Bad News for Protestants

[jbhtexas]

First things first, you have no argument for Principle 2 and if Protestants believe that all are sinners and the santicfying grace is like snow on the manure pile, so how does the unclean sinner's soul enter heaven?

Christ's righteousness is imputed to me, so that I stand perfect before God. Did you read the link I posted?

Second, we joyfully celebrate our salvation but do not believe as the Protestants that once saved forever saved no matter what. You have to be very careful to not blow the sacrifice of the cross due to sinning.

I would suggest that what you are proposing is an inherent contradiction...one cannot joyfully celebrate his salvation when one has to always worry about messing up. This is what I see working out in the lives of my Catholic brothers. Who defines what would be a sufficient sin or quantity of sin to "blow the sacrifice of the cross"? This sounds much like the conversation I have with the Mormons, who want me to follow Joseph Smith's prescribed means of perfecting my soul. Why isn't Christ enough??? I mean, he says that he is, and we are afterall, supposed to be following him...

 

[Cyclone62]

I would suggest that what you are proposing is an inherent contradiction...one cannot joyfully celebrate his salvation when one has to always worry about messing up. This is what I see working out in the lives of my Catholic brothers. Who defines what would be a sufficient sin or quantity of sin to "blow the sacrifice of the cross"? This sounds much like the conversation I have with the Mormons, who want me to follow Joseph Smith's prescribed means of perfecting my soul. Why isn't Christ enough??? I mean, he says that he is, and we are afterall, supposed to be following him...

A couple of things, really. I don't think it's so much trying not to "blow the sacrifice of the cross" (that still sounds funny to me) as it is practicing the sacrement of confession. Whether this is right or not, the way it sounds to me is that according to some christian faiths, you only have to believe Jesus died on the ross for our sins, without needing to feel remorseful about your own past sins. If one had killed another person, yet believed that Jesus died for their sins, and never felt remorse, do they still get saved? I guess I see confession and accepting Jesus as going hand in hand, and that without the former, accepting Jesus is more of a "safety net" so to speak.

As south park says, "Joseph Smith was dumb, dumbdumbdumb, dumb."

 

[BvK1126]

Knownothing, let me address you point by point...

The pope is the one throwing stones here. Saying our religion is not worthy but his is worthy.

So the Pope's "stone-throwing" gives you the right to launch an ad hominem attack on the Catholic, attributing the acts of a few deviants to the entire Catholic community? :baffled5wh: And exactly how did the Pope "throw stones"? He made a theological statement about the legitimacy of Protestant churches, and you happen to disagree with him. That's "stone throwing"? If you had chosen to address his theological points instead of making slanderous statements, I'd give more credence to your arguments. Or, perhaps your pejorative attack would be more defensible if you were responding to the Pope's derogatory comments about all Protestants based on the sexually-deviant behavior of a few well-known Evangelical leaders. But the Pope said no such thing. Your statements are unwarranted and disrespectful to millions of people who follow the teachings of the Catholic Church sincerely and in good faith. I encourage you to practice making logical, reasoned responses to someone else's theological arguments instead of throwing out inflammatory statements designed to insult and demean. If you did that, I would have no reason to call you on the carpet for disrespectful statements like you made before.

Just because they Have tradition. Tradition is a ritual that grew.

The Pope isn't saying that the Catholic Church is superior because of its traditions. He's saying that Protestant churches don't qualify as "true" churches because they disconnected from apostolic succession when they split from the Church in Rome. Furthermore, what's wrong with faithfully observing tradition in a church context? Protestant churches have their own traditions that they sometimes use as a litmus test of orthodoxy. Can you explain what makes the traditions observed by Protestant churches as superior to those of the Catholic Church?

Kind of like the Catholic Church. It's a gigantic cult from what I see. What is the difference between a cult and a Catholic Church. Well from my point of view it's that the Catholic Church got really freaking big.

Until you define what you mean by "cult," I really can't make a meaningful response to this statement, so I will leave it alone for now...

The Symbalism at the church is more than most of us can take and so we prefer to wade through all the crap and get on with the service without the smoke and mirrors.

Who do you mean by "most"? All Protestants? Many Protestant churches -- notably, many Lutheran congregations and virtually all Episcopal churches -- conduct their worship services using liturgical traditions that are quite similar to the Catholic church (and, in truth, are derived from Catholic tradition). Even denominations such as the Reformed Church, the Presbyterian Church, and the Methodist church still observe certain worship rituals that are similar to Catholic liturgy. Truth be told, a strong argument can be made that some of these liturgical observances date all the way back to the earliest practices of the Christian Church in the First Century. Interestingly enough, Peter Gillquist, a Campus Crusade staffer, felt compelled to join the Orthodox Church because he felt that its adherence to long-time liturgical traditions (traditions very similar to Catholic liturgy) most closely approximated a modern-day equivalent of what the First Century Church must have looked like.

Virtually every bit of liturgy has theological meaning based solidly on scripture. When one understands the meaning behind the liturgy, it can serve as an excellent way to express reverence and awe at the majesty and holiness of God. Certainly, when someone forgets the meaning behind the liturgy (or never bothers to learn it in the first place), it can become rote and empty, leading one to simply "go through the motions." But is that all that different from contemporary protestant worship, where one might clap along with the music and mouth the lyrics without really thinking about what they mean? For that matter, one could argue that the contemporary style of worship might lead one to take a more casual attitude toward worship, putting less emphasis on certain attributes of God, like His radiance, power, majesty, and holiness.

I know you don't like what I say. That is fine. I will tell you one thing. I think Jesus is up there laughing at what the Catholics do in order to worship.

Actually, I don't take exception to what you say based on theological grounds, necessarily. I'm not Catholic. I am an non-denominational Evangelical Christian. From what I've read, I probably have a lot in common, theologically speaking, with jbhtexas and tigershoops31. I disagree, on theological grounds, with a great deal Catholic teaching. And I certainly disagree with the Pope's statements that Protestant churches are not "true" churches. However, because I have a number of friends and some family who are are Catholic, I have been to several Catholic services and have made a point to learn about Catholic theology and traditions so that I can more effectively engage in an active dialog with people who believe them.

What I don't like about what you say is the general disrespectful tone that you use. I have never found anyone to be receptive to my words when I demean or condescend them. Maybe I won't bring a lot of Catholics around to my way of thinking by my way of interacting with them. But I'm quite certain you won't by the way you talk to them. :no6xn:

 

[jbhtexas]

Whether this is right or not, the way it sounds to me is that according to some christian faiths, you only have to believe Jesus died on the ross for our sins, without needing to feel remorseful about your own past sins. If one had killed another person, yet believed that Jesus died for their sins, and never felt remorse, do they still get saved? I guess I see confession and accepting Jesus as going hand in hand, and that without the former, accepting Jesus is more of a "safety net" so to speak.

I think the answer that many Protestants would give is that remorse is a sign of true, genuine faith in Jesus. The Bible talks about a number of traits that should start to become evident in those with genuine faith, and certain behaviors that should start to disappear.

 

[jdoggivjc]

The knowledgeable and faithful Catholic will tell you that these things aren't "necessary for salvation," but are ceremonial rituals that have built up as a result of centuries of church tradition.

The use of "smoke coming from a little pot," as you call it, (more accurately, censers -- metal incense containers suspended from chains) during mass is meant to represent the prayers of the faithful rising to heaven and the presence of the Holy Spirit. Smoke as a representation of God's presence has a scriptural basis in the Old Testament -- the people of Israel were led out of Egypt and guided during their wanderings in Sinai by the presence of God going before them, in the form of a pillar of smoke during the day and a pillar of fire at night.

"The kneel before you enter the aisle" is simply a form of showing reverence, submission and obeisance (in essence a form of humble salute) to God.

Not eating meat during the 40 days of the Lenten season is a ritual meant to reflect Christ's 40-day fast in the wilderness before beginning His earthly ministry. The idea of giving up meat (or something else) for Lent calls on the faster to "go without," to shed earthly comforts in order to focus more closely on God.

Interestingly, none of the practices you singled out for criticism are unique to the Catholic faith. Many Protestant denominations (including Lutherans and Episcopalians) and the Eastern Orthodox churches practice some or all of these rituals.

I grew up in the Lutheran church and went to Memorial Lutheran in Ames almost on a weekly basis between 1997 and 2003. We have NEVER practiced any of these rituals - no smoke and no kneeling in the aisles. Giving up meat or anything else was not encouraged, either. Now, my family did that, but that's because my parents both grew up in the Catholic church and held onto that tradition.

 

[jdoggivjc]

First things first, you have no argument for Principle 2 and if Protestants believe that all are sinners and the santicfying grace is like snow on the manure pile, so how does the unclean sinner's soul enter heaven? As I say in my paper purtagory could be an instantaneus thing but something has to happen to the soul that has sinned because you must therefore be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.

...

The Catholic God is a forgiving God, a God of second chances but a Protestant that accepts Jesus as his personal Lord and Saviour and then sins the rest of his life is in jeopardy. I have read too many Protestant authors stating the once saved predestiny.

Your argument falls flat here. In the eyes of God, he views the person who only commits one sin as equal to the person who commits 1 million sins. Therefore, if you commit one sin, you're condemned and no amount of good works can save you. The only thing that can save you is the grace and mercy of Christ.

As far as not committing sins after you have accepted Christ? Have you ever checked out a gorgeous woman as she walked by and let your mind wander? Have you ever gossiped about someone behind their back? According to Jesus, if you've done the first, he says you've committed adultery, if you've done the second, you've murdered. It's impossible to go a day without sinning because we ARE sinners. Jesus doesn't expect us to go the rest of our lives without sinning after we've accepted him as our savior. We're unable. But once you've accepted him as your savior, you no longer need to worry about your sins because he's separated them as far as east is from the west. The point of Jesus dying on the cross is so "we should not perish but have eternal life." The wages of sin is death (physical death eternity in hell). If Jesus took the punishment of our sins by going to hell for 3 days, why is it we also have to accept the punishment for our own sins? If we have to suffer the punishment of our sins (even for a period of time) before we entered heaven, what's the point of Jesus dying on the cross? If God actually worked that way, we could pay our own wages (whether by good works or "waiting it out.") John 14:6 is the authority of our own attempts to attain salvation: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me." What does that mean? No amount of anything we do to try to earn God's favor is good enough. It's only through Jesus can we spend eternity with God.

 

[BvK1126]

I grew up in the Lutheran church and went to Memorial Lutheran in Ames almost on a weekly basis between 1997 and 2003. We have NEVER practiced any of these rituals - no smoke and no kneeling in the aisles.

I'm afraid I didn't do a very good job of making myself clear. Sorry for that. I didn't mean to say that ALL Lutheran churches practice these rituals. I myself have been to many that didn't. But SOME Lutheran churches certainly do -- including some in the Lutheran Church of the Missouri Synod, of which Memorial Lutheran in Ames is a member. I refer you to this article from Wikipedia (which, I realize, is not the definite source on theological or liturgical matters, but it does serve a purpose here):

The most ornate liturgy is to be found in a few parishes of the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod which celebrate Solemn High Mass with ceremonial similar to that found in Anglo-Catholic parishes [5] [6]. The devotional guild the Society of St. Polycarp was also founded within the LCMS [7]. The most important high church journal is Lutheran Forum, published by American Lutheran Publicity Bureau (ALPB).

If you want more explicit, specific references to demonstrate that genuflection (i.e. "kneeling before the aisle") and incense exist in Lutheran tradition, I will be happy to provide them.

For more about the origins of Lutheran liturgical traditions, I refer you here:

The Lutheran Church is a liturgical church because it is a catholic church. The Lutheran Reformers of the sixteenth century were not sectarian innovators who set out to create a new church, but they acknowledged, and rejoiced in, their continuity with the church of the apostles and ancient Christian Fathers. They recognized that many of the centuries-old liturgical customs which they had inherited were both useful and beneficial, and they saw no reason to discard them. With humble gratitude Confessional Lutherans embrace the edifying liturgical usages of the pre-Reformation catholic church as important components of their own heritage and identity. They do not believe that such historic Christian customs are unique to the Roman Catholic Church (or to any other individual church body or denomination).

Now, as for your comments about Lent...

Giving up meat or anything else was not encouraged, either. Now, my family did that, but that's because my parents both grew up in the Catholic church and held onto that tradition.

Again, I should have made myself more clear. I didn't mean to say that it is common for Protestant churches to require or encourage their congregants to give up meat during Lent. While it is more common in the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches to abstain from eating meat for part or all of the Lenten season than it is in Protestant churches (in fact, I'm not aware of any Protestant church where that is canon practice), many Protestant churches that observe Lent still encourage their congregants to abstain from something during that season. While this may not have been done at Memorial Lutheran, there are certainly other LCMS churches that encourage the practice. I quote from this pamphlet published by the LCMS Central Illinois District:

Observing Lent

The custom is to mark the season of Lent by giving up some things and taking on others. Both can serve to mark the season as a holy time of preparation. Some examples of things people give up for Lent include sweets, meat for all or some meals, and alcohol. In most cases, giving up something for Lent can be made more meaningful by using the money or time for another purpose. For example, meal times on fast days could be spent in prayer. Another example is that if you give up meat during Lent, the extra money that would go to LCMS Lutheran World Relief or your local food pantry.

Anyway, my point on this is not to reflect on the finer points of Lutheran liturgical tradition. Rather, I was simply trying to point out that liturgy has a firmly established tradition in Protestantism as well as Catholicism. It is not simply a bunch of "Symbalism (sp.)" and "crap" (as knownothing might call it) that is unique to the Catholic Church.

 

[Cyclone62]

I also want to clarify something about Lent, and the Catholic practice of abstaining from meat, as it seems to be misconstrued by some here. Most catholic churches only abstain from eating meat on Fridays, and it's only those who are old enough, and able to do so. A General rule of thumb that many families I know follow is between the ages of 8 and 65ish. It's not a mandated practice, and usually just an urging or suggestion from the church. Since this hasn't been touched upon either, the reason for doing this is to try and better understand/be more like Jesus while he spent those 40 days in the desert.

 

[BvK1126]

I also want to clarify something about Lent, and the Catholic practice of abstaining from meat, as it seems to be misconstrued by some here. Most catholic churches only abstain from eating meat on Fridays, and it's only those who are old enough, and able to do so. A General rule of thumb that many families I know follow is between the ages of 8 and 65ish. It's not a mandated practice, and usually just an urging or suggestion from the church. Since this hasn't been touched upon either, the reason for doing this is to try and better understand/be more like Jesus while he spent those 40 days in the desert.

Not touched upon?! Dude, I already had you covered on this:

Not eating meat during the 40 days of the Lenten season is a ritual meant to reflect Christ's 40-day fast in the wilderness before beginning His earthly ministry. The idea of giving up meat (or something else) for Lent calls on the faster to "go without," to shed earthly comforts in order to focus more closely on God.

:sweet:

 

[Skyh13]

Just a thought...

"Faith without action is meaningless"

That isn't verbatim how I read it at some point, but it's close enough.

Basically, if you are going to truly believe in Christ, that means you are going to try to do the things he tells us to do. Jesus does tell us to be sorry for our sins... but it doesn't stop there. There's still all those good things that he told us to do. So it can't just stop at whether we're forgiven or not, or what we feel we need to do to be forgiven. God will forgive us if we're sorry. We know that. However, there must be a reason for all the good Jesus has instructed us to do.

I feel like sometimes (in general) we're arguing the same thing, just from a different perspective. Either way, if you're going to truly follow Christ, there are a lot of things that come along with it.

 

[jdoggivjc]

Just a thought...

"Faith without action is meaningless"

That isn't verbatim how I read it at some point, but it's close enough.

Basically, if you are going to truly believe in Christ, that means you are going to try to do the things he tells us to do. Jesus does tell us to be sorry for our sins... but it doesn't stop there. There's still all those good things that he told us to do. So it can't just stop at whether we're forgiven or not, or what we feel we need to do to be forgiven. God will forgive us if we're sorry. We know that. However, there must be a reason for all the good Jesus has instructed us to do.

I feel like sometimes (in general) we're arguing the same thing, just from a different perspective. Either way, if you're going to truly follow Christ, there are a lot of things that come along with it.

Basically the general theme of the book of James (also been translated as "faith without works is dead").

Now, James wasn't saying that you can earn your salvation by doing as many good works as possible. On the contrary, it's only the faith in Christ that saves. However, James was writing to those people who had claimed faith but were sitting in their homes and churches isolated from the world not helping their neighbor as commanded by Jesus. Faith saves you, but it's only under very rare circumstances that faith alone shows people the love of Jesus or brings anyone else to salvation. The most powerful thing a group of Christians can do is to go on a mission trip that is geared towards helping people. Go to New Orleans to help rebuild. Go to places like Haiti or Mexico to help build things like water filters and childcare centers. Your faith is what saves you, but your works is what brings others to the Kingdom.

 

[kcbob79clone]

One other thing that I alluded to above. There were 5 bishops prior to the Schism. The Bishop of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch. Thus, 4 of the bishops split from the bishop of Rome.

