Is the book of James Canon? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> The Bible



Message


Gordorules -> Is the book of James Canon? (4/12/2008 5:47:58 AM)

Martin Luther Wrote this in his preface to the book of James

quote:

Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, 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 2:24). It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac (2:20); Though in Romans 4:22-22 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.

In the second place its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ. He names Christ several times; however he teaches nothing about him, but only speaks of general faith in God. Now it is the office of a true apostle to preach of the Passion and resurrection and office of Christ, and to lay the foundation for faith in him, as Christ himself says in John 15[:27], "You shall bear witness to me.? All the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach and inculcate [_treiben_] Christ. And that is the true test by which to judge all books, when we see whether or not they inculcate Christ. For all the Scriptures show us Christ, Romans 3[:21]; and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ, I Corinthians 2[:2]. Whatever does not teach Christ is not yet apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching. Again, whatever preaches Christ would be apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod were doing it." (__ibid__).

But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and its works. Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching. He calls the law a "law of liberty" [1:25], though Paul calls it a law of slavery, of wrath, of death, and of sin.

Moreover he cites the sayings of St. Peter [in 5:20]; Love covers a multitude of sins" [1 Pet. 4:8], and again [in 4:10], "Humble yourselves under he had of God" [1 Pet. 5:6] also the saying of St. Paul in Galatians 5[:17], "The Spirit lusteth against envy." And yet, in point of time, St. James was put to death by Herod [Acts 12:2] in Jerusalem, before St. Peter. So it seems that [this author] came long after St. Peter and St. Paul.

In a word, he 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.


So what do you think is it Canon?

Gordo




BibleL7 -> RE: Is the book of James Canon? (4/12/2008 6:53:14 AM)

Luther in his statement was commentating on the book. Is it Canon? Yes it was counted as Canon by the early church. It was debated on some lists by some church fathers but it was finally listed as Canon. Of course many will teach that the writer of the epistle was not one of the 12 just as Luke, Acts, and Jude and for that matter Paul was not one of the 12 and we do not know for sure who wrote Hebrews though many attribute it to Paul it was not stated for sure and was separated from the epistles of Paul. Most believe that the James who wrote the letter is the brother of the Lord who was also considered the Pastor of the Jerusalem church and not necessarily an Apostle. Luke was not considered an Apostle either nor was Jude. The book of James is considered by many as the epistle of a Pastor true it does not discuss doctrine but does teach more about the early church conduct. As for it contradicting Paul on works I think in actuality there is no conflict at all. James is not saying that salvation is of works yet good works should follow and evidence ones faith.

Many have called to question different books as to if they should be Canon or not and not just the book of James, Jude was questioned so was Revelation and some of the epistles of John. However when the list of 27 books was agreed upon, whether you believe it to be the second century or the fourth James was agreed upon as Canon. And even the RCC agreed on the same 27 books. So though many have arguments against certain books belonging in the Canon it is mute if the Canon has already been decided.

Oh as for his comments that it was not about the passion of Christ or the resurrection the letter to Corinth was mainly about correcting bad practices in the church not exalting Christ or the Passion yes it included doctrine that main reason was to correct a church. Of course Luther himself first believed he had to earn his salvation till he came across the passage which said it was by grace and not works so he would have a definite slant against any mention of works being good. So though Luther was credited as starting the reformation, though many disagree, and he did translate the bible into the German language remember he also included the book of James in spite of his objections to it.

Just the opinion of a small town preacher




Doc65 -> RE: Is the book of James Canon? (4/12/2008 10:54:26 AM)

Luther did, at one point, call James "the straw epistle" until he began to understand it more fully and appreciated its place within the canon...

[&:]




FurGodWurLivin -> RE: Is the book of James Canon? (4/13/2008 4:17:47 AM)

Yes it is Canon... how do I know? Its in my Bible. Now, for the why's.

1) James preaches about holiness according to the law of God. It does not preach holiness to the exclusion of grace (or, more properly, works to the exclusion of faith) but rather preaches holiness and grace. You say you have faith... where are the workings of Faith?

2) James was writing this book for the converted Jews in the Diaspora. Why would he go the great lengths to explain the passion of Christ if they were already saved? Paul wrote at length about what Jesus did for humanity because he was writing to Gentiles that had no notion of what the Messiah had done. This is a perfect example of preaching to your audience.

The main thing that I see in James' book is that it is the kick in the pants to avoid getting to "love-logged" that you forget that Jesus said "Greater works than these..." Because it preaches following the example of which Christ gave us, and letting our faith motivate our lives, I think it finds a rightful place in the canon of scripture.

Adam




Doghouse -> RE: Is the book of James Canon? (4/13/2008 7:26:11 AM)

Peter also emphasizes the need for action and not just lip-service to demonstrate a "real" faith, and yet - Luther (to my knowledge) was not threatening to dimiss Peter from the NT Canon. Why is that? What was it about James?

In my opinion, Luther had a theology formulated, and was seeking data that would back that theology, rather than allowing his theology to be developed from the words of Scripture - ALL Scripture. If you have Paul, James and Peter contradicting each other, then you don't understand what one of these men is writing, and your discernment is flawed. In my mind, they all speak in perfect harmony.

Luther didn't get Paul, and because of this error, thought that James was in contradiction. Hence...the heretical error...(sorry, couldn't help myself...)




iSERVEaJEW -> RE: Is the book of James Canon? (4/13/2008 7:32:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Doc65

Luther did, at one point, call James "the straw epistle" until he began to understand it more fully and appreciated its place within the canon...

[&:]

Indeed. Luther also encouraged the burning of synagogues. Luther did many wonderful things and some terrible things. Luther was just a man like the rest of us. Therefore, his opinion on James really isn't that significant for me. I'm more concerned with the overwhelming acceptance of this letter by the Body throughout history.




Bluethread -> RE: Is the book of James Canon? (4/16/2008 7:07:29 PM)

quote:

iSERVEaJEW:
Luther was just a man like the rest of us.


As were the rest of the scholars who canonized the bible. In my not so humble opinion, the test of Scripture is layed out in the Scriptures themselves not in the councils of men. The test as I read them are that it must agree with prior revelation and whatever it says must come to pass. Regarding who has the authority to decide whether a certain writings meets these tests is up to each one of us. This is not just the lesson of the Torah, but Paul also tells us the study to show ourselves approved workmen that don't need to be ashamed, who can rightly divid the truth from falsehood.




Page: [1]



Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI