Brandan Kraft's response to Monty Colier's Slander

Dear Brandan:

I find it amusing that red beetle makes the same mistakes that everyone makes when they criticize us about our position in the book of James. Obviously he goes farther by using adjectives such as “gang” and others. I will address to this later.

At this point, allow me just to list a few of these mistakes than I will comment about them:

First he deems us “heretics” or some equivalent euphemism but it is not the Bible standard for a heretic that he uses.

Second, he accuses you (us) of “bowing our knees” to the Roman Catholic Church for believing that they have the right interpretation of James in the synergy of faith plus works for Justification.

Third, he accuses you (us) of hypocrites for quoting and loving, and adhering to, many of what our ancient fathers and teachers taught and siding with their position and the Confessions they wrote, whereas not agreeing with their stance on the book of James.

Fourth, he makes the grave mistake of violating one of the main teachings of the book he considers authoritative and apostolic in its teaching about the [negative] power of the tongue.

Fifth, he makes the mistake, very common, of not seriously checking the position of some also relevant and blessed ancient teachers about the book of James, and as many seminaries both in the USA and the world, perhaps considers any challenge to the book of James too much of a hot potato for them to handle.
Six, he attacks you (us) because he seem to accept the Protestant allegation that the book of James does not teach a synergistic faith plus works for justification Gospel, but it teaches “justification (approval) of your faith before men by acts of charity and great feats of faith”.

Here is what I have to say about these visible mistakes in his slander:

First, he uses the Confessions and merely the Protestant teaching and acceptance of the book of James. This does not amount for heresy according to the Bible. There is no scripture or verse that anyone can find that there is a notion of a Canon in the Bible and that it would have 66 books and that its rejection would amount to heresy.

Second, the Roman Catholic Church called Luther a heretic and one of the main points they use for their name calling is that Luther rejects the synergistic notion of justification by faith plus works and throws the book of James entirely to discredit because of this and a few other aspects. Well, in calling us heretics for rejecting the book of James, red beetle is the one who is bowing to the Roman Catholic Church. He joins the choir of the Roman Catholic in demonizing everyone who tries to debunk factually their core doctrine of justification by faith plus works. In accusing you (us) of bowing to the Roman Catholic Church, he is INDEED himself bowing and siding with then in this issue.

Third in accusing you (us) for being hypocritical for quoting names and loving and siding with the issues many ancient fathers believe, and the Confessions they wrote, he sets himself vulnerable for an inquisition as to whether he is capable of vowing truthfully that he believes these teachers fully, blindly, and accepts and practices everything they wrote. If he does not himself accept everything, every iota of what they teach, then, he himself is a hypocrite. I have a lot of experience with slanderers. They always have an argument lined up, which is often fallacious and even dishonest. If faced with this point they almost unavoidably say: “I believe in all fundamental, essentials (or whatever other buzz word) of what these teachers and Confessions teach, but I don’t agree entirely with them. But the authority of the book of James, oh no, this is essential.” Now people like red beetle, place themselves in a position of hubris and haughtiness in telling us that they are the ones who will judge what is essential or not. The Bible does not call anyone who “searches all and retains that which is good” a heretic neither does call a heretic anyone who will not agree to a 66 books canon simply because this concept was foreign to the inspired Authors of the N.T. and their immediate target audience.
The reason they use this argument is simple (talk about accusing us of bowing to the Roman Catholic Church). They borrow a core, dear, and ancient concept of the Roman Catholics in that, certain traditions, such as the Confessions and the teachings of the ancient teachers, are not there to be disputed and should (and are) elevated to the authority of the Scripture itself! No wonder he ascribes to you (us) the names he does!

Fourth,and the issue I said above that I was going to deal with later, one of the most powerful teachings of the Book of James, IN THE VIEW OF THE VERY ONES WHO DEFEND justification before men by acts of charity and great feats of faith (such as sacrificing a son as Abraham in context of chapter 2), forget a very important aspect: treating others with disrespect, calling people and groups names, such as “gang” etc. is failing in demonstrating such acts of charity. At least on this aspect I cannot approve (based upon his own acceptance of the book of James as the Protestant teach), his faith. He is not justified as a man of faith before this man!

Also, he fails to follow and adhere to the portion where James teaches in the book red beetle considers apostolic and authoritative, about the power of the tongue! He lashes with his tongue against you (us) as if there is no such a thing as the book of James! Talk about hypocrisy? That is so common among those who defend the book of James. They are the first ones to disobey it! They accuse us for not obeying entirely the Confessions we cite and love, but how about them? They cannot even obey and follow the very book they are defending as authoritative!

Fifth and six, the Protestant do teach something that to you, Brandan, and to me, is erroneous: justification (approval) of your faith by acts of charity and great feats of faith, such as sacrificing a son as Abraham did in the context of chapter 2. Red beetle accuses you (us) of being “bad” (without using such a word) for rejecting this notion and rejecting the book of James as authoritative as Luther did. But why does he commit the same mistake most seminaries in America and the World do today which is not checking what is the REAL problem with James in relation to what, JESUS, for example, teaches on Mathew 6? Well, If James is telling “false professors of faith” to prove their faith by helping widows, etc. (context) and being kind to the poor etc. to JUSTIFY THEIR FAITH before men, then JESUS must have been wrong for rebuking the Pharisees for doing exactly that! As a matter of fact, JESUS, no one but JESUS CHRIST teaches us to practice our FAITH IN SECRET. JESUS SAYS that those who practice their faith IN PUBLIC are indeed seeking men’s approval (JUSTIFICATION BEFORE MEN), and they have already earned their reward, or THAT’S ALL THEY’LL EVER GET! However JESUS TELLS US that real followers of HIS should practice their FAITH IN SECRET, THAT GOD WOULD JUSTIFY THEIR FAITH IN SECRET (not before men) AND REWARD THEM IN SECRET (not before men). So, red beetle fails in his research and only parrots what Protestants said a long time ago for reasons that history is there to demonstrate (not the theme of this commentary; anyone can research the Internet), and uses this incorrect argument to call you (us) the names he calls.

So there it is! I hope a bit of common sense is demonstrated here and a lot of Christian spirit is exhibited here on the part of red beetle so he can “justify his faith before us”. I am writing with some sense that I have no problem, no axe to grind. My wife directs and I help, organizations that exist with the sole purpose of helping the widows, the orphans and the poor in general. We have not sacrificed any son yet, but at least we have done a bit of what Protestants would call “justification before men”. I have justified by faith, if that would matter at all. I prefer to give glory to God alone! I prefer to practice my real faith in secret! I mentioned this here so, if red beetle wants to make a YouTube video against me, which probably would give me more publicity, if I ever needed it, people at least in two different countries would begin to pray God’s judgment upon him since they know that I have already met the requirements red beetle with his Protestant view of the book of James have imposed for me to prove my faith; If that, of course, would be the correct interpretation of James. Judging by the rest of the N.T. I know it is not!

Many sweat to reconcile St. Paul and St. James, as does Melanchthon in his Apology, but in vain. “Faith justifies” and “faith does not justify” contradict each other flatly. If any one can harmonize them I will give him my doctor’s hood and let him call me a fool.

“This epistle is the kernel of the New Testament and the clearest of all gospels, worthy and worth that a Christian man should not only know the words by heart, but should converse with them continually as the daily bread of the soul. It can never be too much read nor considered, but the more it is used the more precious it becomes.” (Introduction to the book of Romans - 1522)

To James i, 6 (But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering), he remarks : “That is the only good place in the whole epistle“ ; to i, 21 (Receive with meekness the engrafted word), “Others engrafted it, not this James” ; to ii, 12 ff., “What a chaos !” and to ii, 24 (Ye see then that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only), “That is false.” ) (Martin Luther's notes in one of his OWN bibles)

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. (Luther’s Works 35, 362)

The epistle of James gives us much trouble, for the Papists embrace it alone and leave out all the rest…Accordingly, if they will not admit my interpretations, then I shall make rubble also of it. I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove, as the priest in Kalenberg did. (Luther’s Works 34, 317)

Originally Posted by Brandan Kraft

To James i, 6 (But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering), he remarks : “That is the only good place in the whole epistle“ ; to i, 21 (Receive with meekness the engrafted word), “Others engrafted it, not this James” ; to ii, 12 ff., “What a chaos !” and to ii, 24 (Ye see then that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only), “That is false.” ) (Martin Luther's notes in one of his OWN bibles)

Where'd you find that? I have some of his Table Talk on my comp at home, but this is new to me.

Originally Posted by Dustin

Where'd you find that? I have some of his Table Talk on my comp at home, but this is new to me.

The life and letters of Martin Luther, by Preserved Smith, 1911.... Page 269

http://www.archive.org/stream/lifele...trich_djvu.txt

This is such a hot potato for the reformed church. They are so afraid of dealing with the canon. None of the churchmen who have been on this forum can even answer who determines the canon and how do you trust a bunch of old dead guys most of which if not all were probably unregenerate.

What is so telling is how reason and logic get pitched out the window, their responses are often mean, harsh and arrogant, (no reference to BK here) I see no real love for the truth only cult like behavior for what they think is the canon.

Also as long as I'm on my soapbox, the excuses that are made by them that God wouldn't use James as a tool to deceive are ridiculous at best.

Originally Posted by Brandan Kraft

The life and letters of Martin Luther, by Preserved Smith, 1911.... Page 269

http://www.archive.org/stream/lifele...trich_djvu.txt

Here is the download of the .pdf version.

BTW, pay special attention to this quote from Luther: Many sweat to reconcile St. Paul and St. James, as does Melanchthon in his Apology, but in vain. “Faith justifies” and “faith does not justify” contradict each other flatly. If any one can harmonize them I will give him my doctor’s hood and let him call me a fool.

Melanchthon is the "other half" of Lutheranism. He drafted the Augsberg confession and was also present at regensburg.

Here are a few things from Augsberg:

II - Original Sin
XIX - God does not cause people to sin.
XIII - The Use of the Sacraments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipp_Melanchthon

Anyway, Luther is referring to Melanchthon's apology in the quote above, and that apology is Melanchthon's defense of the Augsberg confession. If you dig into it, you can see what Luther is referring to: "123] From James 2, 24 they cite: Ye see, then, how by works a man is justified, and not by faith alone. Nor is any other passage supposed to be more contrary to our belief. But the reply is easy and plain. If the adversaries do not attach their own opinions concerning the merits of works, the words of James have in them nothing that is of disadvantage. But wherever there is mention of works, the adversaries add falsely their own godless opinions, that by means of good works we merit the remission of sins; that good works are a propitiation and price on account of which God is reconciled to us; that good works overcome the terrors of sin and of death, that good works are accepted in God's sight on account of their goodness; and that they do not need mercy and Christ as Propitiator. None of all these things came into the mind of James, which the adversaries nevertheless, defend under the pretext of this passage of James.

127] From these things it is clear that James does not contradict us, who, when censuring idle and secure minds, that imagine that they have faith, although they do not have it, made a distinction between dead and living faith.

130] without works. But when he says that we are justified by faith and works, he certainly does not say that we are born again by works. Neither does he say this, that partly Christ is our Propitiator, and partly our works are our propitiation. Nor does he describe the mode of justification, but only of what nature the just are, after they have been already justified and regenerated. [For he is speaking of works which should follow faith. There it is well said: He who has faith and good works is righteous, not indeed, on account of the works, but for Christ's sake, through faith. And as a good tree should bring forth good fruit, and yet the fruit does not make the tree good, so good works must follow the new birth, although they do not make man accepted before God; but as the tree must first be good, so also must man be first accepted before God by faith for Christ's sake. The works are too insignificant to render God gracious to us for their sake, if He were not gracious to us for Christ's sake. Therefore James does not contradict St. Paul, and does not say that by our works we merit, etc.]


131] And here to be justified does not mean that a righteous man is made from a wicked man, but to be pronounced righteous in a forensic sense, as also in the passage Rom. 2, 13: The doers of the Law shall be justified. As, therefore, these words: The doers of the Law shall be justified, contain nothing contrary to our doctrine, so, too, we believe concerning the words of James: By works a man is justified, and not by faith alone, because men having faith and good works are certainly pronounced righteous. For, as we have said, the good works of saints are righteous, and please on account of faith. For James commends only such works as faith produces, as he testifies when he says of Abraham, 2, 22: Faith wrought with his works. In this sense it is said: The doers of the Law are justified, i.e., they are pronounced righteous who from the heart believe God, and afterwards have good fruits, which please Him on account of faith, and, accordingly, are the fulfilment of the Law."

http://www.reformed.org/master/index...ug_apol_1.html

So you can see right here that this is the VERY FIRST debate on the epistle of James within protestantism.

The truth is that multiple canons have existed, and still do exist, in the 'church world'--and God continues to be sovereign over all of them. There is no one moment in time when God was 'more sovereign' over the canon. I'm curious as to how the accusers are judging which canon is the correct one. Are they deciding by the gospel they believe--and this leads them to think other writings are of no inspired spiritual value because they are either 'merely' historical or outright against what they believe to be important teachings? Wouldn't it be hypocrisy to condemn someone for extending that process to James when they themselves have already passed the same exact type of judgment upon other writings?

I've posted my response to this blog: http://rainos.info/2010/12/the-monty...#comment-17029

Let's see if they approve my comment.

Excellent responses to Monty my dear brother Brandan. Also to Milt for his truthful remarks, and to all.

If Monty would have read my whole essay, I was very specific in stating that p-net was influential to my questioning the letter called James.

It was only after reading the debates that through prayer I began my research and was convinced that James was an Epistle of straw.

Monty could not even get that right!

His hatred toward us has blinded him to the point that he could not honestly and fairly weigh the truth.

His video was pure slander!

Nicholas

Originally Posted by Brandan Kraft

BTW, pay special attention to this quote from Luther: Many sweat to reconcile St. Paul and St. James, as does Melanchthon in his Apology, but in vain. “Faith justifies” and “faith does not justify” contradict each other flatly. If any one can harmonize them I will give him my doctor’s hood and let him call me a fool.

Melanchthon is the "other half" of Lutheranism. He drafted the Augsberg confession and was also present at regensburg.

Here are a few things from Augsberg:

II - Original Sin
XIX - God does not cause people to sin.
XIII - The Use of the Sacraments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philipp_Melanchthon

Anyway, Luther is referring to Melanchthon's apology in the quote above, and that apology is Melanchthon's defense of the Augsberg confession. If you dig into it, you can see what Luther is referring to: "123] From James 2, 24 they cite: Ye see, then, how by works a man is justified, and not by faith alone. Nor is any other passage supposed to be more contrary to our belief. But the reply is easy and plain. If the adversaries do not attach their own opinions concerning the merits of works, the words of James have in them nothing that is of disadvantage. But wherever there is mention of works, the adversaries add falsely their own godless opinions, that by means of good works we merit the remission of sins; that good works are a propitiation and price on account of which God is reconciled to us; that good works overcome the terrors of sin and of death, that good works are accepted in God's sight on account of their goodness; and that they do not need mercy and Christ as Propitiator. None of all these things came into the mind of James, which the adversaries nevertheless, defend under the pretext of this passage of James.

127] From these things it is clear that James does not contradict us, who, when censuring idle and secure minds, that imagine that they have faith, although they do not have it, made a distinction between dead and living faith.

130] without works. But when he says that we are justified by faith and works, he certainly does not say that we are born again by works. Neither does he say this, that partly Christ is our Propitiator, and partly our works are our propitiation. Nor does he describe the mode of justification, but only of what nature the just are, after they have been already justified and regenerated. [For he is speaking of works which should follow faith. There it is well said: He who has faith and good works is righteous, not indeed, on account of the works, but for Christ's sake, through faith. And as a good tree should bring forth good fruit, and yet the fruit does not make the tree good, so good works must follow the new birth, although they do not make man accepted before God; but as the tree must first be good, so also must man be first accepted before God by faith for Christ's sake. The works are too insignificant to render God gracious to us for their sake, if He were not gracious to us for Christ's sake. Therefore James does not contradict St. Paul, and does not say that by our works we merit, etc.]


131] And here to be justified does not mean that a righteous man is made from a wicked man, but to be pronounced righteous in a forensic sense, as also in the passage Rom. 2, 13: The doers of the Law shall be justified. As, therefore, these words: The doers of the Law shall be justified, contain nothing contrary to our doctrine, so, too, we believe concerning the words of James: By works a man is justified, and not by faith alone, because men having faith and good works are certainly pronounced righteous. For, as we have said, the good works of saints are righteous, and please on account of faith. For James commends only such works as faith produces, as he testifies when he says of Abraham, 2, 22: Faith wrought with his works. In this sense it is said: The doers of the Law are justified, i.e., they are pronounced righteous who from the heart believe God, and afterwards have good fruits, which please Him on account of faith, and, accordingly, are the fulfilment of the Law."

http://www.reformed.org/master/index...ug_apol_1.html

So you can see right here that this is the VERY FIRST debate on the epistle of James within protestantism.

I call the few Lutherans that debate with me and come with arguments from the Augsburg Confession, MELANCHTONIANS and not Lutherans. They deny by arguing that Melanchton was a "closet" Calvinist and they despise John Calvin. But indeed, by all the arguments they present, Lutherans today are not REALLY Luther's Lutherans, but they are Melanchtonians. A Lutheran, who participated before in this Forum as a Calvinist (you know him...) told me that if you find Luther's Lutherans nowadays they will be people who did go back to relics and robes and priestly vestments etc., the very things that I accuse Melanchtonians of practicing. That only means to me that as much as it is hard to identify a true Calvinist today, it is hard to find a true Lutheran today.

Hummmm, NO WONDER THERE IS NO SUCH A THING AS A REAL REFORMATION TODAY, BUT ONLY THAT WHICH CHURCHIANITY HAS FOULED UP WITH ITS OWN IMPOSITIONS!

Milt.

I have certainly observed this discussion with interest!

It is true that Luther's view of the canon was in harmony with what the RCC had FORMERLY taught and with what he had learned in RCC seminary. The homoulegomena/antilegomena distinction had been the historic position of the RCC, dating back all the way to Eusebius. We have already discussed this in previous threads, James Swan has done an excellent job of exposing the false Protestant allegations on the history of the canon.

However, as Dave Armstrong (current RCC, former Protestant expositor) has eloquently pointed out, the RCC at Trent quoted James extensively in support of their position on justification. They had already demanded that Protestants exalt James as part of the homoulegomena in order to continue dialog with the RCC, such as had occurred at Regensburg. Armstrong goes so far as to say that if the Protestants had rejected James from the canon, they would have become 'bastard children' as far as the 'church' is concerned and rightly merited expulsion from Christianity (i.e., Christendumb) itself.

So while the RCC had historically rejected James as homolegoumena, this position was clearly reversed at the Council of Trent (even if there was no official pronouncement of its reversal)

Melancthon also taught the third use of the law (which is an inevitable corollary of works-based assurance), which Luther rejected. The canonicity of James and the 3rd use of the law have always been one and the same doctrine; they stand or fall together.

Why did the Protestants include James in the homolegoumena? As I have stated a hundred times before, in order to please the Papacy.

--Bob

Armstrong's extreme RCC arrogance is manifest in the following blog:

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/...ent-canon.html

He states at the end: Protestants do, of course, accept the traditional Canon of the New Testament (albeit somewhat inconsistently and with partial reluctance - Luther questioned the full canonicity of James, Revelation and other books). By doing so, they necessarily acknowledged the authority of the Catholic Church. If they had not, it is likely that Protestantism would have gone the way of all the old heresies of the first millennium of the Church Age - degenerating into insignificant, bizarre cults and disappearing into the putrid backwaters of history.

As if the RCC 'traditional' homolegoumena before Trent included James and Revelation! What a bunch of psychotic apologetic lies.

On Esther:

1. I do not want to be faced with defending its historical accuracy unless it is part of the Law, Prophets, and Psalms that Christ refers to in Luke 24:44.
2. Luther rejected it: "I am such an enemy of the book of Esther that I wish it did not exist".
3. The issue is whether it adds a commanded festival to the law, one that celebrated a revenge that exceeded the justice commanded in the law of Moses and was not commanded by God. Luther called the revenge in Esther wicked and heathen. This, of course, was hypocritical--considering the fact that dissidents of Lutheranism in Germany were put to death!
4. The DSS do not contain it, probably because of the strong rejection in all of the DSS of revenge that is not commanded by God.