Epistle of James

Luther argues that James is not of apostolic authorship for two reasons:

  [i] It is contradictory to what Paul and the "rest of Scripture" claims by ascribing justification to works.

  [ii] It does not proclaim the passion, resurrection and spirit of Christ (such proclamation being indicative of what counts as the gospel).

First of all, why can't one suggest that James and Paul (in Romans) are denoting two distinct sequential aspects of a single process?  For even though both are using the same term (justification) and using the same example (Abraham), it seems that they are talking about two different topics, which is most evident given the purpose and context of each epistle.  Indeed, it would appear that Paul is concerned with contrasting faith not from works simpliciter, but from "works of the Law" (probably both the moral and the ceremonial laws).  But such does not exclude works tout court, in particular the works that stem from the fruits of the Spirit.  As Dallas Willard often says, grace is not opposed to effort, but it is opposed to earning.  In fact, the Old Testament laws were not intended on saving and redeeming the people of God; rather, it was an elaborate life-support system to prevent greater moral and spiritual decay until the time came when the new covenant would be established and Christ Himself would come and pour new life into His people.

Now some contemporary Lutherans, especially those who desire to retain James in the canon, claim that the works are merely a fruit or consequence of the justification which is established by faith alone; however, that is not the most obvious interpretation of that passage in James.  There's much to be said about justification; but that's for another time.

Next, one should wonder why proclaiming Christ is the criterion for apostolic authorship.  I am NOT suggesting that proclaiming Christ is not the most central and fundamental message, because I think it most certainly is.  But why should that function as the criterion for inclusion of texts into the canon?  After all, Philemon does not seem to be concerned with such proclamations (just telling a slave to go home), and some of the other letters seem to have immediate purposes that are not primarily about such proclamations (though the person and mission of Christ is the framework and basis for most of what is said).  What must be examined is the original criteria for canonicity, which (sorry to say again) is for another post.

Lastly, if one's overall theology rejects tradition and the magisterium, then how will one ward off other attempts to preclude other texts in the Scripture based on some criterion which is itself not based on Scripture?  For Luther's criterion is itself not based on Scripture--it does not tell us to include only the books that proclaim Christ.  But if one relies only on Sola Scriptura, then one can perhaps posit another non-Scriptural criterion and reject other books based on that.

For instance, consider a homosexual who thinks that the primary message of Christ is to proclaim his acceptance of the down-trodden (prostitutes, Mary Magdalene, the slutty Samaritan woman and other outcasts), and that love is the primary concept, which seems quite sensible given a whole host of passages regarding love.  Advancing the criterion of canonicity to be such that it must proclaim Christ's love even to the sexually reprehensible, one could then argue that Romans should be ruled out as being a part of the canon since it goes against other books in the Scripture that evince the features in the proposed criterion.

Obviously I don't think this is plausible; however, solely from what Luther has said and from Sola Scriptura, I can't think of a reason for ruling out this person's criterion of canonicity--thus, as Luther takes James less seriously (and can ignore the justification by works clause), so the homosexual can take Romans less seriously (and can ignore the censure against homosexuality).

Both ways of reasoning, I take it, are deeply flawed.  My conclusion, then, is that one needs to provide substantive support for their criteria of canonicity that at the very least is not based on the Scriptures (otherwise, it would be circular).  What more would it be? Well, as I say, that's for another time.