The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum James

Tabletalk is going thru James this year, and it seems as if they most often have to explain what James is not saying before explaining what he is saying. James is a hard read for those who are really immersed into the Pauline epistles.

Soooooo, from your reading thus far of their study through James, what are your thoughts? Likey? No Likey? What is your estimation of the "the good, the bad and the ugly?"

It lines up with the standard Reformed teaching, but I do wonder is that what James is intending. If I didn't read it through the Reformed lens, I don't know if I would understand it the same way. Was it Luther who questioned the validity of James?

Luther questioned the book of James. It takes a re-read or two every time I delve into that epistle, and it always beats me up (with conviction) to read it.

Yeh, Luther early in his life remarked that he thought the book of James was, "one straw epistle". The issue is the relationship between grace and works, which was foundational to the Reformation and the rebellion against the Roman Catholic Church and it's heretical teachings re: Justification by Faith + Works vs. Justification by Faith ALONE which Luther discovered to be the truth of Scripture. Briefly, James wrote about the "works" that "justifies" one's faith unto salvation. The key is CONTEXT and proper hermeneutical principles. The word "justify/justifies" as is often the case with most words, has various definitions, not only in Scripture but in every language. Bottom line, James is using the word 'justify' to mean evidence of something that already exists and not the proximate cause that brings about a result. This can be shown in Scripture in several places, e.g., Matt 11:19; 1 Cor 4:4; Rom 2:13, 3:4, et al. The other hermeneutical principle is that Scripture NEVER contradicts itself. And thus the didactic statements always interpret the inferential and unclear. Thus, Paul in Rom 2:13 appears at first glance to be saying that a man is saved 'justified[ by works but elsewhere he is adamant that salvation/justification is NOT by works but by grace alone, e.g., Rom 3:20 ff, 4:2,5,6,24; Gal 2:16.

The defense of the Reformers against the RCC and all similar religions is well known in the phrase, "Justification is by faith alone, but not by a faith that is alone." Both Easy believism and all forms of Pelagianism are thus rejected.

Pilgrim
I thought I would mention something else, about Martin Luther.
Years ago, an old pastor was preaching on James and he mentioned Luther’s early
thought about Luther calling James an “epistle of straw”.
However, my pastor said what is often not communicated about Luther; is later in his
ministry; he finally understood what James was talking about.
I wish I could remember more of the details of this.

Tom

This is my understanding also; Luther repudiated his initial view of James after coming to see how it is not teaching 'faith+works=justification', but rather justifying faith infallibly produces sanctification, aka: good works.... [faith without works is dead (not faith that saves)]