Gadolig Nadzee ///

James 1 22 But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.[c] 23 For if any one is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who observes his natural face in a mirror; 24 for he observes himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. 25 But he who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer that forgets but a doer that acts, he shall be blessed in his doing. 26 If any one thinks he is religious, and does not bridle his tongue but deceives his heart, this man’s religion is vain. 27 Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world. It's no wonder why Luther hated James, what is a wonder is how anyone still falls for it.

Oh look, protestant retards being retarded. The Catholic church NEVER forbid the laity from reading scripture. For most of history the common man was illiterate, the Word of God was preached not read. Also, Tyndale was executed not for simply translating the Bible, but for "translating" the Bible with errors and heresy in it when he was told not to do it and there was no need as there already were multiple English translations already completed that didn't contain errors or heresy. https://t.me/ChristianMemes/1999

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. 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?"(https://www.pristinegrace.org/media.php?id=1158) In the second paragraph he says that the Epistle of James is "flatly against St. Paul and all the rest of scripture in ascribing justification to works." Martin Luther, by his own words, is convinced by the testimony of the Epistle of James, which is Scripture, that justification is ascribed to works. How then does he reconcile this? That's an answer that is a bit more complicated because that changed throughout his life, the most egregious of which is removing the Epistle of James from the canon of Scripture in his Bible(a move he later reversed). You see here very clearly that Martin Luther was not submitting himself to scripture as a captive, but held himself up as the highest authority on matters of faith and morals and Scripture was subject to him. "Martin, there is no one of the heresies which have torn the bosom of the church, which has not derived its origin from the various interpretation of the Scripture. The Bible itself is the arsenal whence each innovator has drawn his deceptive arguments. It was with biblical texts that Pelagius and Arius maintained their doctrines. Arius, for instance, found the negation of the eternity of the Word—an eternity which you admit, in this verse of the New Testament—Joseph knew not his wife till she had brought forth her first-born son; and he said, in the same way that you say, that this passage enchained him. When the fathers of the council of Constance condemned this proposition of John Huss—The church of Jesus Christ is only the community of the elect, they condemned an error; for the church, like a good mother, embraces within her arms all who bear the name of Christian, all who are called to enjoy the celestial beatitude."-John Eck at the Diet of Worms.

On Martin Luther and his lies. "Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen." The above quote is attributed to Martin Luther from the Diet of Worms in which he was made to render an account for the errors he had been teaching, and you will often find better read protestants quoting it with a sort of moral self-righteousness equating their theology with scripture. It is rather effective rhetorically, after all the conflation of their own opinions and interpretations with the infallible and inerrant Word of God makes it seem as though attacking their theology is attacking scripture itself and also suggests, as Luther had intended to suggest by this utterance, that if you can show where in scripture their theological conclusions are in error they will submit to scripture. This is a premise we can put to the test in argument with protestants, but in this piece I want to specifically examine if this premise was true for Martin Luther, specifically if he was convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason that his doctrine of Sola Fide was in error would his conscience be captive to the Word of God or would he obstinantly persist in believing his error. To answer this question we can simply look at his preface to James from his Bible, after all James 2:24 seems to very clearly contradict Sola Fide stating " You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." Here is what Martin Luther had to say in his preface to James: "Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, 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.

Giving the new setup a shakedown on Dlive.tv/NazCath1589 come hang out and watch me boomer everything up