When did Protestants acknowledge the canonicity of James?

[gerhard]

Robert R. Higby opines, "In all the centuries since the Diet of Regensburg, where Protestants subscribed to the high canonicity of James in order to please the Papacy, the respected teachers and theologians of Protestantism have been EQUATING the issue of the authority of scripture with the issue of the authority of James as one and the same. If one denies the latter, he/she is proposed to be aligned with the same level of heresy as those who deny the Trinity, Deity and blood atonement of Christ, 5solas, etc.

So the truth on this issue has not been acknowledged by well-published Protestant teachers at all! It is ground into the dust as sure and certain as the gospel itself was ground into the dust by the Papacy for well over a thousand years."

Could you elaborate on how the Protestants caved to Papacy at Regensburg?

According to "The New Testament Canon In The Lutheran Dogmaticians" by J.A.O. Preus, http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/preu...amentcanon.pdf, Lutheran dogmaticians rejected the high canonicity of James and the other antilegomena until the beginning of the 17th century. Chemnitz writes in his "Examination of the Council of Trent," "Now the question: 1) whether the church which succeeded that primitive and most ancient church or the church of the present can make authentic those writings which in this way have been rejected and disapproved, And manifestly it cannot." Chemnitz says no modern day church can accept books that the ancient church rejected (e.g., James).

John Gerhard was apparently the first Lutheran dogmatician to accept the canonicity of the antilegomena (Loci Theologici, 1622). Many modern day Lutheran theologians agree with Gerhard and many agree with Chemnitz. The subject remains controversial.

[Robert R. Higby]

In a thread on the canon a few years ago, I believe we discussed the Lutheran exception to what I have stated, i.e., that no uniformity on the question was reached in Lutheranism overall and that many refused to elevate the antilegomena to full canonical status.

The entire Reformed movement, however, under the initial leadership of Calvin, adopted the canonical position of Johannes Eck on the New Testament (not the Old which included the Apocrypha). The issue was discussed at Regensburg in connection with justification when Jas. 2:14-26 was brought up by the papists. At Trent 5 years later, 'justification by love' (faith active by love) based on James (and Augustine) was codified as RCC doctrine.

Calvin's position departed from that of Zwingli on this matter. My conclusion is based on the timing of when Calvinism adopted the NT canon pushed by Eck.

On other issues, Wikipedia describes the Diet as commonly described in may sources:
The first four articles, on the condition and integrity of man before the fall, on free will, on the cause of sin, and on original sin, passed without difficulty. The article on justification encountered great opposition, especially from Eck, but an agreement was finally arrived at; neither Elector John Frederick nor Luther was satisfied with this article.

So the other issues the Protestants agreed to in order to please the Papacy:

1. The original perfection of Adam; a perfect being sinned.
2. Free Will as proper anthropology ala Plotinus, Augustine. Again, this refers to the ORIGINAL creation before a 'fall'.
3. God is not the ultimate cause of sin.
4. Original sin imputed by corporate guilt in Adam and biologically transmitted from Adam to the entire race.

[gerhard]

The entire Reformed movement, however, under the initial leadership of Calvin, adopted the canonical position of Johannes Eck on the New Testament (not the Old which included the Apocrypha). The issue was discussed at Regensburg in connection with justification when Jas. 2:14-26 was brought up by the papists. At Trent 5 years later, 'justification by love' (faith active by love) based on James (and Augustine) was codified as RCC doctrine.

Calvin's position departed from that of Zwingli on this matter. My conclusion is based on the timing of when Calvinism adopted the NT canon pushed by Eck.

Did the Papists see an opportunity to split Protestantism? Five years after Regensburg, the Council of Trent declared anathema on all who rejected the canonicity of James. In his "Examination of the Council of Trent", Chemnitz condemned this article and rejected the canonicity of James. A rift was thereby established between Calvinism and Lutheranism over the content of the canon.

Gerhard's repudiation of Chemnitz in 1622 may have soothed a developing schism within Protestantism. The inclusion of James in the high canon became an open question within Lutheranism. Is Lutheranism tolerating error?

"When error is admitted into the Church, it will be found that the stages in its progress are always three. It begins by asking toleration. Its friends say to the majority: You need not be afraid of us; we are few and weak; let us alone, we shall not disturb the faith of others. The Church has her standards of doctrine; of course we shall never interfere with them; we only ask for ourselves to be spared interference with our private opinions.
Indulged in for this time, error goes on to assert equal rights. Truth and error are balancing forces. The Church shall do nothing which looks like deciding between them; that would be partiality. It is bigotry to assert any superior right for the truth. We are to agree to differ, and any favoring of the truth, because it is truth, is partisanship. What the friends of truth and error hold in common is fundamental. Anything on which they differ is ipso facto non-essential. Anybody who makes account of such a thing is a disturber of the peace of the Church. Truth and error are two coordinate powers, and the great secret of church-statesmanship is to preserve the balance between them.
From this point error soon goes on to its natural end, which is to assert supremacy. Truth started with tolerating; it comes to be merely tolerated, and that only for a time. Error claims a preference for its judgments on all disputed points. It puts men into positions, not as at first in spite of their departure from the Church’s faith, but in consequence of it. Their repudiation is that they repudiate that faith, and position is given them to teach others to repudiate it, and to make them skillful in combating it." Charles Porterfield Krauth, The Conservative Reformation

[Robert R. Higby]

I wholeheartedly agree with Chemnitz on this issue. On some issues, the Reformed can't discern puke from pudding.