Regarding James, in his preface he states,
“Though this epistle of St. James was rejected by the ancients, 1 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.”
The problem is that James was talking about the works of faith ( not works of the Law ) Paul was talking about works of the law, they had no argument because they were not even talking about the same thing.
But if Luther thought that James was not an apostle he was probably right, as James was most likely an older step brother who became a believer after Jesus,s death along with his other brothers and sisters and mother Mary.
There is no indication that any of jesus,s family was followers of him.
(I am not stating that as fact but the scriptures seem to put much more sense in that than any thing else.)
If a group of farmers in one country are trying to read a letter from a farmer from another country and a different language they may have a problem but then a professor comes along and deciphers it for them is he also expected to understand it?
No, after it is translated the farmers should then be expected to understand it much better than the professor.
That may be a poor example but we go on and on about what some professor said hundreds of years ago, and they go on about what some one else said before them.
We have the same scripture they did, we do not agree any more than they did and we are not going to agree because we like them all want it to say what we want it to say.
An example
Luke 22:44 (King James Version)
44
And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
Even the doctors will tell you that it might be possible, but what the heck are we talking about? why are people asking if it is possible to sweat blood when it does not say that jesus sweat blood, the scripture says that it was (as it were great drops of blood falling to the ground, sweat is water.
So the so called doctors of religion, the professors go on an on about how Jesus could have sweat blood, why not ask a working man or woman, a fisherman, a lumberjack, miner, farmer,construction worker, any one who actually works for a living.
They can tell you what its like to sweat as it were great drops of blood falling to the ground, but most of them can not tell you how it could be done by praying.
If we believe the scripture s are nothing more than an alice in wonderland story then i guess we should be able to read them to suit our selves and change what we don,t like to something more to our liking.
If we really believe, why would we want to change any thing
or are we like the religious leaders who had Jesus killed,
just pretenders, pretend we believe in something we don,t just to be on the band wagon, out to get our share of the gravey.
And some people say that this is the generation of Christians that will be taken up in a rapture, they have got to be kidding.
This is part of an extensive debate, but a careful reading of Rm. 4 shows Paul was not simply referring to works of the law, as Abraham was not under the law, and was justifed before he was even circumcised, and "not by works of righteousness" (Titus 3:5; written to a Gentile) and "not by works" (Eph. 2:9) and "not according to our works" (2Tim. 1:9) has no qualification as to what kind of works, but disallows any system in which souls are justified and are given the gift of eternal life by morally worthiness.
God-given faith is the instrument that procures justification in Rm. 4, as like Abraham being unable to effect God's promise, man is destitute of any merit whereby he may gain eternal life, and his works actually make him worthy of eternal damnation, and thus he can only be saved on Christ's blood-expense and righteousness, his faith in Him being counted for righteousness, a Abraham's was.
But saving faith and works are basically inseparably, as the former will effect obedience to the will of its Object, and while one receives initial justification by imputed righteousness, yet works of faith by the Spirit confirm one is saved. (Rm. 10:9,10) And this being a characteristic of salvific faith - and repentance when convicted of not doing so - thus "not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." (Romans 2:13) Faith without works is not a living faith that is from God, and one must continue in faith. (Heb. 6:9-12)
Yet as in baptism by desire and "perfect contrition" which Rome allows, this must allow for salvation even in the case wherein a soul cannot evidence any formal works of repentance. God sees the heart, and Cornelius and household were born again before baptism, though they were pious but lost to begin with, and "confessed Christ" by magnifying God.
This issue is also part of the issue of grace and freedom of the will, such as seen in the Congregatio de Auxiliis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congregatio_de_Auxiliis) unresolved debate