I find it interesting that the Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox both have a Patriach, a 'first among equals', a central authority. It is just which central authority. I contend that most of the issues are political, changing the Creed without a Council, and who is the 'first among equals', how the schism was handled, etc. rather than theological, that keep the Church of Rome seperated from the Greek and Russian Orthodox.

 

[kcbob79clone]

Christ's righteousness is imputed to me, so that I stand perfect before God. Did you read the link I posted?

Yes I did, it is partially the truth. I have a link for you

The Justification Debate...Catholic Answers

 

[jbhtexas]

The Justification Debate...Catholic Answers

So here's my summary of Scott Hahn's lengthy oratory: We are saved by works.

In practicality, the faith in Christ part isn't worth much, because if works are required, then the lack of sufficient works can trump the faith, but faith can't trump insufficient works. No matter how much flowery oratroy you throw around it, no matter how many times you say that faith is important, that's what it comes down to. If works are required, we are saved by works.

And you never answered my question regarding who decides how many good works are required? Is it some fixed number? Does it vary by person? How do I know how many good work I have to do in order to get into Heaven? How "good" do I have to be? I guess I have to do the best I can, and hope it all gets worked out in Purgatory.

And as for Hahn's little comment about the Reformation being a tragedy...I suppose it was a tragedy if you thought that telling people they could save souls by donating to the church was a good thing, and that not having the Bible readily available in the language of the common people (so they could see for themselves how the Catholic church was leading them astray) was a good thing. In my reading of history, I see nothing that indicates, given enough patience, the Catholic church would have reformed anything.

Unfortunately, Dr. Knudson just didn't do a very good job in the debate. He turned down the opportunity to challenge Hahn on some obvious points. I don't know why. Have Hahn call R.C Sproul next time he wants to debate.

For those who are in to this sort of thing, here's another enormously long, scholarly, theologically lofty link regarding justification. It talks a little bit about the Hahn/Knudsen debate. For Protestants, it provides some insights into the apologetic techniques used by Hahn and other ex-Protestant Catholics. I think this aricle's crticisms of Protestant churches are spot on...

New Confusions for Old: Rome and Justification

 

[kcbob79clone]

So here's my summary of Scott Hahn's lengthy oratory: We are saved by works.

Here is my summary of your lengthy oratory in the most Christian manner possible: I am afraid you pass over the blatantly Catholic verses and fall back onto your standard pat answers. When I am formulating a position I read the Bible, the Catholic position and the Protestant position and then rereading the pertinent Bible sections. I have found myself agreeing with the Catholic position on every matter so far.

We are saved by the Grace of God alone. In order to be saved we must be baptized, we must have faith, and we must do works; that is the summary of Scott Hahns oratory and the Catholic position.

And you never answered my question regarding who decides how many good works are required? Is it some fixed number? Does it vary by person? How do I know how many good work I have to do in order to get into Heaven? How "good" do I have to be?

Only the Father knows!

I guess I have to do the best I can, and hope it all gets worked out in Purgatory.

Come on, you can shoot for higher than that can't you?

And as for Hahn's little comment about the Reformation being a tragedy...I suppose it was a tragedy if you thought that telling people they could save souls by donating to the church was a good thing, and that not having the Bible readily available in the language of the common people (so they could see for themselves how the Catholic church was leading them astray) was a good thing. In my reading of history, I see nothing that indicates, given enough patience, the Catholic church would have reformed anything.

If you would read the Council of Trent documents, which took place after Luther, you will find a number of reforms; condemnation of what you called 'save souls by donating' which was never an official position of the church just some Bishops, notably in Germany, who were doing this to pay off debts. I find it interesting that these same Bishops that tired of sending money to Rome decided to side with Luther, who never set out to start a church or movement - he just wanted reform. Other Council of Trent reforms included teaching the clergy and calling for Bishops to live in the area. By the end of the 16th century, many of the abuses that had motivated the Reformation had disappeared, and Rome had reclaimed many followers in Europe.

Unfortunately, Dr. Knudson just didn't do a very good job in the debate. He turned down the opportunity to challenge Hahn on some obvious points.

Oh sure, blame this poor guy, you give a guy an unwinnable position and then condemn him!! Just kidding, I do not think either one of us is going to change our mind that is quite obvious, let us agree to jointly pray that the Holy Spirit guides both of us on our journey! I have enjoyed this and do not find too many as knowledgeable as you, most just go with by what they have been taught, but I think our time has come to an end.

