How do Protestants deal with James on faith and works?


I am not aware that there are any. Salvation by grace through faith does not require animal sacrifices.

Ok. Do you make any distinction between a consequence and a punishment?

I don’t doubt it, but this is not what the Church teaches.

It is true that, since the sacraments are avenues of grace not available to Protestants, it is more of an uphill battle. But the “likelihood” of anyone getting saved is not for us to determine. Protestants are left with only part of the divine revelation, and do not have access to the fullness of faith. That being said, I think that there are a great many Protestants that do more with the less they have. God judges people based on what they do with what they received. According to the polls, the vast majority of American Catholics spurn the blood that bought them, and don’t embrace the teachings of the Apostles that were entrusted to the Church. They are in a much worse condition that Protestants, as their last condition is much worse than the first!

Sacraments are gifts from God that help us get to heaven. God does not need them, people do. God can save whoever He likes, however He wants, and has always done.

I think that Scripture is clear that these were not salvific.

No, there is nothing we can do to earn salvation.

You won’t get an argument from me about that!

LOL ok, if you say so.

If Jesus says we must forgive others their trespasses, or the Father will not forgive ours, what is that?


The servants in the parable of the Talents were in a similar position. They were given talents and were expected to produce. The expectation to produce didn’t negate the gratuitousness of the Master. Just because kids are expected to obey their parents doesn’t negate the gratuity of the care their parents provide them.


In the 1522 Luther Bible, Luther left translation of the Deuterocanonical Books and James to his contemporaries because he did not believe them to be inspired.

He called the Letter of James an “Epistle of straw” and placed it in a grouping of New Testament books he also believed not to be inspired, including the Book of Revelation.


He left off all of the OT because he was only translating the NTwhike in hiding. He did not leave any of the NT books out, even James.

He used the term epistle of straw as a comparative because, in his view, it did not speak of Gospel, but just law. Ironically, he also praised it precisely because it spoke of the law.
He questioned its canonocity because he did not believe it was the writing of the apostle.


That in itself is flawed.


@lanman87, didn’t Jesus say “To whom much is given, much is expected?” Is God’s grace any less free since we’re expected to produce fruit?


I certainly wouldn’t use the term. I just want to make sure it’s usage is accurately reflected


If you’re trying to convince me Luther thought the Letter of James and the Deuterocanonical books were divinely inspired… I’m still waiting.


I’m not, because he didn’t think they were, and he wasn’t alone in that, even among his Catholic contemporaries.
I just want to make sure his POV is accurately portrayed.


Forgive me. But I tire of this.


Get some rest , then. :grin:


Rather, let’s put it to rest. 500 years is enough. :sunglasses:


Jon, you are still way to invested in the man-made doctrine of bible alone. I find that sad and vexing.

ML was so utterly hyperbolic during his manic phases that he could not be believed! Those who DARED oppose him were the “very mouth organ of Satan” - regarding Erasmus, who tried to defend ML’s reforms - until he saw that they were not reforms at all.

Martin Luther’s description of the Epistle of James changes. In some cases, Luther argues that it was not written by an apostle; but in other cases, he describes James as the work of an apostle.[47] He even cites it as authoritative teaching from God[48] and describes James as “a good book, because it sets up no doctrines of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God.”[49] Lutherans hold that the Epistle is rightly part of the New Testament, citing its authority in the Book of Concord,[44] however it remains part of the Lutheran antilegomena.[50]
47. Die deutsche Bibel 41:578-90
48. Luther’s Large Catechism, IV 122-24
49. Luther’s Works (American Edition) 35:395
50. “Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod - Christian Cyclopedia”.

So, which Martin Luther do we believe?

The Protestant reformer Martin Luther denied it was the work of an apostle and termed it an “epistle of straw”[14] as compared to some other books in the New Testament, partly because of the conflict he thought it raised with Paul on the doctrine of justification
14. “History of the Christian Church, book 7, chapter 4”

Aha! It conflicted with ML’s personal opinion of justification. Thus, Melanchthon’s apologia.

I have no idea why you endeavor to defend the indefensible. He has human dignity and is beloved of God, but his thoughts, words and actions are indefensible.


On this we can agree. :+1:


Where, specifically, did I defend him? I was just correcting what I believe you misunderstand about total depravity.

Who cares? I wouldn’t suggest to a Catholic to believe what Luther says about the canon. I just expect the story to be told accurately.
It isn’t necessarily contradictory to say, on the one hand, it sets up no doctrine of men, while on the other questioning the authorship as many did going back to Eusebius.

The part highlighted needs a citation when Luther states this as his reason. It’s like the unsubstantiated claim that his friends talked him out of exclusion of books. I’ve seen no citation.

Again, a citation where Melanchthon states this as his reason. If you have one, great, because Luther was wrong about James, in my view.

The Catholic Church holds a much higher regard of him than you do.


Jon, the very concept of total depravity is nonsensical. Might as well correct me for misunderstanding Bozo the Clown. Truthfully, an in-depth and 100% accurate account of ML is even more horrifying that the popular fables.

Erasmus was allied with ML early on, regarding behavioral abuses in the Church. As time progressed and ML’s intent to re-write the faith in his own image became clear, Erasmus was bound by conscience to disagree. For the utter temerity to do so, Der Herr Doktor Luther then wrote that Erasmus was “the very mouth organ of Satan.” Really?

It is common knowledge that he was convinced that the pope was the antichrist. To this day, it remains in the Lutheran confession. ML apparently chose to disregard the scriptures, as the antichrist is clearly defined in 1 John 4. Did ML somehow miss that letter? No, but his hyperbolic-manic nature drove him right past it. is there a better explanation?


These kinds of comments don’t advance your position. And because you’re out of step with your own communion on the issue of Martin Luther isn’t something I can comment on.


If that were true we’d believe in faith alone. But we don’t. That in itself is telling.


And, just what would that position be?


Did you read the article?
Have you read is documents under “From Conflict to Communion “?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit