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?
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.
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, 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.
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
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".
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.
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.
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.
Yes. That is when it starts, with internalized faith. That is what I said.
the Bible plainly promises salvation to those who believe, without first afflicting themselves in penitential suffering. (Acts 2:38; 10:42ff; 16:14-15)
Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. (Acts 2:38)
"without first afflicting themselves in penitential suffering" is your arbitrary qualification on what "do penance" must in your opinion, mean.
[42] And he commanded us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is he who was appointed by God, to be judge of the living and of the dead. [43] To him all the prophets give testimony, that by his name all receive remission of sins, who believe in him. [44] While Peter was yet speaking these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them that heard the word. [45] And the faithful of the circumcision, who came with Peter, were astonished, for that the grace of the Holy Ghost was poured out upon the Gentiles also. (Acts 10)
I don't see anything about salvation predicated or not predicated on penance in this passage, other than "judging" ordinarily implies some form of temporal punishment.
[14] And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, one that worshipped God, did hear: whose heart the Lord opened to attend to those things which were said by Paul. [15] And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying: If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she constrained us. (Acts 16)
Yes, but baptism of an adult mandates penance (Acts 2:38).
the problem is your interpretation places James in direct contradiction to Moses and Paul
No it doesn't because St. Paul never taught "justification [...] to be procured by faith not merit". He taught that is if offered for no merit of ours, -- that is, offered in grace -- but he never taught that it is apprehended by faith alone (Eph 2:5-10).
despite your incongruous attempt to set declarative righteousness in opposition to being regenerated, there is no conflict between them
Well, so long that you understand that regeneration is real and not merely imputed in some formal sense, I will not argue over words. There is a brand of Protestantism that reads "imputed" as in opposition to transformative justification; that one is in error.
Rome's literalizing the allegorical in the Lord's supper is manifestly self-refuting.
I don't know how you can call anything that requires kilobytes of inane commentary "refuting". I would think that reading the actual gospel which says things like "flesh indeed" and "this is my body" is self-evident.
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.
That is consistent with the Mass being a sacrifice to God (not a repeated sacrifice but a sacrifice), where the priest leads the congregation rather than opposes it. It also excludes the false understanding of priesthood as ministry to men. But I agree that there is no fixed position of the priest that would be apparent in the scripture, and in fact, like it or not, most Masses nowadays are served ad populum.