

What I keep coming back to is how much Paul and James are alike, the more I study them both the more I'm convinced. They cared about the same things.

Hang on a sec, I'm about to go off on a tangent but I think it's important. Onesimus was a run away slave and his master was a wealthy Christian in, forget the city, somewhere in Asia Minor. Anyway, Paul sends a letter to Philemon along with his run away slave and it became the letter to Philemon. This man became the pastor of Ephesus and later the bishop of Byzantinium. That is the miracle James wants to see and so does Paul, the miracle of the reality of believers embracing the fact that there is no difference.

Ok, tangent over. I've spent a lot of time on this, the expositions are crystal clear, Paul had James had no significant difference doctrinally when read in context. I'm more then happy to take the issue up again and again but I often wonder, why is it so hard to get into the text when we do?

Grace and peace,
Mark

Wow, that's a really interesting outcome. I was just looking at the top of the wiki:
Onesimus - Wikipedia

 

[mark kennedy]

Wow, that's a really interesting outcome. I was just looking at the top of the wiki:
Onesimus - Wikipedia

The point is do you see what James is getting at, what Paul wanted more then anything. That people like Onesimus would be a spectacle that would show the wonders of God's glorious grace? Ok, my little tangent has taken hold so let me add. Those works that we are all so concerned about doctrinally are God's glory in action. Grace doesn't smother works, it is the reason for them. God gets the glory, that's the only rule, but what's wrong with that? I go from being a run away slave to being a Pastor of such a missionary minded church and a crucible for the gospel, am I really going into the throne room of grace bragging?

The whole topic is off focus, I'm deeply concerned that the church sometimes forgets the power of grace. It's a lot easier to remember to be merciful when you appreciate how much grace was poured out at the cross.

My core point of doctrine, my main concern, my only point of contention on the matter of James vs. Paul.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[redleghunter]

Luther did not regard the epistle of James as the writing of an apostle. Why? Basically because James contradicts Paul and the rest of scripture. and Paul and the rest of scripture trump James. “it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works” While he did give additional reasons I didn’t include here, this is his first and main reason.

Actually not accurate. Luther was following a continuing Catholic scholarly opinion on the antilegomena.