I know a few :-)
I gave a Catholic Bible to a coworker. To my astonishment, she told me that her pastor asked her cut off the "apocryphal" books and mutilate the Bible.
Therefore, when you find in a single book--2 Macc., for example--a teaching that is absent from and contradicted by the rest of Scripture, the proper response is that taken by the Reformation: You recognize that the book is not inspired by the Holy Spirit "for God is not the author of confusion" (1 Cor. 14:33).
Thank you for posting a Protestant outlook on the Maccabees.
Of course, I disagree with your argument, since such reasoning can be used to reject James [jusfication by works, not faith alone] versus Romans [justification by faith alone].
At any rate, these minor religious arguments are never going to be settled among Christians, but I enjoyed reading your well-thought-out post.
No, these are dissimilar. James teaches something that is taught throughout the Bible--faith should prompt us to good works, and if we care nothing for good works we have reason to doubt the sincerity of our faith. If you want to throw out James saying that it teaches that works alone save us, you'll need to throw out the words of Jesus in Matthew 26:31-46, in which God tells those who helped the needy in life to enter his kingdom, while those who refused to help are told, "Depart from me." This is also evidenced in the "faith chapter" in Hebrews. Hebrews 11:13-16 talks about those who had faith and were actively seeking a heavenly country, not sitting around complacently. James points out that demons have belief in God, but they actively war against him. I believe some people do this, while others profess to be Christian and claim to have faith in God, but their actions make them out to be liars.
The inclusion of James was debated due to this very objection, but it was agreed that the books were coherent when viewed with a proper understanding.
You're kidding. No, clearly you're not, but geez . . . Mind you, I could understand cutting out 2 Esdras (why exactly does that particular book count as canon?), but heck, Maccabees does a great job of bridging the Testaments historically whether you regard it as canon or not.
For the record, I have a Catholic Bible in my collection, and I've never mutilated it. :)
Of course, I disagree with your argument, since such reasoning can be used to reject James [jusfication by works, not faith alone] versus Romans [justification by faith alone].
That was one of the struggles Luther faced. However, James simply teaches that a faith that does not exibit itself in deeds is dead, especially when it comes to how the outside world views us. "Show me your faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works" (2:17). If Abraham had had faith in God but not gone to Canaan, how would we have known?
Besides, even James admits that one cannot keep the Law (2:10); ergo, salvation cannot be from one's works.
In any case, I think more Catholics should actually read what Luther said about the relation of faith and deeds before they categate him:
Faith, however, is a divine work in us. It changes us and makes us to be born anew of God (John 1); it kills the old Adam and makes altogether different men . . . Oh, it is a living, busy, active, mighty thing, this faith; and so it is impossible for it not to do good works incessantly. . . He who does not these works is a faithless man.Catholicism, if you will forgive me for the observation, confuses the matter on two points. First, it zeroes in on James and ignores Paul's repeated statements and arguments that a person is saved by faith, not works (e.g. Rom. 3:20-28, Eph. 2:8-9), and as a result, puts the cart before the horse. If one is saved by the grace of God received soley by faith (that is, by believing God's promise as Abraham did), then good works will naturally follow. If, however, one is trying to do good works to earn salvation, then one is not trusting in God's promise to save all who believe in Jesus Christ (e.g. John 3:16), meaning that one does not have the Biblical definition of faith.
--Introduction to the Commentary on Romans
And second, Catholicism assumes that the works James is talking about are ritualized, that the sacrament of penance, for example, is a necessary work for sins to be forgiven, that one must partake of the Eucharist properly blessed by a Catholic priest, and so on. Not so. If you read James in full, he makes no mention of such things, but speaks instead of taming the tongue, living with humility, not oppressing the poor, and other things that we might call "general" good.
Of course, there are many Protestants who treat salvation as a cheap thing, something to be prayed for once and then basically forgotten. Too many have forgotten discipleship, sanctification, and growth in the Spirit. I fully acknowledge that. That doesn't prove that the Protestant ideals of sola gracia and sola scriptura are wrong, just that many or most of those who call themselves Protestant Christians haven't actually studied the Scriptures and don't appreciate what God's grace cost Him or how much more He wants for their lives.
I think Gibson's movie may change that last lack for at least a few, and I'd like to tip my hat to him for it.
At any rate, these minor religious arguments are never going to be settled among Christians, but I enjoyed reading your well-thought-out post.
Never say never. There's always the Second Coming to straighten things out. :^)