Replies

this confession can be by mouth as well as by “body language” such as in baptism.

And by good works. It is therefore not only confessional. confession of faith is merely a start. Consider 2 Peter 1:2-10.

But what if the person is mute, and immobilized, and all he/she can do is think?

Well, the Good Thief was immobilized, literally. He still defended the innocent and did penance for his sins. As a thought experiment, I can grant you that good work may be a bare internal prayer for the good of a neighbor, for any other expression of virtue is physically impossible. It is still heroic virtue -- works.

what James does not say is that such works of faith merit eternal life

He said "justified". That means eternal life. Here is the passage:

[21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? [22] Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? [23] And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. [24] Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

Of course St. James is not saying that Abraham was justified by merely offering up Isaac, i.e. by works alone; it is by works cooperating with faith that he was justified.

Souls are not saved on the basis of their own holiness, but faith which is imputed for righteousness

No, not "imputed". That perhaps is the root of Protestant error. A holy man is a new creature, he truly is. Of course that holiness is of Christ, -- partaking of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) but souls are saved solely on the basis of holiness. See again Matthew 25:31-46.

poorer spirituality

I don't know how you compare these things, but what I witness in Protestantism is not spirituality but elevated emotionalism.

a modern day Berean would likely not become an Roman Catholic

Most Catholic converts are exactly converts along the Berean model: they study the scripture and they discover that on all the Catholic distinctives it is the Catholics who take the Bible on face value and Protestants need to build complex sophistry to get from "not by faith alone" to "by faith alone" or from "this is my body" to "this symbolically represents my body".

Rome's assertion that Catholicism manifests a greater degree of grace, but based on what research i have, converts to evangelical churches most typically usually do not primarily site doctrinal issues, but relational, with 90% of former Roman Catholics saying it was a spiritual search for a more direct, personal experience with God

Both are true. Catholicism is means of uncreated grace. This is not something people can easily relate to. Catholic service is impersonal and unemotional. A good priest, for example, is one who serves as if no congregation was present at all. He, in fact, would do well to have his back to them. If one wants an emotional involvement, especially if "personal" means a separation from the Communion of Saints, he is not ready for the Church, and very many aren't.

this confession can be by mouth as well as by “body language” such as in baptism.

And by good works. It is therefore not only confessional. confession of faith is merely a start. Consider 2 Peter 1:2-10.

Yes and no; “confessional” in Rm. 10:9 specifically refers to mouth and promises salvation, but confess cannot be restricted to mouth and includes living it out. (1Tim. 6:12; Heb. 11:3

But what if the person is mute, and immobilized, and all he/she can do is think?

I agree that prayer is work (indeed), but besides the idea of penance (see here on that) what God says all along is that "The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit," (Psalms 34:18) and this is an example of this, as is the penitent publican who went down to his house justified. While God can call some to turn away from sin first, (Acts 24:25) and one must want light over darkness, yet the Bible plainly promises salvation to those who believe, without first afflicting themselves in penitential suffering. (Acts 2:38; 10:42ff; 16:14-15)

what James does not say is that such works of faith merit eternal life

He said "justified". That means eternal life. Here is the passage:

[21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? [22] Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? [23] And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. [24] Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?

Of course St. James is not saying that Abraham was justified by merely offering up Isaac, i.e. by works alone; it is by works cooperating with faith that he was justified.

Again, the problem is your interpretation places James in direct contradiction to Moses and Paul, and not matter how we render it here justification is plainly is declared to be procured by faith not merit. v.22 has a Abraham with a “virile faith” showing he is that he really is the father is was declared to be, and the word for “by” is used 759 times and is also translated “with” (Mt. 12:20) It is understood that they work together, and see my comment on forgiveness and healing.

Souls are not saved on the basis of their own holiness, but faith which is imputed for righteousness

No, “imputed.” whether you like what the Holy Spirit used or not, that is what the word is, not “infused” or “transformed,” And despite your incongruous attempt to set declarative righteousness in opposition to being regenerated, there is no conflict between them, while “partakers” (companions) does not refer to justification but living it out.

poorer spirituality

I don't know how you compare these things, but what I witness in Protestantism is not spirituality but elevated emotionalism.

That is not what i had in mind but things like the things the link dealt with. As for emotionalism see below.

a modern day Berean would likely not become an Roman Catholic

You have amply demonstrated the meaning of sophistry, sorry to say, while Rome's literalizing the allegorical in the Lord's supper is manifestly self-refuting.

Showing lots of emotional can be carnal but it is not unBiblical. Maybe David went a bit overboard but was sincere, and Michal was the one punished for her self-righteous censure. (2Sam. 6:20-23) Worship in Israel had shouting, music, etc., was not characteristically a solemn thing, (Ps. 47:1) while the apostles were sometimes beside themselves, (2Cor. 5:13) and the type of meeting in 1Cor. 14 was a communally participatory Pentecostal service. Closest thing in Roman Catholicism i found was in the charismatic meetings, though raised in a typical Irish Yankee family i was rather taken back at first.

There was also a preaching type of service in the New Testament church, as in Acts 20:7-9, but as for weekly service with a priest with his back turned to the people, that is not in any description of the New Testament church.