Why Luther?

Ligonier ^ | 10/30/2020 | Gene Edward Veith

[piasa]

There is a difference between a man SAYING he has faith and a man actually having it. A man who has faith does good works, but not in order to gain favor or earn salvation. A man who thinks by doing good works that he somehow completes the work that Christ already accomplished thinks that way because his faith is weak.

[ebb tide]

That’s not what James says.

Nice try.

[boatbums]

Thank you. That's EXACTLY what James is teaching and the way we know that is because the same Holy Spirit inspired him to write that as led Paul to write:

For it is by grace you have been saved through faith, and this not from yourselves; it is the gift of God, not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God’s workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance as our way of life. (Ephesians 2:8-10)

[ebb tide]

Then why did Luther want James taken out of the Bible?

Did Martin Luther Really Want James Taken Out of the Bible?

[boatbums]

4: Martin Luther Called The Book Of James “An Epistle Of Straw”

The most frequent charge against Luther’s view on the canon is his opinion on the book of James.[50] Luther wrote this statement in his original Preface To The New Testament in 1522:

“In a word St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle are the books that show you Christ and teach you all that is necessary and salvatory for you to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book or doctrine. Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw,  compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it. But more of this in the other prefaces.”[51]

Rarely is Luther accurately quoted on this topic. Luther says James “is really an epistle of straw” compared to “St. John’s Gospel and his first epistle, St. Paul’s epistles, especially Romans, Galatians, and Ephesians, and St. Peter’s first epistle.” Luther wants his readers to see a comparison.

An interesting fact about this quote (hardly ever mentioned by Luther-detractors!) is that it only appears in the original 1522 Preface To The New Testament. John Warwick Montgomery points out: “Few people realize — and liberal Luther interpreters do not particularly advertise the fact — that in all the editions of Luther’s Bible translation after 1522 the—Reformer dropped the paragraphs at the end, of his general Preface to the New Testament which made value judgments among the various biblical books and which included the famous reference to James as an “Epistle of straw.”[52] Montgomery finds that Luther showed a “considerable reduction in negative tone in the revised Prefaces to the biblical books later in the Reformer’s career.”[53] For anyone to continue to cite Luther’s “epistle of straw” comment against him is to do Luther an injustice. He saw fit to retract the comment. Subsequent citations of this quote should bear this in mind.[54] Luther and the Canon

---

You really need to get over your obsession with Martin Luther. Nobody here thinks of him as Pope or even the "founder" of Protestantism.

[ebb tide]

So who was the founder of protestantism?

I know who the founder of the Catholic Church is.

[boatbums]

From your last post Did Martin Luther Really Want James Taken Out of the Bible?:

Faith without works

The Catholicism of Martin Luther’s time was hyper-focused on the value of works, but Luther found that Scripture repeatedly asserts we are saved through faith in Jesus Christ, not by anything we do. And yet the Book of James says that faith without works is dead (James 2:26). So what are we supposed to do with that? Was Luther wrong—do we need works to be saved? Or is James contradicting Peter and other important passages about the Christian faith?

The reality is that James is not suggesting in any way that works lead to our salvation. It’s a result of it.

---

Do you actually READ the links you cite???

[ebb tide]

Yes, I read what I posted.

“We should throw the epistle of James out of this school, for it doesn’t amount to much. It contains not a syllable about Christ. Not once does it mention Christ, except at the beginning. I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any. Since he heard that Christians place great weight on faith in Christ, he thought, ‘Wait a moment! I’ll oppose them and urge works alone.’ This he did.”

Luther was no different that Muhammad. They both created religions to their own liking.

[boatbums]

Your problem is you only read parts that you think support your preconceived opinion without reading the REST of the story. Even your own link explained that! Had you actually shown any objectivity you would know that Luther wasn't alone in having those thoughts about the book of James - Jerome and many others thought the same things. But what mattered is Luther changed his thinking about it as he studied it more and no doubt prayed a lot. He grew in his understanding - something I think you are closed off from doing - and fully accepted it as Divinely-inspired Scripture. People CAN change their minds in Ebb Tide world, right?

BTW...are you going to stop accusing Luther of teaching Christ was an adulterer? HAVE you grown in your understanding of that point or will you lie in wait to toss it out the next time someone talks about Martin Luther in any positive way?

[Jacob Kell]

That guy is a freaking Satanist.