You can view the page at http://www.predestinarian.net/conten...istle-of-James
You can view the page at http://www.predestinarian.net/conten...istle-of-James
Ditch the Garbage! - Too many people are proud of their humility - I, on the other hand, am not humble - and am proud of it!
"Luther's New Testament was so much multiplied and spread by printers that even tailors and shoemakers, yea, even women and ignorant persons who had accepted this new Lutheran gospel, and could read a little German, studied it with the greatest avidity as the fountain of all truth. Some committed it to memory, and carried it about in their bosom. In a few months such people deemed themselves so learned that they were not ashamed to dispute about faith and the gospel not only with Catholic laymen, but even with priests and monks and doctors of divinity." - A complaint by German humanist Johann Cochlaeus.
Follow me on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/kraftb
Follow Predestinarian Network on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/predestinarian
Follow Predestinarian Network on Twitter: http://twitter.com/predestinarian
The greatest tragedy for me is that, recently, when discussing this issue with some self proclaimed Theology students from Colleges in the USA, they told me that they had never heard that Luther or any of the ancients ever disputed the book of James! They thought that it was my and P-Net's invention!
That, if proven true, is the sheer proof that the so called Reformed Theologians of today have started a new "dark age" period and have only replaced that which they have supposedly departed from and renamed euphemistically as Orthodoxy: the papacy!
They're attempting to keep Bible students unaware and blinded so they will go to their congregation and maintain themselves unaware and blinded. They're seeking in the very pits of hell the methodology of deceit, of clouding the truth and perpetuating tradition and error!
Milt
One more comment:
How "Justification by works before man" or, Justify that you have faith, prove you have faith, by doing works of charity and great feats of faith harmonizes with this:
Mat 6:1 ¶ Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
Mat 6:2 Therefore when thou doest [thine] alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
Mat 6:3 But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
Mat 6:4 That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
Mat 6:5 ¶ And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites [are]: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
Mat 6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
Milt
Milt and others, I have discussed some of this with Brandan prior to and some more today in a conversation we had.Originally Posted by GraceAmbassador
A few questions for you all:
1) Why doesn't the Reformed Church today question the Reformed Church present during Regensburg regarding their acceptance of the canon?
2) Is the Reformed Church's lack of questioning the canon akin to Catholics not questioning the papacy?
3) Does the obfuscation and rhetoric put forth by the Reformed Church in regards to the canon (James specifically) constitute cult-like behavior and/or make it papal?
4) Do you think the Reformed Church is a cult?
Isaiah 45:7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Answering number 4:
The Reformed Church wants "no trouble" in questioning James. I asked them point blank when living in Holland MI. They simply bought into the "true/false professor of faith" argument and are comfortable with it without examining this argument specifically as compared with Mat. 6: 1-6.
Also I have argued, specially on Facebook, that the "Reformed" community in General, RCA, CRC, and the Presbies have developed an orthodoxy that is merely a SUBSTITUTION for the papacy. When you hear from them the word "orthodoxy" you can understand "papacy" almost 100% of the time. It is an imposition, pure and simple. In those terms, yes, they borrowed their method of hiding certain historic aspects about the Canon, from the cult called Roman Catholicism, by hiding it from their future ministers.
I pray this changes!
My friends in Brazil who are doctors and Masters in Theology and are Presbyterians were appalled that they don't teach these historic facts, at least on the seminaries of the people who interacted with me on F.B. and told me that, as Seminary Students, they never heard of the historic disputes on the book of James. They even cited all of them since Eusebius. So, at least somewhere people are being given information about it, but, apparently, not in the USA.
Milt
Grace Ambassador
A pitiful servant of God; a pitbull guardian of the message of Grace
My pledge to other members:
A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. Prov 15:1
A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver - Prov. 25:11
IMO the Reformed Church will never question what's contained in the Westminster Confession as it is their holy grail. Their acceptance of it without question is cult like and on par with Roman Catholicism's acceptance of their own "confessions."
Human compassion is deceptive and impotent. When we set that up as the standard of
judgment, even God will appear to lack sympathy. ......"Better is open rebuke than hidden love" -- Love is bold to speak the truth in open rebuke for the benefit of someone who needs the correction. Each time I speak this way to a person, I risk losing his respect and support, but I will do it because I love him. "There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear" (1 John 4:18), Vincent Cheung
I totally agree Roger.
Isaiah 45:7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
How can N.T. Wright, of all theologians, help us in our argument against the book of James?
Here Wright is not talking about the book of James, but he is talking about Sola Scriptura. The way he defines Sola Scriptura is similar to the way we argue in favor of the Christocentric angle to decide which is really scripture. Read it for yourselves.
I know he is not one of our "favorites" to put it mildly, but he is highly respected everywhere else, which means nothing to me, but to most defenders of James he means a lot. So here is him saying that the authority of the Word is nothing if not pointing to the authority of the Son. We say that the acceptance of ANY BOOK of the 66 Canon is conditional to pointing to the authority of Christ, i.e., being Christocentric.
http://trevinwax.com/2007/11/19/trev...ll-transcript/
Milt
Come with me through this thought experiment for a moment. Its not directly scriptural, but hopefully it will illustrates to you a scriptural concept.
Ask yourself this question: If the president said "I hereby allow Brandan Kraft to enter the White House" and you came to the White House and entered, how did you enter? The answer is: You entered by the president's permission, and by the president's permission alone. However, when the president invited you there, he gave you a formal letter with his signature on it. When you got to the gate, you showed the guard the letter and the signature on it, and the guard, after seeing it, let you in. Now, really try to think hard here: Did the guard let you in because you had the president's letter? The answer is, in truth, no. Did he let you in because you had the president's signature? Again, the answer in truth is no. The reason the guard let you in, was because he thought you had the president's *permission*. Indeed, the guard had no concern whatsoever for anything other than this fact. The signature and letter by themselves meant nothing to the guard. However, they did tell him that you had the president's permission, and so through the letter and signature the guard found out about the *fact* of the president having given his permission. So, once you got past the guard, you said to yourself, "sure was a good thing I had this letter and this signature. If I didn't have these I would never have got in." So, in one sense, you entered by the letter and the signature. However, in another sense, you didn't, having entered by the permission of the president alone.
Substantially speaking, God’s people are justified by the blood of Jesus *alone*. Not by faith and not by works. However, in another sense, both faith and works testify to the fact that someone is one of God’s people. So, God will judge everybody according to both their faith and their works (he will bring every work into judgement). Of course, God seals his people both with faith and works, so they will inevitably have them and get in. Thus it is that God will find his people justified (on the day of judgement) on account of the fact that both their faith and good works show that they have been justified by the blood of Christ alone. However, to God good works and faith will really mean nothing. All he will really be concerned with, is the blood of Christ alone.
You might think this is all too confusing. After all, wouldn't God (who knows everything) simply *know* that his people are justified? Why would he have to look to faith and works to see if there was evidence that Jesus had died for them, when he himself sent Jesus to the cross in the first place? Try to think of it like this: God has no arms. God has no hands. God has no eyes. Indeed, God is Spirit. Yet we are told in scripture that he has arms and eyes and hands. Scripture speaks like this for our understanding, and it is the same when we are told that God will judge his people according to their works. It doesn't mean God actually has massive hands in the sky, or that God is actually resting his massive feet on the footstool of the world, or that God will actually be looking at his people's works and faith in an attempt to discover whether these are emblems that Christ died for them. Yet scripture presents it this way for our understanding.
So, in his examination, if the guard (i.e. God) finds a letter without a signature (i.e. faith without works) he won't let the person bearing the letter into the White House (i.e. heaven). My point is that, *neither* faith, nor good works will ultimately get anyone into heaven. They are just seals which God has put on his people. So, in one sense God’s people may say, "I am justified by faith and works" yet in another sense, God’s people may say, "I am justified neither by faith nor by works, but by the blood of Jesus alone".
In yet another sense, God’s people may say, "I am justified by faith alone and not by works" because all works are "of faith" for whatsoever is not "of faith" is sin. Faith, however, is not "of works". Therefore, all truly good works flow from faith. That is to say, works flow from an earnest looking towards Jesus, *for* salvation - which has these two aspects:
1) Faith looks to Christ *for* salvation, seeking it.
2) Faith looks to Christ *for* salvation, having obtained it.
The second aspect of faith is not the duty of the reprobate. However, the first aspect of faith *is*. So, duty faith? Yes and no. Yes to the seeking salvation part. No to the finding salvation part. Seeking isn't finding. Everybody has a duty to seek salvation in Christ's blood (i.e. to look for it to see *if* they can find it there for themselves) but not everybody has a duty to find it there. It just so happens, of course, that all who seek, also find (for it is God who has worked in them to seek). However, this does not let those who did not seek off the hook for not seeking it. When I say seek, I do not mean find.
If you want to reply and ask something like, "where is your scriptural justification for X point?" then I will try to get back to you. However, I just want to apologise pre-emtively because I am really busy right now, and I strongly suspect that it might take me a while to get back to you.
alt731, please read our threads on the canon and on James and you'll understand why we have arrived at our stance on both.
Then feel free to post questions in which the substance is new, this is a horse we've already beaten to death.
Isaiah 45:7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Brandan Kraft (05-31-2011), Saint Nicholas (05-31-2011), trav (05-29-2011)
Thanks Greg, I figured this would be a waste of time to respond to. Same ol' same ol'.
