Because he had not yet matured to the point of understanding that James was speaking not of justification by works, but evidence of true faith (James 2:24).
Not true. Luther understood this well as this citation from his confession proves:
Quote
Apology to the Augsburg Confession 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. 128] He says that that is dead which does not bring forth good works [and fruits of the Spirit obedience, patience, chastity, love]; he says that that is living which brings forth good works. Furthermore, we have frequently already shown what we term faith. For we do not speak of idle knowledge [that merely the history concerning Christ should be known], such as devils have, but of faith which resists the terrors of conscience, and cheers and consoles terrified hearts [the new light and power which the Holy Ghost works in the heart, through which we overcome the terrors of death, of sin, etc.].
Luther taught from James in many of his writings and sermons. What Luther objected to was the Pope raising certain secondary books of the old and new testament including James to the same level as the accepted books on the basis of his infallibility without offering any proof. This was covered in an earlier thread if you check the archives.
Good works prove that faith is real, as all the Reformers taught, but Luther would be appalled at the new enthusiasts who seek divine assurance by looking inward rather than to the outward word.
Quote
Smalcald Articles, Martin Luther In a word, enthusiasm inheres in Adam and his children from the beginning [from the first fall] to the end of the world, [its poison] having been implanted and infused into them by the old dragon, and is the origin, power [life], and strength of all heresy, especially of that of the Papacy and Mahomet. Therefore we ought and must constantly maintain this point, that God does not wish to deal with us otherwise than through the spoken Word and the Sacraments. It is the devil himself whatsoever is extolled as Spirit without the Word and Sacraments.
speratus said: What Satan can not counterfeit is the promise of the gospel. We know our sins are forgiven, not on account of a virtuous faith or agape love, but because God has promised the forgiveness of sins to them that believe.
This is "hogwash"!! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scold.gif" alt="" /> The ONLY way that such a statement could be true is if someone presumed that their alleged faith is genuine. This is circular reasoning (illogical) at its best. It fails to answer the question, "How can I know that I belong to Christ and have received forgiveness of sins?" As flunky1 pointed out, as I have also in numerous replies in this thread, the demons believe and tremble but are enemies of God. Do you reject the verity of the book of James? Do you reject that true faith is manifested outwardly with works which are observable by men? Do you stand opposed to the inspired write of Hebrews
I have patiently maintained the needful difference between outward proof based on works and divine assurance which is obtained through the means of grace. Although works always follow faith, to deny assurance without works is to deny justification by faith alone. Do you agree with Luther?
Quote
Let Your Sins be StrongIf you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. . . It suffices that through God's glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins?
Because he had not yet matured to the point of understanding that James was speaking not of justification by works, but evidence of true faith (James 2:24).
speratus replied,
Not true. Luther understood this well as this citation from his confession proves:
Really, NOT TRUE? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" />
Luther was not always theologically correct which you would more fully understand if you studied his works in any “unbiased” detail.
It is well known that Luther was frustrated by the works-emphasis of the book of James, calling it “the Epistle of Straw” and questioning its canonicity. He was also irritated with the complex symbolism of the Book of Revelation and once said that it too, was not canon!
However, don’t trust me lets just look at some of Luther’s more controversial statements from Luther’s Table Talk and from some of his biographies:
Quote
"I maintain that some Jew wrote it [the Book of James] who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any."
"We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school [the University of Wittenberg]...."
Now, if these are not enough to entice you to his imperfection of speech and belief maybe his actual prefaces to James, Jude and the Revelation, from the first edition of his New Testament translated into English will assist you. The brackets are addition comments by me and not in the original documents:
Quote
<p align="center">Preface to the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude (1522)</p>Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients [its canonical status was doubted by some, not all], I praise it and consider it a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God. However, to state my own opinion about it, though without prejudice to anyone, I do not regard it as the writing of an apostle; and my reasons follow.
In the first place it is flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of Scripture in ascribing justification to works. It says that Abraham was justified by his works when he offered his son Isaac; though in Romans 4 St. Paul teaches to the contrary that Abraham was justified apart from works, by his faith alone, before he had offered his son, and proves it by Moses in Genesis 15. Now although this epistle might be helped and an interpretation devised for this justification by works, it cannot be defended in its application to works of Moses' statement in Genesis 15. For Moses is speaking here only of Abraham's faith, and not of his works, as St. Paul demonstrates in Romans 4. This fault, therefore, proves that this epistle is not the work of any apostle.
In the second place its purpose is to teach Christians, but in all this long teaching it does not once mention the Passion, the resurrection, or the Spirit of Christ. He names Christ several times; however he teaches nothing about him, but only speaks of general faith in God. Now it is the office of a true apostle to preach of the Passion and resurrection and office of Christ, and to lay the foundation for faith in him, as Christ himself says in John 15, "You shall bear witness to me." All the genuine sacred books agree in this, that all of them preach and inculcate [treiben] Christ. And that is the true test by which to judge all books, when we see whether or not they inculcate Christ. For all the Scriptures show us Christ, Romans 3; and St. Paul will know nothing but Christ, I Corinthians 2. Whatever does not teach Christ is not apostolic, even though St. Peter or St. Paul does the teaching. Again, whatever preaches Christ would be apostolic, even if Judas, Annas, Pilate, and Herod were doing it.
But this James does nothing more than drive to the law and to its works. Besides, he throws things together so chaotically that it seems to me he must have been some good, pious man, who took a few sayings from the disciples of the apostles and thus tossed them off on paper. Or it may perhaps have been written by someone on the basis of his preaching. He calls the law a "law of liberty," though Paul calls it a law of slavery, of wrath, of death, and of sin.
Moreover he cites the sayings of St. Peter: "Love covers a multitude of sins," and again, "Humble yourselves under the hand of God;" also the saying of St. Paul in Galatians 5, "The Spirit lusteth against envy." And yet, in point of time, St. James was put to death by Herod in Jerusalem, before St. Peter. So it seems that this author came long after St. Peter and St. Paul.
In a word, he wanted to guard against those who relied on faith without works, but was unequal to the task in spirit, thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture [The edition of 1530 omitted "in spirit, thought, and words. He mangles the Scriptures and thereby opposes Paul and all Scripture"]. He tries to accomplish by harping on the law what the apostles accomplish by stimulating people to love. Therefore, I will not have him in my Bible to be numbered among the true chief books, though I would not thereby prevent anyone from including or extolling him as he pleases, for there are otherwise many good sayings in him. One man is no man in worldly things; how, then, should this single man alone avail against Paul and all the rest of Scripture?
Concerning the epistle of St. Jude, no one can deny that it is an extract or copy of St. Peter's second epistle, so very like it are all the words. He also speaks of the apostles like a disciple who comes long after them and cites sayings and incidents that are found nowhere else in the Scriptures. This moved the ancient fathers to exclude this epistle from the main body of the Scriptures. Moreover the Apostle Jude did not go to Greek-speaking lands, but to Persia, as it is said, so that he did not write Greek. Therefore, although I value this book, it is an epistle that need not be counted among the chief books which are supposed to lay the foundations of faith.
<p align="center">Preface to the Revelation of St. John (1522)</p>About this book of the Revelation of John, I leave everyone free to hold his own opinions. I would not have anyone bound to my opinion or judgment. I say what I feel. I miss more than one thing in this book, and it makes me consider it to be neither apostolic nor prophetic.
First and foremost, the apostles do not deal with visions, but prophesy in clear and plain words, as do Peter and Paul, and Christ in the gospel. For it befits the apostolic office to speak clearly of Christ and his deeds, without images and visions. Moreover there is no prophet in the Old Testament, to say nothing of the New, who deals so exclusively with visions and images. For myself, I think it approximates the Fourth Book of Esdras; I can in no way detect that the Holy Spirit produced it.
Moreover he seems to me to be going much too far when he commends his own book so highly -- indeed, more than any of the other sacred books do, though they are much more important -- and threatens that if anyone takes away anything from it, God will take away from him, etc. Again, they are supposed to be blessed who keep what is written in this book; and yet no one knows what that is, to say nothing of keeping it. This is just the same as if we did not have the book at all. And there are many far better books available for us to keep.
Many of the fathers also rejected this book a long time ago; although St. Jerome, to be sure, refers to it in exalted terms and says that it is above all praise and that there are as many mysteries in it as words. Still, Jerome cannot prove this at all, and his praise at numerous places is too generous.
