Only those who do not know scripture or who have an agenda would use that line. And only those who don't know scripture would fall for it.
Romans 4:4 Now to the one who works (ἐργαζομένῳ - ergazomenō), wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work (ἐργαζομένῳ - ergazomenō) but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.
Greek - ἐργαζομένῳ - ergazomenō - from ergon - I work, trade, perform, do, practice, commit, acquire by labor. [http://biblehub.com/greek/2038.htm]
Now, let's look at the verse trotted out by Catholics to make the claim "it's not faith alone".
James 2:14 What is the profit, my brethren, if faith, any one may speak of having, and works (ἔργον - ergon) he may not have? is that faith able to save him?
Romans 3:20 wherefore by works (ἔργον - ergon) of law shall no flesh be declared righteous before Him, for through law is a knowledge of sin.
Greek - ἔργον - ergon - I work, trade, perform, do, practice, commit, acquire by labor.
>>To try to apply what he is saying to a discussion of the relationship between faith and obedience to the moral law is to take Paul completely out of context.<<
So tell us then. Is James saying that faith without the law is nothing? Which law? Moral law or Mosaic law? Was Paul saying without the law of Moses or any law? Was James talking about Mosaic law moral law? In Romans 4 was Paul talking about a different kind of work in verse 4 then he was in verse 5? Perhaps you or some other Catholic could give us your interpretation on all of that? Surely you would all want to be consistent correct?
On the following:
Which law? Moral law or Mosaic law?
One should highlight the fact that The first ten commands are of a moral assessment of conduct, but the remainder of some (613?) are religious and ceremonial. We observe the first ten because we know by them what does and does not please God, and His Holy Spirit whom we seek to obey as a bond-slave of The Lord and Messiah Jesus.
(I know you are well aware of this, but we should include the clarification for the sake of the unlearned or contentious reader.)
You hit a home run on post 69.
Do we have to go back to superficial internet theology. This stuff you write has been gone over and over again by theologians of every Christian stripe.
At the end of the day we revert to the fundamental question: Who’s interpretation must we take? I’ll take Petrine authority over yours, mine, or any of the corner street foursquare church pastors, as have a galaxy of theologians, the early Church fathers, a constellation of converts to Catholicism, and of course the saints, martyrs, and stigmatists of the Church.