Col 2:9, (NASB), For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form
Brandan Kraft (05-31-2011)
I can't seem to find them. Do you have a link? Also, Luther believed James was canonical. Indeed, all true Christians accept everything God ever wrote as canonical when they read it, because those who do not recognise that the things in the cannon are written by God, are not recognised by God (1 Co. 14).
Isaiah 45:7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Saint Nicholas (05-31-2011)
Hey, thanks!
Also, Luther believed James was canonical.
Never. His most damning comments on the book called James came late in life, as we have discussed here.
The Protestant myth that Luther eventually accepted James as canonical is based on the fact that Luther at some point removed his objections to James from his New Testament introduction. That is a far cry from proving that he accepted it as canon or had really changed his position on anything. Luther was urged to do this by others in order to better position the Protestant movement for negotiations with the Papacy (Regensburg, etc.).
Now see here how sleepy-headed all our opponents are, and how little it helps a man to rely on the ancient fathers, for all their repute down the course of the ages! Were they not all equally blind to, yes, and heeldess of, Paul's clearest and and plainest words?
--Martin Luther
Brandan Kraft (05-31-2011), Saint Nicholas (05-31-2011)
I can attest that I have never heard of Luther's position on James until I came to P-net. I have learned a lot about the issues regarding James and the canon from the discussions you all have had here, so thank you!
I will cry unto God most high; unto God that performeth all things for me. (Psalm 57:2)
Brandan Kraft (05-31-2011), Saint Nicholas (05-31-2011), trav (05-31-2011)
Hypocritical, double-speak from Luther. If it's not the writing of an Apostle, and flatly against the teaching of Paul, then how can it be a "good book" much less be included in ANY cannon of holy writ?
Brandan Kraft (03-29-2012), Dustin (03-24-2012)
Luther's opposition to James increased with time.We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school [Wittenberg], for it doesn’t amount to much. It contains not a syllable about Christ. Not once does it mention Christ, except at the beginning [Jas. 1:1; 2:1]. 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. He wrote not a word about the suffering and resurrection of Christ, although this is what all the apostles preached about. Besides, there’s no order or method in the epistle. Now he discusses clothing and then he writes about wrath and is constantly shifting from one to the other. He presents a comparison: ‘As the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead’ [Jas. 2:26]. O Mary, mother of God! What a terrible comparison that is! James compares faith with the body when he should rather have compared faith with the soul! The ancients recognized this, too, and therefore they didn’t acknowledge this letter as one of the catholic epistles” [LW 54:424].
GraceAmbassador (04-07-2012)
I have been studying the concepts of Canon and Inspiration. My conclusions will be BOMBED by the defenders of James but it is easily explained if one wades a little deeper:
The book of James is "INSPIRED" but only in the sense that I Kings: 22-23 and 2 Chr. 18:21-22 are ALSO INSPIRED. God INSPIRED some prophets to lie only to fulfill the SECRET COUNSEL OF HIS WILL.
I know that this is BOMBED and rendered as ABSURDITY, but if one follows the advice of Psalm 107:23-24, and LEAVE the surface to take a risk on the deep, they will find His wonders in the deep (as opposed to in the surface). Otherwise, WHY IS IT THEN THAT GOD WOULD "INSPIRE" ANYONE TO TEACH A SYNERGISTIC SALVATION, i.e., FAITH + WORKS? Even "experience" has taught us that God has a REASON for such an inspiration to be compared to the text in 1 Kings and 2 Chr. 18: LOOK DEEPER AND SEE WHAT GROUPS TEACH AS A MATTER OF THEIR OWN ORTHODOXY THAT SALVATION IS BY FAITH + WORKS? - One will find that my conclusion is neither absurd nor far-fetched and not deserving to be bombed!
Is then the book of James "inspired"? Is it in the Bible because of God's Sovereignty? Well, consider what God has used to enforce the SECRET COUNSEL OF HIS WILL and you will be able to answer this question very easily!
Milt
Grace Ambassador
A pitiful servant of God; a pitbull guardian of the message of Grace
My pledge to other members:
A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger. Prov 15:1
A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in pictures of silver - Prov. 25:11
Great comments my friends! I am convinced more every day in my studies that the Ebionite origin and stewardship of this writing is the true history, which fully explains the lack of references to it before the third century and the lack of broad acceptance of it until the later 4th century. It was not originally a Christian writing at all, meaning that the Ebionites did not subscribe to the Deity of Jesus Christ but only his supposed 'lordship'.
Now see here how sleepy-headed all our opponents are, and how little it helps a man to rely on the ancient fathers, for all their repute down the course of the ages! Were they not all equally blind to, yes, and heeldess of, Paul's clearest and and plainest words?
--Martin Luther
Saint Nicholas (04-10-2012), trav (04-09-2012)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks