I think you're going beyond Hebrews to based on your own philosophical interpretation of it. how do you define faith that leaves Catholic Christians as not having it? Does faith work alongside knowledge or as an alternative to it? If salvation is by faith alone, can faith live alone, unaccompanied by works of love and obedience? I guess your answer is yes, which is fine by me--- but I don't see how you can exclude other Christians on that basis.
You say that, in
Hebrews 9:12 "Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption [for us]."
Okay, good so far, obviously!
You interpret that as meaning "..having obtained for us That is past tense ownership. There is nothing more to obtain. There is nothing more to offer the Father in heaven in purchase of anything - Hebrews says he already owns it."
That's an interpretation, although an orthodox one. That Jesus eternally redeemed us does not imply that we have nothing to offer him. For instance, God hates sin and one loves when we do the right thing. Does doing the right thing constitute offering God anything? I don't know.... But I wouldn't take God to have cast someone out of the body of Christ based upon their answer. That seems somewhat Pharisee-like.
Remember the Epistle to James:
2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
2:15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,
2:16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit?
2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
2:18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
2:21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
2:22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
2:23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.
2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
2:25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?
2:26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
My point is not that works trump faith. My point is that you claim because of theological differences Catholics are not referring to the same God as you, or you them.
But I don't see how you can definitively claim that.
Abraham prayed to God the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit. But as far I know, he only knew himself to be praying to God the Father.
It does not follow from "Catholic Sam and Protestant Jane disagree over the relationship between faith and works" that "Sam and Jane are each referrring to a different God".
Suppose Lois Lane believes Clark Kent is physically weak. Bruce Wayne believes Clark Kent is physically strong. But they are both referring to the same person, one Clark Kent.
You can stretch this point too far and say that every theistic religion refers to the same God.... But the point is, God knows who refers to Him and I don't see how we can put ourselves in His place.
Catholics accept Christ as Savior--- I'll guess that's why Martin didn't say the Catholic Church was a cult.
Good, so we'll ignore it and move on.
Remember the Epistle to James:
The problem with calling on James here is that you're mixing a number of things that don't mix. Sanctification and justification are not the same thing, yet you seem to be mistaking the two. Further, James is not talking about salvation. James is talking about faith in general. Faith afterall, is not salvation. Salvation comes through faith; but, Faith is like a car battery. It fuels what it will for the moment. Problem is, that as with a battery, until the circuit is closed, the battery does nothing but sit there. Thus, in strict terms, Paul's provision and case for salvation by faith alone as opposed to faith + works still involves flipping the switch. Romans 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. Romans 10:10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. Paul states that you have to believe and confess christ. The confession is the switch here. It is action combined with energy to produce work. Belief + confession = salvation. How then do you imagine that you get saved then work continually to get saved? How many times are you saved? The answer is once. So, either Paul is right and James is wrong, or James is speaking to something else.
James is merely saying what we say today - Actions speak louder than words. If you put batteries in the flashlight and never turn it on, the batteries will lose their strength over time and in the end are wasted. But, if you turn the flashlight on, the batteries are able to serve their purpose. Thus, you can brag that you have batteries in your flashlight - even the best batteries made. So what, if you never turn the thing on, it is waste and vanity. Thus, I do not brag about my Batteries; but, show that I have them by using my flashlight.
That is a modern representation of what James is saying. But, James is speaking of Spiritual things. If you claim to have great faith and yet do nothing - who cares, the batteries are sitting idle and losing their power while you do nothing. If I, having faith, proceed to heal the sick by the laying on of hands, I do not need to vainly brag and my faith is shown by my putting it to use. Can faith save? Yes. And in fact it does - spiritually. Does it save physically? No. If you're dying and need food, you can have all the faith in the world that you'll survive; but, your body will die without nourishment. So, if you're looking to the poor who are starving and have faith yet do not feed them, your faith that they might survive is great; but, without any work added to getting them food, praying for them, etc, that faith produces no fruit.
James is in no way contradicting Paul. Nor is he supporting a faith + works salvation. He is merely stating the obvious. If you sit on your butt on the bleachers instead of gaining recruits, healing people and the like, your faith in God produces no results for others. You may be saved; but, God didn't save you to be a bench warmer. With God, you have a purpose. If you don't use your faith to that purpose you're a tool rotting on the field. Saved; but, rotting.
To repeat, faith is not salvation. Faith is the means to salvation. Faith also powers miracles and the moving of God in our lives otherwise. If we fail to put action behind faith, the batteries die and we are useless to God. Saved; but, useless. Bragging about how much faith we have is vanity. You can brag about your faith. I show mine by healing the sick, raising the dead, etc.. See the point. Greater things will you do because he went to the father. But doing great things isn't what saved you. Believing and confessing saves you. And there is no other possible way. If people are going to know that you are saved, your faith should be exhibiting itself rather than your mouth bragging about it..
We aren't putting ourselves in His place by looking at doctrine and determining if it is of God or not. And, indeed, if we are not making those judgements, we are laying down on the job and leaving the flock unprotected from the ravening wolves that seek their hides.
Many if not most would warn a brother that he was about to touch a high voltage line when he wasn't paying attention. Many would go out of their way to prevent him from touching it and save his life in the doing. On the other hand, It is considered the height of kindness to see someone in error on their theology and say nothing so that they may touch the bare exposed wire and fry their eternal souls. To this end, we should all be friends together and practice the doctrine of highest esteem "NonRockaBoatus". I say to hell with that doctrine because that is precisely the author of it and where it belongs.
Catholics accept Christ as Savior--- I'll guess that's why Martin didn't say the Catholic Church was a cult.
Catholics accept A Christ as Savior. The Christ accepted by Catholics is an entirely different critter than the God of Christianity. The name is the same. The definition and who he is in Catholic theology is what betrays the difference. The Christ (anointed) of Christianity told us 'Believe and confess'. Catholicism says, No - preach that and you are accursed. It is, in Catholicism, Faith + Works. The Christian version is accursed by Catholics.
The Christian faith has no blood sacrifice. In point of fact, a Blood sacrifice by Christ is what sealed Christianity into existance. The day he ascended, he presented this sacrifice to god and purchased - past tense - our salvation. He owns it and has owned it every since that day. There is nothing more to purchase and no further need for a presentation of that sacrifice. It was currency used for a purchase one time for all of humanity. The purchase was made. The currency changed hands. And the Chief high priest of Christianity sat down. This is made clear In Hebrews over and over and is repeated, bolstered and fortified by the entirety of the New testament. But not so in Catholicism. Catholic salvation is a continual grace injection whereby one must get Grace from a storehouse or "treasury" as Vatican II puts it that is managed by the church and doled out in parcels such that no one ever knows if they are saved for sure, going to heaven or 'purgatory' which Christianity also knows nothing of.. etc.
The more we go along in examining the differences the wider the gap and the more apparent the differences are. Furthermore, the differneces are so vast, no one could ever get to Catholicism from the Bible. It isn't possible. Try it. Ignore the councils, ignore the pronouncements, bulls, and traditions. Sit down with your bible and try to find Roman Catholicism in it. The closest you will come is the Pharisees and the Judaizers. But doctrine wise, you'll never reproduce the doctrines of Catholicism. That takes philosophy. And Christianity is not a construct of philosophy. It is a covenant derived from revelation. These are the differences. Not all of them, they are vast. we could be here for years going over it all detail by detail and not cover it all.
Catholicism is a religion. Catholicism looks similar to Christianity. But Catholicism is not Christian. It may have started out Christian. But to the extent it did, it's gone far afield from where it started. Alas, we aren't interested in that - only in what it is right now. It isn't Christian. It won't be Christian until it's doctrines are Christian instead of philosophical constructs that replace the Christian ones.