Catholics are Still Saved

I got you bud(I'm a Catholic myself so it may be a bit skewed):

The Catholic Church believes that through good faith and works, we are saved, as mentioned in James 2:17, "So faith, by itself, if it has no works, is dead." By contrast, some Protestants believe that in faith alone we are saved. The Church also has all seven sacraments, considered necessary, which are baptism, reconciliation, communion, marriage, holy orders, and anointing of the sick. Protestant branches omit some of each. Marriage in the Church is seen as binding a man and woman together, and until death do they part. In Protestantism, marriages can have divorce.

One major issue of contention is the topic of the Virgin Mary. Protestants have argued that the Church worships Mary, straying from God. The Church counters this by saying that they mistake when we pray to Mary, we worship: It is asking for intercession, as with other saints, thus giving her latria, or honor.

Hope this helps!

This is responding to your most recent comment along this line of comments.

You are simply pointing out what the Bible says? Well so am I.

Paul says:

"By grace we are saved through faith..."

Then he says:

"...not a result of works..."

It is clearly saying that works do not equal salvation, as it would so appear that you are arguing.

Then James says that faith doesn't work without work. That does not mean that he is saying that works are what save you, as that would contradict Paul.

Then love comes in. Paul talks about love. Faith saves us only as long as it is alive. It is alive if it has love, as Paul says, and as James says, if it has works, which are the embodiment of love.

So, without love, we have nothing. Paul says that directly. Jesus says that though "love your neighbor as yourself" as the golden rule, and James says that you should follow the golden rule.

I'd say doing the loving thing is doing the works. And that's the works James talks about in the Bible. Because you've never seen a person who can follow the law perfectly, but you may see a man who loves the Lord with all his heart. That's what the dead faith is missing when James says it's missing good works.

I appreciate your sincerity, brother. Let me respond directly and simply.

You’re absolutely right that Paul says we are saved by grace through faith.
Catholics agree completely.

But the key question is this: What kind of faith is Paul talking about?

Paul never says “faith alone.”
Paul never says “works are only proof.”
Paul never says “works automatically follow grace.”

Those are Protestant assumptions—not Paul’s words.

Let’s walk through your points one by one.

You quoted Ephesians 2:8-9, but stopped before verse 10, which says; "We are created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them." Paul is clearly saying works don't cause grace, but follow grace and are required to walk with Christ.

You say James only means "faith doesn't work without love."

James never says a thing about that. He does not say,

“Faith without love is dead.”

“Faith without grace is dead.”

“Faith without the Spirit is dead.

Rather, he says "Faith WITHOUT works is dead." You're replacing his word with a sharp opposite of his statement. James’ entire argument is built on works, not “love” in the abstract.

He even gives concrete examples: Rahab sheltering spies, clothing the naked, and feeding the hungry. These are actions, not feelings. James is not talking about “love in the heart.”
He is talking about obedient deeds.

Catholics agree — but that still means works are necessary.**

You’re actually proving the Catholic point.

If works = love in action, then: No works = no love, No love = no living faith, and No living faith = no salvation

That is exactly what James says.

You’re just using different vocabulary to avoid the word “works.”

But the logic is the same:

Without works, faith is dead.
Without love, faith is dead.
Dead faith does not save.

That is Catholic teaching. And again, James 2:24 states, "A person is justified by works and not by faith alone." You're interpreting James through Paul, when Paul states that he is talking about works of the Mosaic Law, not charity, as James is saying. Two issues without correlation means no contradiction.

You say “faith saves us only as long as it is alive

Exactly, and James says works are what make it alive.

You said: “Faith saves us only as long as it is alive.”

That’s correct. But James says: “Faith is made alive by works.”

You say: “Faith is made alive by love.” But James says: “Faith is made alive by works.”

Again, you’re replacing James’ explanation with your own.

Also, you said:

“Dead faith is missing good works.”

Exactly.

Catholics believe: Grace saves, faith receives grace, works keep faith alive, love is expressed through works, without works, faith dies, and dead faith cannot save

That is the Catholic synthesis.

You’re already describing it — you’re just avoiding the word “justify” the way James uses it.

We agree that grace saves, faith receives, and love must be lived out. The only difference is that James calls those loving actions “works,” and he says they justify and keep faith alive. I’m simply taking James’ wording as he wrote it, not replacing it with a different one.

At the end of the day, brother, my hope is simply that we both keep seeking the Lord with humble hearts, letting His grace shape a faith that becomes love in action.

I pray that we focus on the Lord, and don't end up starting a war with each other over a God that we both believe in. We are worshipping the same God. We accept that God is loving, powerful and knowing, and we agree that we must believe in him to reach heaven, despite how we can't quite agree on how that works.

It sounds like we're worshipping the same God if you ask me.

Try not to go worshipping the saints as though they were idols, it's so easy to be influenced by the world. And I'll try not to go not trying to follow God, it's so easy to be influenced by the world. Maybe we'll meet in person in paradise.

I agree. We both have so much in common, but both of us have been blinded by our differences. I hope we can work together towards unity, in John 17.

As for your concern of the saints, Catholics don't worship them; worship belongs to God alone. We honor them the way Scripture honors the "great cloud of witnesses." and we ask for their prayers the same way we ask a brother or sister on earth to pray for us. But I understand how it can look from the outside, and I respect that you’re trying to guard both of us from anything that could distract from Christ.

At the end of the day, I’m grateful we can talk about these things without losing sight of the bigger truth:
Christ is Lord, and we’re both trying to walk toward Him.

And yes, God willing, may we meet in paradise, where all these mysteries will finally make perfect sense in His light.

I'm not attacking your prayer to saints. The Bible doesn't quite condemn those who do, and the reason I don't is because of Isaiah 8:19, "When someone tells you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?" It's not quite direct to praying to the saints, but I think it's better to pray right to God instead of Mary. Why pray to a dead person when I can pray to the almighty?

I am, however, bringing focus to the fact that there are Catholic churches who do turn prayer to saints into idolatry. Sometimes, people get caught up absorbing culture where people to worship saints. We can't be doing that, can we?

I really appreciate the way you’re bringing this up. And I hear your concern. Isaiah 8:19 is condemning people who try to consult the dead through mediums and occult practices, whispering spirits, secret knowledge, bypassing God. Catholics reject that completely. That’s not what asking the saints for prayer is.

When Catholics “pray to” a saint, we’re not treating them like gods or like sources of hidden power. We’re simply asking members of Christ’s Body to pray for us, the same way we ask believers on earth to pray for us. The only difference is that the saints are alive in Christ, not dead in the sense Isaiah means. Jesus Himself says God is “not the God of the dead, but of the living,” and Hebrews describes them as a “great cloud of witnesses” surrounding us.

And you’re right, sometimes people can get swept up in cultural habits that look like idolatry. The Church warns against that constantly. Worship belongs to God alone. If anyone treats a saint like a god, that’s not Catholic teaching; that’s a misunderstanding the Church itself rejects.

At the end of the day, both of us want to stay close to Christ and avoid anything that distracts from Him. As long as He remains the center, He’ll keep guiding both of us toward what’s true and away from anything that leads us astray.

My friend. That's all good logical reasoning. I would not be attacking your position if not for Paul. I would, in fact, be agreeing with you, maybe even adding to things you may have missed.

All you are arguing is that Paul may mean that works are involved in grace if he didn't directly say that it doesn't. Your problem is, he DOES. Multiple times, he does. It is stated clearly enough that you would be able to turn the fact that Jesus is God into just that Jesus simply has the spirit of Christ in him with that contextualization.
The words of James, however, could just as easily mean what I'm saying as it could what you're saying.

So my explanation to the replacement of works is a little unrelated with the point you are making. The Bible may not include some of my statements, and some of mine may not be true too. It does not include yours either.

View my statement as a proposed application, a conclusion and response to what the Bible itself says.

I hear your heart in this, and I respect that you’re trying to be faithful to Paul. Truly. And I’m not claiming that Paul “might” mean something—only that Paul and James must be read together, because the Holy Spirit inspired both.

You’re right that we both bring applications and conclusions to the text. But the difference is this:
my conclusion doesn’t require me to reinterpret Paul or James, and yours requires you to reinterpret James.

James says plainly that: Faith can be dead, dead faith cannot save, works complete faith, and a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. You’re offering a thoughtful application, but it’s still an interpretation that replaces James’ own explanation (“works”) with a different one (“love proving grace”). I’m simply sticking to the words James actually uses.

And I’m not ignoring Paul. Paul says faith “works through love,” that God will judge us according to our works, and that we are created in Christ for good works. None of that contradicts grace—it shows how grace transforms us.

So I respect your conclusion, but I don’t think it fits all of Scripture without adjusting James’ language. My goal isn’t to win an argument; it’s to let Paul and James speak in their own words, side by side, without forcing either one to bend.

At the end of the day, we’re both trying to follow Christ with honest hearts. If we keep that as our center, the rest will become clear in His time.

I believe you did just ignore my statement. I said that Paul directly says that works do not save you. James does not directly say that works save you. So when you say that you're along the lines of both Paul and James, I have to say, you're not along the lines of either. Let's take a look at how I don't have to reinterpret James and bring Paul's verses which I mentioned earlier.

James: "Faith without works is dead." Note that he did not say that faith and works save. I'd go as far as to say that he means works, as in love, because befectly following the law isn't quite possible. But it's not as if these works, or love, save you. There are people who do good works and people who love, and they are not saved.

So the Bible syntax and phrasing suggest that faith is effective, but only if you have the love, or the works. Not that love or works directly save you. So I wouldn't think that I'm reinterpreting the Bible, I would think that you're misinterpreting the Bible.

I said that Paul directly says that works do not save you. Just take a check at Ephesians 2:8-9 (this one especially), Acts 16:31, and Matthew 21:31 (in context, Jesus talks about the pharisees trying to get to heaven with their many works)(and yes, this isn't Paul). There are countless others on top of that.

I would say that it is as easy for a Catholic to get to heaven as it is for a Protestant to arrive in heaven. Both Catholic and Protestant have the resources to seem like a real Christian but miss out on the true meaning of Christianity. If we have a Catholic going around, thinking that their works are what are getting them to heaven, that won't work. In the same way, if we have a protestant going around, thinking that their faith alone will get them to heaven, that won't work either. There's a sweet spot, and I think it's possible for both Protestants and Catholics to be inside and outside of it.

Brother, I hear what you’re saying, and I’m not ignoring your point. I fully agree that Paul says we are not saved by works, meaning works don’t cause grace or earn salvation. Catholics believe that just as strongly as you do. Where we differ is simply this: Paul says works don’t cause salvation, but James says works are part of what makes faith alive and effective. Those two truths don’t contradict each other. They describe different parts of the same reality.

You’re right that James doesn’t say “works save you.”
But he does say:

faith can be dead

dead faith cannot save

works make faith complete

a person is justified by works and not by faith alone

You interpret that as “faith works only if love is present.”
I interpret it as “faith works only if obedience is present.”
But either way, we both agree that faith alone, by itself, is not enough.

Where we differ is simply this:
You treat works as evidence of salvation.
James treats works as what makes faith alive and effective.

That’s not me misinterpreting James; it’s just me taking his wording as he gives it.

As for Paul, I’m not ignoring him either.
Paul says: we are saved by grace, through faith, and created for good works, judged according to our works, and that faith works through love

None of that contradicts James unless we force Paul to mean “faith alone,” which he never actually says.

But here’s the bigger point:
You and I both agree that neither “works alone” nor “faith alone” gets anyone to heaven.
We both agree that grace is the source, faith is the response, and love must be lived out.
We both agree that Catholics and Protestants can miss the heart of the Gospel if they misunderstand any of those pieces.

I’m grateful we can talk about these things with respect. We both want to follow Christ faithfully. And while we may not agree on every detail, I can’t set aside what Scripture and the Church have always taught: that grace saves us, faith receives that grace, and works of love, empowered by grace, are part of how God brings that faith to life. I’ll keep walking in that truth, and I trust God will continue guiding both of us toward the fullness of His light.

I hate to say this, but it sounds like we're arguing the same point then. Honestly, when you give that statement, when you directly address Paul's statement, it really sounds like we're arguing over a nonexistent different. Of course we must obey the Lord.

But the way to have an alive faith is not the part where we follow everything as God tells us, because that's impossible. What makes us Christian is that we're always striving to follow God. In that way, our faith is completed and made alive by good works and love. Paul says that he himself can't perfectly listen to God: "For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do"

If we could perfectly follow God all on our own, we wouldn't need a savior. As it turns out, we all belong in hell, but because God was so gracious as to send his son, all who believe in him are saved.

I’m actually glad you’re seeing how much common ground we share. We both agree that none of us can follow God perfectly, that we constantly fall short, and that salvation is entirely a gift of God’s grace. We both agree that faith must be alive, and that love and good works are the way that faith breathes and grows. And we both agree that striving to follow God — even imperfectly — is part of what it means to belong to Christ.

Where the Catholic view simply adds a little clarity is this:
striving, loving, and doing good works don’t replace grace — they’re the fruit of grace working in us. They don’t earn salvation, but they keep faith alive, the same way you described. In that sense, we’re not talking about “perfect obedience,” but about a heart that keeps turning back to God, keeps repenting, keeps loving, keeps trying. That’s exactly what Paul meant when he admitted his own weakness — and exactly why he leaned so completely on Christ.

So yes, we absolutely need a Savior. We can’t save ourselves, and we can’t obey perfectly. But the Savior we depend on doesn’t just forgive us — He transforms us. He gives us a faith that grows, a love that acts, and a life that slowly becomes more like His.

If that’s the point you’re making, then honestly, we’re closer than it might have seemed at first. And I’m grateful we can talk about it with this kind of honesty and charity.

Thank you. That's helpful.

James says that faith without works is dead. That's a difficult passage. So controversial that the German monk Martin Luther supposedly ripped the book out of the Bible. I'm not sure if every Catholic says that it's through both faith and good works though.
Do you want to debate that aspect of the Bible? There are some verses that I could pull out to try to counteract that claim.

Could you tell me more about the sacraments? I know that in my denomination of (note that they can vary a lot) protestant churches baptism, communion, and marriage are very important but not necessary. From what I can tell, divorce is heavily looked down upon in Protestantism but is allowed.

How about the papacy?

Does a Catholic say a Protestant is saved? Most protestants say it depends on the Catholic.

Ah, holy wars were insane. the 7 years' war (which lasted 9 years) was a massive war in Europe because a bunch of people were fighting over aspects of the Bible. Oof. The Bible calls for the exact opposite to that.

Sure, I would like to see the verses that counteract James 2:17.

The sacraments are in interesting topic in this issue. Baptism, in the Church, is the ritual cleansing of our souls form Original Sin, inherited from Adam and Eve. Through Baptism, we can be truly connected to Christ, as we have gotten rid of Original Sin, and have Sanctifying Grace. The only people born without original sin are Jesus and Mary.

Reconciliation is the act of bringing amends to God, as our souls will fall to Satan's lies and temptations, and is a way of bringing us closer to God. In the Church, we believe that God wants us to participate in spreading his Word and being proactive in spiritual life, and to experience him in all five senses; sight, touch, smell, sound, and taste.

Communion is an essential part of Mass, which fulfills the five senses. Catholics believe that when the priest consecrates the bread, it becomes the true body of Christ, not figuratively, but literally. When we consume this, we are consuming Christ, and becoming part of him. Unfortunately, some Catholics have fallen away from this aspect, and do not think it is real, which we are working to bring back.

Marriage is the binding of a man and woman in holy matrimony, since they complement each other, as said in 1 Corinthians 12. They are permanently apart, and only through death are they separated. Annulments can happen, called a "Catholic divorce," but are very rare.

Holy Orders is becoming "married" to the Church, and becoming the people who do the work of Christ with his hands. Last Rites are the last sacrament to be taken, and are taken when a person is about to die. In cases where the patient is unable to speak, the priest will absolve their sins, and do the Rites for them.

The Papacy is the leader of the Church, which came from Peter, the first Pope, or Bishop of Rome. Protestants cast this into doubt, saying there is no reliable record of Peter entering Rome, as Loraine Boettner states, but the Ecclesiastical History in Loeb Classical Library states this explicitly.

Thank you for explaining the aspects of Catholicism. You're very helpful. Don't take the following as a savage attack to your faith, only a suggestion to reconsider it.

Alright then. I think the Bible is pretty clear about this. James feels controversial when it's compared to these verses, but I think it's not to be taken as a "we are saved by works" but more of a "we are saved by faith, and works are proof". And I think even the pope would agree with me on this despite clashing worldviews.

Ephesians 2:8-9 "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast." Paul explicitly explains that it's NOT by works.

Romans 3:28 “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” Faith is separated from works pretty clearly here.

Galatians 2:16 "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." At this point I'm sure you've got the pattern. You don't need me saying the same thing more than once.

Acts 16:30-31 "He then brought them out and asked, 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?'
"They replied, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.' "

Unfortunately, some of the more mainstream Christians think that it's really easy. It's not so much as they think. James is the testimony to this along with others, such as Paul, consequently looking like he's contradicting himself. "Faith without works is dead". This is why although there are a few things that I wouldn't say are desirable with Catholics from the evangelical view, I think Catholics are MUCH better off than the liberal mainstream Christians (who, in fact, support LGBTQ mainly because everybody else does and it doesn't want to be hated on. We're not supposed to be of this world).

*Note: I used ChatGPT to help find the verses. They're actual verses for sure, but I didn't do as much digging in the Bible as one might expect to find this. I should do that sometime though.

From the Catholic POV, we should respect LGBTQ opinions, and let the Holy Spirit work into them.

Anyway, about your verses,

Yes, Paul states that faith saves us, but he is condemning works of the Mosaic Law, not works of love that flow from grace, which James states clearly. In fact, Galatians 5:6, and Romans 1:5, 2:6-7, 16:26, Paul states that works are necessary. Paul never actually uses the word "faith alone," only in James is it mentioned. '

We are actually saved by Sola Gratia, grace alone, which comes from faith and works. When James speaks in 2:17, he is not contradicting Paul, but correcting the misinterpretation that Protestants have taken.

Look at it this way; Grace is the spark, faith is the flame, and works are the light and heat from it. Without the light and heat, there is no fire.

Note: I'm using Copilot to help with writing. I have a tight schedule writing essays.

You'll find that the Catholics and the Protestants (at least, the ones that actually acknowledge the Bible) have a lot more in common than you think. Protestants too believe that contrary beliefs should be respected, despite how wrong they may be.

I may get slightly aggressive. I apologize in advance, and I'll try to be as respectful as I can.

Firstly, your claim that Paul is criticizing the law fails to apply to Ephesians 2:8-9 and others like that. It has no mention of the law. It directly states that we are saved by grace through faith, then he explicitly says that works does not equal grace.
Secondly, your claim is not true in the first place. Jesus himself says that he is not here to abolish the law or the prophets, but to fulfill them (Matthew 5:17). Paul also tell us to respect the laws of the state we are in (not U.S. state, the other kind of political state), so he wouldn't be criticizing that or it would be a contradiction.

Your analogy is cool. I might use my version of it. You'll realize that it actually suggests my point. If your were thinking of light and heat as a cause, you'd be incorrect, the light and the heat are the result, not the cause. Sure, if you don't have light and heat you don't have a flame, but just because you have light and heat doesn't mean you have the flame.

I think my analogy is a bit better than your original one: faith is the fuel. You can never have a flame that doesn't have something to use as fuel, but that doesn't mean that you will always have the flame if you have fuel. Grace is the flame. This is the part that you are saved by. God's grace. I'm sure we can both agree on that at least. Finally, as you said, works is the light and the heat. You can have light or heat without flame, but if you have the flame, you are guaranteed the light and the heat. So, as my fellow Protestants will say, works is not what saves you, it's proof that you are saved.

Yes, Catholics and Protestants share a lot of Scripture and devotion to Christ, but it's not whether we both believe in grace, it's about how Scripture teaches how grace works in us.

In Galatians, Romans, and Ephesians, the argument is the same; Do Gentiles need to follow Scripture to be saved? Circumcision, dietary laws, and Sabbath are "works" that Paul is contrasting with grace.

If Paul meant all works, including works of love, then:
Ephesians 2:10("created for good works") contradicts Ephesians 2:8-9
Romans 2:6-7("God will repay each according to his works") contradicts Romans 3:28
Galatians 5:6("faith working through love") contradicts Galatians 2:16
1 Corinthians 13("I am nothing without love") contradicts everything

Paul only keeps consistent in the Catholic interpretation, meaning indeed, we are saved through works and love.

As on your Matthew 5:17 argument; Exactly. Jesus fulfilled the Law. That means moral law remains, ceremonial and civil law are left behind. Paul critiques ceremonial law, which means he can say "We uphold the law"(Romans 3:31), and "Love fulfills the law"(Romans 3:8-10). Paul is anti-circumcision-as-salvation, not anti-works.

Your analogy also proves the point of my Catholicism. If faith is the fuel, then grace depends on faith to exist. But Protestant theology says that grace is supposed to be unconditional and independent of human cooperation. When you say "you can have light or heat without flames," you contradict yourself; light and heat are effects of flame. While works is optional in you analogy, Scripture contradicts it, and should be the #1 source, according to your theology.

“I appreciate your passion for Scripture. I think we both want to honor what the Bible actually says, not just what we’ve been taught to assume. If you want, we can walk through Paul and James together and see how the early Christians understood them.”

What we are saying in comparison are similar and yet so different. Or are they? In my analogy, I did not once say that you can have the flame without the light and heat, I said that if you have the flame you are guaranteed the light and heat, no "works is optional" works is a given, if you have grace. That's why it is more of a proof than a cause. Through grace we are saved by faith, leading to works.

I explained that those verses wouldn't contradict before, and I'll explain it again. Paul is not saying that works save you. It would genuinely be impossible to make it to heaven if that were so. Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) says that we can't even be angry with another man, which we can't help. He says we can't lust after another woman, and that too, we are incapable of stopping. [He says divorce is considered adultery.] He says we can't swear on anything, we should not take an eye for an eye, and we must love everyone. Do you think that is in the least achievable? According to the Christ himself, everyone "will be liable to the hell of fire." (Matthew 5:22)

We are judged for our works. We are all judged by them, Paul speaks along these lines too, as you are quite sure of. And we all fall short of heaven. Each and every one of us. NONE of us deserve to go to heaven, so, because good works will never get us to heaven, God has sent us our savior. Jesus came for this very reason.

I didn't say that Paul is anti-works. You brought up the verse yourself. "created for good works." Ephesians 2:10. We humans should do good works. But don't think that he is saying that works is what saves you. 'Tis not.

I can't say I recall that you addressed the contradictions I found if your view was so, after I explained my argument. Some people say not to question God, but honestly, that's the dumbest thing for a Christian to do. Debate the meaning of the Bible. Question the validity of the cosmological argument. Address the problem of evil.

It's good to debate with a fellow Christian who doesn't call me an idiot every other sentence. We're all people capable of logic. Everyone makes a misinterpretation of the logic, but we're still brothers, or, may I say, comrades.

First, thank you for keeping this charitable. I agree—Christians should be able to debate Scripture without treating each other like enemies. With that said, let me respond point‑by‑point.

You say:
“If you have the flame you are guaranteed the light and heat… works is a given if you have grace.”

But no. It is not.

James explicitly states:
Faith can be dead, dead faith produces no works, and dead faith cannot save. If works are guaranteed, James would have no right to say this. Your analogy assumes grace automatically makes works. James is opposite. You're describing Calvinism, not Scripture.

You also switch between two questions: If works save us and the possibility of good works without grace. Us Catholics can agree on this; Without grace, we cannot fulfill Jesus' words at the Sermon, cannot love perfectly, and cannot save ourselves. That has nothing to to do with your first question.

Grace saves us, but grace produces works that are truly part of our justification. Exactly what James says: “You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone,” “Faith was completed by works,” and “Faith without works is dead.” You’re answering a different question than the one James is addressing.

Your interpretation of the Sermon is also supporting the Catholic position. You say, "Jesus' commands are impossible, therefore works cannot save." Again, wrong. He says if you love him, keep his commandments, Not everyone who praises him goes to heaven, and every tree without good fruit is thrown into fire. He does not say, good works are impossible, so don’t worry about them. He says, with God, all things are possible. His Sermon shows that obedience is supernatural, only through grace. This is what I'm talking about. Paul has stated, God will repay each by his works, and faith works through love. Jesus says those who do good will come back to life. James, again, says; faith without works is dead.

You also have contradictions in you own, not mine. You said that if works are required, we can’t be saved. However, I have already shown in Scripture that this clearly contradicts your claims. Paul himself contradicts this in 1 Corinthians 15:10

In the end, the Catholic view simply takes all of Scripture together: grace saves us, faith receives that grace, and works are the living expression of that grace. Nothing in the Bible needs to be reinterpreted or minimized. It all fits when faith and works are understood as partners, not rivals.

Woah, woah, woah! When did I say faith and grace are the same thing? James explicitly states that faith can be dead, not grace, which is essentially the part where you are saved. Don't pull the strawman on me. GRACE is what leads to good works, not FAITH, but FAITH can lead to GRACE, but not necessarily, like the wick in a candle. That's why James says that faith (not grace) can be dead without works.

I don't switch between the questions, I am simply supplying what I would consider the real reason good works is good in the first place. I don't know if you think that I believe that good works is not important, but if you do, you'd be wrong. Works are PROOF of the grace.

A lot of your argument hinges on the idea that grace and faith are the same thing. You'll need to change that accordingly. James says that faith, not grace is dead without works. He means that faith does not lead to works if you haven't received grace.

That's right, good works are not impossible. What's impossible is never breaking commandments. Through Christ, we are capable of much, but on our own, so if we haven't been saved by grace (fueled by faith, but not faith), we cannot reach the kingdom of heaven. Without Jesus, we can't make it to heaven.

In the description in my paragraph above, 1 Corinthians 15:10 doesn't contradict. It says, "yet not I, but through Christ in me." A clear message that we commit good works AFTER receiving grace, not before.

Finally, I may as well say the exact same last paraph you just created. Works don't equal salvation, but works can't be considered unimportant.

Brother, I’m not confusing faith and grace. I’m simply pointing out what James actually says in Greek.

James says:

πίστις νεκρά ἐστιν — “faith is dead”

χωρὶς ἔργων — “without works.”

He does not say “faith is dead without grace.”
He says faith is dead without works.

Then he adds:

συνήργει — “faith cooperated with works”

ἐτελειώθη — “faith was completed by works”

δικαιοῦται — “a person is justified by works.”

These Greek verbs mean cooperation, completion, and justification —
not “proof” and not “evidence.”

Your view says works automatically follow grace.
But James says works can be absent, and when they are, faith is dead and cannot save.

If works were guaranteed by grace, dead faith couldn’t exist.
But James says it does.

So I’m not equating faith and grace —
I’m just taking James’ Greek at face value.

Paul agrees when he says:

πίστις ἐνεργουμένη — “faith working through love.”

Faith works.
Grace empowers.
Works complete.

That’s the whole Catholic view in one line.

https://www.youtube.com/@FalseHopesOfficial