One

the only sources I'm finding on google for this quote are sites devoted to catholic apologetics

>That pic
Not what Luther ever said or argued
>That quote
No context provided

>That pic
James 2:24 refers to justification, not salvation

>the
>pope
>does
>well

Why should anyone care about the Bible?

The explanation is the true church was destroyed under years of corruption.

Purgatory is a meme

>What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him?
James 2:14

>we wuz the real christian
it is exactly what protestants believe

a true Christian following God in truth and Spirit would never bow down before any statue, and do anything that the Bible expressly says not to.

...

Selling indulgences in the past and kissing the feet of muslims today. Truly the church is a whore and will give herself to whoevet has power.

>The explanation is the true church was destroyed under years of corruption.
>Christianity gets corrupted in almost the same ways, across the entire spread of the Old World, despite some of them being separated from the rest since the times of the council Ephesus;

He meant if you do not do works, are you truly saved, if you don't thirst after godly things have you really faith is the holy ghost really within you?
Nay
It is not by works lest any man should boast
Rather that works are the evidence and symptoms of a godly faithful man

>mental gymnastics

Oh you got me there nice argument friend :^)

It's not. It's fairly evident in the text. In fact the entire chapter is dedicated to explaining how works are simply the fruit of faith, and all true faith bears works. You know a tree by the fruit it bears. Salvation comes through faith, works are the evidence of faith. This is literally what the Bible says and it's not hard to understand.

Yep. The indefectable Church of Christ who is to last until the end of time, died from its sufferings; and as a result, no one can be saved.

scripturecatholic.com/salvation.html
scripturecatholic.com/justification.html

>Romans 10:9New King James Version (NKJV)

9that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.

And then
>Faith without works is dead

Notice how works are mention relation to faith

Have you even read Galatians? There is nothing you can do to add to the cross. Jesus bore everything it takes to save mankind. There is not one thing you can do to secure Gods grace other than to accept what is freely given

Anyone who actually reads the Bible would know this

>He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.
Romans 2:6-7

>And so, my dear friends, just as you have always obeyed, not only when I was with you but even more now that I am absent, continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling.
Philippians 2:12

I could go on and on. Educate yourself:
scripturecatholic.com/salvation.html
scripturecatholic.com/justification.html

Eh, it's kind of like Americans taking a traditional Italian dish (pizza) and making it differently and arguably better. Or Italians themselves perfecting pasta from the Arabs.

With faith you are saved, NOT BY WORKS LEST ANY MAN SHOULD BOAST

...

So basically you are taking stuff the Apostles said and altering it to make it different.

>By contrast, many recent studies of the Greek word pistis have concluded that its primary and most common meaning was faithfulness, meaning firm commitment in an interpersonal relationship.[14][15][16][17] As such, the word could be almost synonymous with "obedience" when the people in the relationship held different status levels (e.g. a slave being faithful to his master). Far from being equivalent to "lack of human effort", the word seems to imply and require human effort. The interpretation of Paul's writings that we need to "faithfully" obey God's commands is quite different from one which sees him saying that we need to have "faith" that he will do everything for us. This is also argued to explain why James was adamant that "faith without works is dead" and that "a man is saved by works, and not by faith alone", while also saying that to merely believe places one on the same level as the demons (see James 2). The "new" perspective argues that James was concerned with those who were trying to reduce faith to an intellectual subscription without any intent to follow God or Jesus, and that Paul always intended "faith" to mean a full submission to God.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Perspective_on_Paul

And there you go, by Scripture Alone and linguistics, we destroyed the Protesturd position

Protestants disobeying Paul

You're no Christian

Catholic lecturing people using the decisions of words, ever wandered why the Greeks split?
Cause they know that baptism means to emerge a person in water.
Also see the Philippian jailer, or the theif on the cross neither are seen to do good works but bothered saved through their faith.
James us addressing false conversation in the church saying that if you do not works you do not love God and his will.

This is what you tards refuse to understand: we absolutely know that faith means total submission to God. Living out your life for his kingdom is what every Christian needs to do.

The problem is when we say stuff like sacraments have no inherent significance or that priests have no special authority over the holy spirit then you people go apeshit

Sola Fide means no effort and no good works on the part of the individual. Such aren't needed for Salvation, only faith(which itself is just God acting upon the person according to Sola Fide, not the person acting of his/her own volition) as this user puts it. Of course that user isn't addressing the issue of translation or the fact that Paul demands effort and works(not for merit but as a condition for God saving the person).

The fact that James also have to say that "Faith without works is dead" entails that the individuals he is addressing have the potential to be complacent hence the warning against passivity.

The Protestant, particularly Calvinist and Lutheran understanding of "faith" isn't on any part of the individual. It's God acting on them but this makes James' statement redundant since anyone whom God has acted upon would naturally do works. But from what we see, James addresses his audience as if they are autonomous agents, that they themselves are the ones who must work and not be lazy in their faith.

Proturds also fail to understand how Paul's conception of the Sacraments are in fact, realist or even better, how they can't even agree with each other on the nature of the Sacraments themselves! And here you are daring to bring this up like an arrogant piece of shit.

The story of the Philipian jailer ironically involves him actually doing something

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts 16:25-40&version=ESV

And so is the part about the thief who rebuked the other who ridiculed Jesus!

Oh the sweet sweet irony.

Paul's Eucharist:

a. 1 Cor 11:17–34.
From a literary standpoint the oldest account of the institution of the Lord‘s
Supper is found in 1 Cor 11:23–26. Paul reports the account essentially in the form in which he had
learned to know it in Antioch in the 40‘s and as he had passed it on to the Corinthians when he established
the church there. The traditional words ―receive‖ and ―deliver‖ (paralambanein and paradidonai) in v 23a
are well known in the scholarly language of Rabbinism (cf. Midr. Qoh. 12:11) and of Hellenism (Diod.
5.2,3). They clearly indicate that the vv 23b–25 are a fragment of tradition (possibly with some Pauline
touches). ―From the kyrios‖ points to the earthly Jesus as the source of this catena of traditional elements.
At the same time he is seen as the present exalted Lord who gives the sacrament its permanent validity.
The rather scanty reference to the historic event of the passion in v 23b (―on the night when he was
betrayed‖) sets the words of Institution off from the timeless, cyclic myths and formulae of the Mysteries.

The traditional text lays out another aspect of the meal in which the breaking of the bread at the
beginning of the meal and the blessing of the cup at the end (cf. 11:25a ―in the same way also the cup,
after supper‖) surround the main meal. The words ―for you,‖ spoken at the breaking of the bread, are
addressed to the participants of the Lord‘s Supper; they draw them into participation of the salvatory self sacrifice
of Jesus. The contents of the cup in v 25b are not directly identified as the blood. Rather, in the
foreground stands the sealing of the eschatological new covenant in the death on the cross. Besides its
vertical dimension (the God of the covenant creating a new people), this covenant has a horizontal aspect:
the celebrants are brought together into covenant community.

Anchor Bible Dictionary-Lord's Supper, pg 5363

Paul's eucharist

I was at a Lutheran funeral and had to stop myself in my tracks to keep from reciting this part.

Why?