Finally, let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is neither taught nor known in it. But to teach Christ, this is the thing which an apostle is bound above all else to do; as Christ says in Acts 1, "You shall be my witnesses." Therefore I stick to the books which present Christ to me clearly and purely.
Moreover, what does the Apology to the Augsburg Confession have to do with what Luther wrote, it was written by Philip Melanchthon NOT Martin Luther. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" /> Luther later did accept these, but these are the works of Melanchthon, not Luther and they were in 1531 and NOT 1522. If you will recall my quote I stated, "he had not yet matured to the point of understanding that James was speaking not of justification by works, but evidence of true faith (James 2:24)," in answer to Tom's question. IMO the Luther's quotes above more then undermine your statement saying, "What Luther objected to was the Pope raising certain secondary books of the old and new testament including James to the same level as the accepted books on the basis of his infallibility without offering any proof. " There are other errors in you previous post, however this one is long enough......
Now, you are either very unfamiliar with Luther and his writings or you purposely attempted to deceive us! Will you repent?
speratus said: I have patiently maintained the needful difference between outward proof based on works and divine assurance which is obtained through the means of grace. Although works always follow faith, to deny assurance without works is to deny justification by faith alone. Do you agree with Luther?
Let Your Sins be Strong. If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. . . It suffices that through God's glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager sacrifice for our sins?
I fail to see what the quote above has to do with the subject of "Assurance"? And secondly, "No!", I do not agree with those words of Luther as they appear apart from their actual context. I believe I understand the point he was trying to make, e.g., Romans 8:31-39. However, his hypothetical example is contrary to Scriptural teaching concerning the inextricable relationship between justification and sanctification. It may be that Luther wrote this early on as he did change his mind on several matters as he matured in the faith. But regardless.... you provided the quote obviously as "proof" for your personal view. And in doing so, you have erred, even twice: 1) resting on the writing of a man rather than Scripture, 2) resting on a spurious statement and not the truth.
Now, you are either very unfamiliar with Luther and his writings or you purposely attempted to deceive us! Will you repent?
I am familiar with Luther's work but I tend to consign everything he has written contrary to his confessions to the rubbish pile.
When I read your statement I did not understand it as speaking chronologically (an understandable mistake considering the context of the statement but still inexcusable). I apologize for misinterpreting your statement.
I had no intent to deceive and, in fact, your research proves me accurate in all respects. The Apology is Luther's confession which puts it at a much higher level than his earlier personal writings which often contradict each other. He was unwilling to accept James simply based on Papist Church canon without proof.
Pilgrim said: you provided the quote obviously as "proof" for your personal view. And in doing so, you have erred, even twice: 1) resting on the writing of a man rather than Scripture, 2) resting on a spurious statement and not the truth.
No. I provided the quote in order to ask your opinion. Scripture is the sole standard by which all writings are judged.
Thanks for your apology. However, my research (as you called it) has not proven you correct:
First, it proves that that my initial statement to Tom was correct, that Luther had not yet matured to the point of understanding James, which is what you initially found in error.
Second, it proves The Apology is Melanchthon’s not Luther’s.
Third, it disproves your statement which says, “He was unwilling to accept James simply based on Papist Church canon without proof.” Clearly, Luther had his own reasons for “rejecting” 3 biblical books.
Quote
I am familiar with Luther's work but I tend to consign everything he has written contrary to his confessions to the rubbish pile.
Am I to assume from this that the history of what one believes has no bearing on his final beliefs? Are we then being familiar with Speratus’ work to consign everything he has written to the rubbish pile, except his final confession? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/idea.gif" alt="" />
The Apology stopped being Melanchthon's when he "matured to the point" of not agreeing with his own confession. Luther wrote in 1532, "the Augsburg Confession is mine." The Unaltered Augsburg Confession and its Apology are the property of those who confess them.
Quote
Am I to assume from this that the history of what one believes has no bearing on his final beliefs? Are we then being familiar with Speratus’ work to consign everything he has written to the rubbish pile, except his final confession?
Is that not the meaning of "Always Reforming"? Even Calvin signed the Augsburg Confession before he "matured to the point" of consigning its doctrine to the rubbish pile.