 

[jbhtexas]

Here is my summary of your lengthy oratory in the most Christian manner possible: I am afraid you pass over the blatantly Catholic verses and fall back onto your standard pat answers. We are saved by the Grace of God alone. We must have faith to be saved, we must be baptized, and we must do works; that is the summary of Scott Hahns oratory and the Catholic position.

Well, Hahn likes to pass over the blatantly "Protestant" verses, but I guess I shouldn't use his questionable debating techniques when I debate. Again, if you must do works, then it seems that you are not saved by God's grace alone.

Regarding your statement that "Only the Father knows"..., I read otherwise:

13 By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. 14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. 15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. 16 So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. 17 By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world. (1 John 4)

Just one of many passages that say similar things. Confidence, my friend, not doubt or uncertainty about whether I've done good enough.

By the end of the 16th century, many of the abuses that had motivated the Reformation had disappeared, and Rome had reclaimed many followers in Europe.

Exactly...the Reformation motivated those changes in the Catholic church. How long do think it would have taken for those reforms to happen without the Reformation?

I do not think either one of us is going to change our mind that is quite obvious, let us agree to jointly pray that the Holy Spirit guides both of us on our journey!

Well, I can agree with that...

 

[kcbob79clone]

Well, Hahn likes to pass over the blatantly "Protestant" verses, but I guess I shouldn't use his questionable debating techniques when I debate. Again, if you must do works, then it seems that you are not saved by God's grace alone.

Catholics consider the entire Bible, not just selected verses. Are these verses in your Bible? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead –James 2:17 & Galatians 5:6. The only thing that counts is faith working through love. Protestants forget the context of Paul's letters that they were written to Christians who were under a significant amount of Jewish influence so he wrote against works to the old Judaic Law's view of justification. Catholics consider both of these verses, and all verses in OT and NT on faith and works and all topics before arriving at a position, not just selected verses.

Regarding your statement that "Only the Father knows"..., I read otherwise:

So you could not see my tongue in cheek and I forgot the smiley

Well, I can agree with that...

Unfortunately I think that both of us want to get in the last word

Peace my brother!!

 

[tigershoops31]

KCbob...just a few questions...

1) Are you under the belief that EVERYBODY goes to purgatory regardless of whether they are saved or not?

2) Are you saying that people progress through purgatory at different rates?

3) Can a person that is not saved but has lived a good life "work" their way into heaven through purgatory?

4)Assuming there really is a purgatory, why wouldn't Jesus have spoken specifically about it and/or had a name for it? Does it make sense that heaven and hell are named, referred to frequently and described in detail but that there would be no actual dialogue about "purgatory"? That to me is the biggest reason for not believing that such a place exists.

 

[Wesley]

I think the Pope's funny hat is on a bit too tight.

Gimme him a break. He is new on the job. He will recant some of what he says at a later date. If it is the only true church, heaven might be smaller than we think. Certainly no room for bin Laden's gang.

 

[jbhtexas]

Catholics consider the entire Bible, not just selected verses. Are these verses in your Bible? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead –James 2:17 & Galatians 5:6. The only thing that counts is faith working through love.

Yes, those verses are in my Bible. Those verses go hand in hand with a good part of what John discusses in 1 John, which has to do with how church members should identify those who are truly saved, so that they are not swayed by false teachers. I think someone already explained James from the Protestant perspective previoulsy in this thread..

Protestants forget the context of Paul's letters that they were written to Christians who were under a significant amount of Jewish influence so he wrote against works to the old Judaic Law's view of justification.

That is true for some of Paul's letters, but it is certainly not true for many of them. Many of the issues Paul addresses in his letters were a result of Christians being influenced by the pagan cultures in which they lived. Many of those churches, from Asia to Rome, had very few, if any, Jewish members; they were comprised of Gentile converts who brought along all sorts of baggage from the pagan religions they practiced.

Catholics consider both of these verses, and all verses in OT and NT on faith and works and all topics before arriving at a position, not just selected verses.

What makes you think Protestants are different? Just because we reach a different conclusion than you do doesn't mean that we don't have a unified view of the OT and NT, or that we ignore passages that on the surface do not appear to not fit our view of justification.

Unfortunately I think that both of us want to get in the last word

Well, if your last words are "Your understading of justification is entirely correct", then you can have the last word! :biggrin9gp: