<P> "If Luther's negative view of these books were based only upon the fact that their canonicity was disputed in early times, 2 Peter might have been included among them, because this epistle was doubted more than any other in ancient times ." However, the prefaces that Luther affixed to these four books makes it evident "that his low view of them was more due to his theological reservations than with any historical investigation of the canon ." </P> <P> In his book Basic Theology, Charles Caldwell Ryrie countered the claim that Luther rejected the Book of James as being canonical . In his preface to the New Testament, Luther ascribed to several books of the New Testament different degrees of doctrinal value: "St. John's Gospel and his first Epistle, St. Paul's Epistles, especially those to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and St. Peter's Epistle - these are the books which show to thee Christ, and teach everything that is necessary and blessed for thee to know, even if you were never to see or hear any other book of doctrine . Therefore, St. James' Epistle is a perfect straw - epistle compared with them, for it has in it nothing of an evangelic kind ." Thus Luther was comparing (in his opinion) doctrinal value, not canonical validity . </P> <P> However, Ryrie's theory is countered by other biblical scholars, including William Barclay, who note that Luther stated plainly, if not bluntly: "I think highly of the epistle of James, and regard it as valuable although it was rejected in early days . It does not expound human doctrines, but lays much emphasis on God's law ....I do not hold it to be of apostolic authorship ." </P> <P> In The Protestant Spirit of Luther's Version, Philip Schaff asserts that: </P>

Martin luther's thoughts on the book of james
find me the text answering this question