Saturday, September 30, 2017

Six Points On Luther’s “Epistle of Straw” Comment

Originally posted April 3, 2007 at aomin.org

Almost five hundred years after the fact, Roman Catholics still scrutinize Martin Luther. One the most popular quotations from Luther is the infamous "epistle of straw" remark, directed at the canonicity of the book of James. It really is amazing how frequently this citation appears. It is usually brought forth as proof one must believe an infallible church authored an infallible list of infallible books. Without this, one subjectively decides which books are canonical, like Martin Luther supposedly did in the sixteenth century.If you find yourself in dialog facing this quote, there are a few facts and arguments you should know.

   First, this quote only appears in Luther's original 1522 Preface to the New Testament. After 1522, all the editions of Luther's Bible dropped the "epistle of straw" comment, along with the entire paragraph that placed value judgments on particular biblical books. It was Luther himself who edited these comments out. For anyone to continue to cite Luther's "epistle of straw" comment against him is to do him an injustice. He saw fit to retract the comment. Subsequent citations of this quote should bear this in mind.

   Second, detractors are keen on selectively quoting Luther's preface to James. Most often cited are only those comments that express negativity. If one takes the times to actually read Luther's comments about James, he praises it and considers it a "good book" "because it sets up no doctrine of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God." Rarely have I seen Luther detractors inform a reader Luther praises James, or respects God's law. On the other hand, I have seen many Catholics insist Luther was either morally corrupt or an antinomian. Luther though insists James is worthy of praise because it puts forth Gods law.

   Third, Luther does appear to have held lifelong doubts about the canonicity of James, but it wasn't because he was purely subjective as Roman Catholics claim. He did not whimsically dismiss Biblical books simply because he did not like their content. Luther was aware of the disputed authenticity of the book. Eusebius and Jerome both recorded doubts to the apostolicity and canonicity of James. Luther did not consider James to be James the Apostle. He wasn't alone in this. The great humanist Scholar Erasmus likewise questioned the authenticity of James, as did Cardinal Cajetan, one of the leading 16th Century Roman Catholic scholars.

   Fourth, it is true Luther had a contextual problem with the content on James. He saw a contradiction between Paul and James on faith and works. Some conclude Luther missed the harmonization between these two Biblical writers, but this isn't true either. Luther's great biographer Roland Bainton pointed out, "Once Luther remarked that he would give his doctor's beret to anyone who could reconcile James and Paul. Yet he did not venture to reject James from the canon of Scripture, and on occasion earned his own beret by effecting reconciliation. 'Faith,' he wrote, 'is a living, restless thing. It cannot be inoperative. We are not saved by works; but if there be no works, there must be something amiss with faith' " [Here I Stand, 259]. In The Disputation Concerning Justification, Luther answered this spurious proposition: Faith without works justifies, Faith without works is dead [Jas. 2:17, 26]. Therefore, dead faith justifies. Luther responded:
   "The argument is sophistical and the refutation is resolved grammatically. In the major premise, 'faith' ought to be placed with the word 'justifies' and the portion of the sentence 'without works justifies' is placed in a predicate periphrase and must refer to the word 'justifies,' not to 'faith.' In the minor premise, 'without works' is truly in the subject periphrase and refers to faith. We say that justification is effective without works, not that faith is without works. For that faith which lacks fruit is not an efficacious but a feigned faith. 'Without works' is ambiguous, then. For that reason this argument settles nothing. It is one thing that faith justifies without works; it is another thing that faith exists without works. [LW 34: 175-176].
   Even though Luther arrived at the harmonizing solution, it is probably the case that the question of James' apostleship out-weighed it. One cannot argue Luther was never presented with a harmonization between Paul and James. He seems to have granted the validity of it, yet still questioned the canonicity of the book.

   Fifth, its important to point out the double standard at play when Catholics bring up Luther's opinion on James. If it comes up, hypothetically grant the validity of the Roman Catholic Church declaring the contents of the canon. Then point out Erasmus, Luther, and Cajetan formed their opinions and debated these issues previous to the Council of Trent's declaration. The New Catholic Encyclopedia points out,
   "According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the Biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Church (at the Council of Trent). Before that time there was some doubt about the canonicity of certain Biblical books, i.e., about their belonging to the canon."
   Erasmus, Cajetan, and Luther had every right within the Catholic system to engage in Biblical criticism and debate over the extent of the Canon. All expressed some doubt.Their's was not a radical higher criticism. The books they questioned were books that had been questioned by previous generations. None were so extreme as to engage in Marcion-like canon-destruction. Both Erasmus and Luther translated the entirety of Bible, and published it.

   Finally, Luther says he cannot include James among his 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." These are hardly the words of one claiming to be an infallible authority or a "super-pope" (as one Catholic apologist used to claim). This points out an important flaw in Catholic argumentation. Some actually argue as if we think Luther was an infallible authority. Luther didn't think he was, and I've yet to meet a Protestant who considers him anything more than a sinner saved by grace, imperfect, yet used by God during a crucial period in history.

7 comments:

Daniel said...

I agree, people are always taking Luther out of context, I've even had good Protestants accuse Luther of being a total anti-Semitic, which I believe is out of the context as well. Think if we were judged on every idle comment or thought.

John Burger said...

The real problem is seeing Luther as the deliverer of Christian Truth Proper.
He was heavily flawed and overreached. Calvin was the full realization of this pendulum swing that essentially resulted in cognitive dissonance

We have a man who felt he had the right to tell God what He does. Calvin then proceedes to completely contradict what he believes and sets up the all-time greatest display of Christian confusion with his theocracy of Legalism. So much for grace.

So as Christians I think it's important to not romanticize the reformation as some unveiling of the unbridled truth. Obviously something had to change because the RCC had clearly gone off the rails. But murders, burning at the stake, hunting down those they disagree with and a host of other despicable acts demonstrate that this was not the beacon of light many make it out to be.

It's sad really. What failures we all are. Seeking power. Pet doctrines as excuses to branch off into yet another denomination. We should all let go of the so called doctrines that "go beyond what is written" and strive for Mere Christianity, Doing** what Christ said Instead of making our religion simply a mental exercise in which all we do is pick apart the Bible all day, fighting over what it says - as if that's our mission. Of course it's the lazy way out... appointing ourselves Scribes while real Christians feed the hungry.

Just a thought- intended for me, internet scribes, many in power in the church etc

Elmer G. White said...

Luther should have easily used book of James to explode all Roman Catholic claims, showing them to be utterly deceived, disobedient idolators. But being one himself, apparently, he was unable to use this supersharp sword against his religious enemies.

Rebelling against a false system does not make one automatically right. Some Adventists have rebelled against the SDA denomination and joined with Roman Catholicism! Both systems promote their own false teachers and false christs. Rank idolatry. Cheaper to just purchase a wooden idol from www .idols4cheap.com !! Cut out all the middlemen and fancy mental gymnastics! Plus book of James becomes an epistle of straw! Win, win, win.

"Without Me you can do nothing" John 15:5 -- and He owes no man anything. He doesn't owe it to chasten unelect about their idolatry, and He did not owe Luther the ability to swing book of James, like a sharp ax, at Roman Catholicism.

Elmer G. White said...

Perhaps Luther's instructing others to take whatever random position on Revelation they desire is identical to teaching people to assert SELF instead of denying self, as Jesus commanded. From this viewpoint Luther's actions are seen as antichrist. Wasn't he accusing the Roman Catholic system of being antichrist? Just because he rebelled against a false system of belief does not automatically guarantee that he was correct. Ever see a Mormon refute that system, only to be "converted" by the Seventh-day Adventist false movement? I have. My 1970's-college-buddy's mother did just that. My brother-in-law's mother went from Adventism into Mormonism! Cuckoo for coco-puffs! What kookyness. What explains all this is Jesus' teaching: "without Me you can do nothing" taken with a dose of "the flesh counts for nothing", and another bit of extreme good news!! ==> "I give life to whom I please" Jesus-given spiritual life does not manifest itself by giving aid and comfort to satan-honoring religions or swapping one false cult for another.

Elmer G. White said...

Perhaps Luther was taking his own advice, "sinning boldly" while sinning intentionally to "spite the devil"? A coupla more examples that you cannot find Jesus teaching in scripture, putting Luther in severe jeopardy if 2 John 1:9-11 is to be taken seriously, not to mention his mouth defiling his lords-supper-pretending soul according to Jesus at Mark 7:15,20-23. Maybe Luther is attempting to signal his not-having-God status by violating these passages. Not such good news for Luther.

It can be seen that Luther worshipped a "jesus" of his own clever creation. This particular idol also could not find Christ in Revelation. Unfortunately, lewd faith-alone in idols does not bring about justification. It can bring about strong delusion unto damnation, though -- 2 Thess 2:10-12

Elmer G. White said...

And to find Luther partaking of the Lords Supper unworthily, just over the top. I would be quite embarrassed to take Luthers name or fake christ upon myself. Scripture actually recommends against such. Doing so would disqualify me from the Lords Supper.

BTW, to Daniel @ 12:26 PM, November 11, 2017, the SDA cult also constantly complains about people taking Ellen G White out of CONTEXT whenever it is shown that their false she-prophet opposed scripture (she continually fails to deny self, even though dead for a century, violating Jesus' command). But it is merely the SDA telling one more delusional falsehood (failing to deny self) in the hopes of extricating himself from whatever scriptural jam their false belief system put them in. Pretty interesting, bearing false witness against others (constantly resorting to out-of-CONTEXT accusations while they continue to promote their false christ = idolatry) while claiming to keep Saturdays holy per Exodus 20:8!! They really think they are 10-commandment keepers! Only thing is, James 2:10 proves that these deluded, self-centered, self-asserting liars keep nothing holy, keep zero of the 10-commandments. Their claims about being the remnant church are totally exploded, they actually have no reason to exist as a denomination other than to entice and deceive others into their wicked false message, schisms, and idolatry. And collect lots of tithe and offering money via their religious fraudulence.

Never once did Luther warn others about believing in the false christ he promoted. Neither do Mormons or SDA's give warnings about their idols. Such is the nature of God-sent, strong delusion. God does not owe Luther or any other cult chastening and correction. Jesus' teachings were in scripture, in front of Luther for decades, but he was a hearer, not a doer of Jesus' words, deceiving himself, James 1:22. Ditto for the dozens of cults that exist. The only thing self-deception proves is dead faith. Same as faith without good works ~~ another James meme. Too bad Luther had no use for book of James, it's a wonderful deflation tool against idol-promoting, false belief systems otherwise known as denominations.

Elmer G. White said...

By way of example, every single Adventist zealot (plug in whatever false system here) partakes of their "false lord's" supper unworthily, eating and drinking damnation unto themselves, utterly deceived, deluded. God never owed any of them chastening, Heb 12:8. He merely turns them over to their comfortable, stubborn rebellion, which we see from 1 Samuel 15:23 is the same as witchcraft and idolatry. That should tell you who they have been tricked into worshipping, while saying "Lord, Lord" all the time, ending in total disaster, Luke 6:46-49. A big failure to deny self. Big self deception, James 1:22 strikes again. The results and punishment are the same as outright, full strength, satan worship.


Sent from my Galaxie Tab® E