We are glad to see that you are still growing. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/bow.gif" alt="" /> If you will recall, "growth" was one point in my original post concerning Luther; "We have to remember Luther, as all of us, was a growing Christian and theologian." However, some of your posts indicate that you WILL NOT CHANGE (grow) or that you are so wanting to be right all the time you are not willing to admit any error. Please remember, within the framework of Reformed and Always Reforming there is a sub-part of I have Repented and I am Always Repenting. Though I still disagree with "most" of what you have posted, it is good that there is some hope of possible change in the future. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/cheers2.gif" alt="" />
"Always reforming" means I should each day examine my confession against scripture. "Always repenting" means I should then drown the old man in daily repentance. Does that mean I am getting better or wiser as a result of this process?
The corruption of the old man precludes any ability to improve myself apart from the work of the Spirit. I cannot of my own reason or holiness believe in Christ Jesus or grow in knowledge or obedience but the Holy Spirit has called me by the gospel, enlightens me, and keeps me in truth faith and repentance. True growth and true assurance, therefore, are works of the Spirit not by-products of self-improvement efforts.
The corruption of the old man precludes any ability to improve myself apart from the work of the Spirit. I cannot of my own reason or holiness believe in Christ Jesus or grow in knowledge or obedience but the Holy Spirit has called me by the gospel, enlightens me, and keeps me in truth faith and repentance. True growth and true assurance, therefore, are works of the Spirit not by-products of self-improvement efforts.
Who said ANYTHING about self-improvement? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" /> A Christian has repented have they not, or do you think the Holy Spirit repents for them? Think about it for a moment, if you are not repenting and acknowledging the truth of God then you are not in true communion with God. I repent continually and am able to acknowledge God's truth as I am a recipient of His grace. Is your failure to acknowledge God's truth related to this truth of Scripture?
Quote
2 Tim 2:25-26 in meekness correcting them that oppose themselves; if peradventure God may give them repentance unto the knowledge of the truth, and they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, having been taken captive by him unto his will.
Who said ANYTHING about self-improvement? A Christian has repented have they not, or do you think the Holy Spirit repents for them?
According to your reference text, repentance unto the knowledge of the truth is a gift of God not a work of man.
Quote
Think about it for a moment, if you are not repenting and acknowledging the truth of God then you are not in true communion with God. I repent continually and am able to acknowledge God's truth as I am a recipient of His grace.
Why am I repenting and acknowledging the truth of God? Why am I able to acknowledge God's truth? If repentance is a gift of God, it cannot be a good work. The definition of good work is something that a child of God does in faith. I am kept in repentance by the Holy Spirit (1 Peter 1:5; Phil. 1:6; 1 Thes. 2:13; Titus 3:5) and enlightened by His gifts (2 Cor. 4:6; Rom 15:13; 1 Peter 2:9).
The Holy Spirit gives me assurance of salvation not my good works.
speratus said: According to your reference text, repentance unto the knowledge of the truth is a gift of God not a work of man.
Why am I repenting and acknowledging the truth of God? Why am I able to acknowledge God's truth? If repentance is a gift of God, it cannot be a good work. The definition of good work is something that a child of God does in faith. I am kept in repentance by the Holy Spirit (1 Peter 1:5; Phil. 1:6; 1 Thes. 2:13; Titus 3:5) and enlightened by His gifts (2 Cor. 4:6; Rom 15:13; 1 Peter 2:9).
speratus,
Are you saying that the mind, emotions and particularly the will of man is totally absent in either or both repentance and faith; that these elements are simply created and then resident in a person's soul and upon just their presence the individual is justified?
Are you saying that the mind, emotions and particularly the will of man is totally absent in either or both repentance and faith; that these elements are simply created and then resident in a person's soul and upon just their presence the individual is justified?
I don't quite understand the question. If the individual is justified by faith alone, how can he be justified by created elements in his soul? If so, he would be justified based on his own righteousness rather than the imputed righteousness of Christ.
After regeneration, the new man delights in the law of God. He does good willingly to the extent he is lead by the Spirit. But the old man continues to be rebellious after the flesh. The good that we would do, we do not and the evil which we would not do, we do. Therefore, the flesh must be crucified in repentance, a gift that the Holy Spirit is pleased to work in us, that a new man may come forth in righteousness and holiness (Eph. 4:22-24).
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/shootfoot.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/Ask.gif)
