But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
-- James, second chapter according to a Catholic, verses twenty through twenty-four according to a Catholic turned Protestant, and all that without striking through a single word of the KJV.
The purpose of the passage you are quoting has nothing to do with salvation. What it serves for spiritual purposes is to demonstrate the quality and genuineness of the faith of the mn already renamed Abraham (because of his proven loyalty to the God Who sees to the bottom of your heart), to demonstrate to all ages the instant, total, unquestioning obedience of both Abraham and Isaac:
"By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac:
and he that had received the promises offered up his only
begotten son,
Of whom it was said, That in Isaac shall thy seed be called:
Accounting that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead;
from whence also he received him in a figure" (Heb 11:17-19 AV).
Don't be a dunce! The passage in James occurred about 42 years after Abram went on record of committing himself, his obedience, and the eternal future of himself and his descendants, his seed, to the care of Jehovah.
This passage cannot be used to demonstrate inception of salvation being effected by human works! God's salvation begins with faith alone in Messiah alone, as recorded in His Word alone.
Regarding your quotation, what part of "Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness:" do you not understand? It does not say that Abraham wore a hair shirt and believed, and that made him righteous. No! God saw that he placed his entire person and future in God's hands, and because of that, Abram was counted as if he were righteous. Being judicially freed of guilt does not indicate you did not sin. It only means that you are freed from the penalty that the sin deserves, but the judge says "Not guilty."
It's time you brushed up your Catholic terms and translations to fit the Scrpture, not vice versa as has been done. Translating μετάνοια (metanoia) = repentance, "a change of mind," by substituting "penance" for it, a defined term that is an act, a work of, say, giving up chocolate for Lent--This substitution is a red hot criminal misuse of the translator's position of trust, but which perverts the whole doctrine of Chrisy Jesus' suffering for our sins.
My dear fellow human, Scripture says that you are so full of sin, of depravity, from the moment of conception and on through life, that you couldn't even begin to be recognized as compensating God or others for your own misdeeds, even the ones performed unintentionally, to earn even a small step toward heaven by any thing you might think is good toward one person, that doesn't actually deprive the benefit of it from another!
Come on! It is only by pleading the Blood of Christ alone for your iniquity that you might start to move Him to hear a plea for salvation based on trusting Christ alone, apart from any works you have done or ever will do. To think otherwise is to take on the same haughty attitude that got Lucifer cast out of heaven! To think you can contribute anything more to the offering of His Body and Blood that is already given for our salvation is the peak of unrepentant pride of self. Isaac Watts commented on that, back in 1707 AD:
"When I survey the wondrous cross
on which the Prince of Glory died;
my richest gain I count but loss,
and pour contempt on all my pride.
Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast,
save in the death of Christ, my God;
all the vain things that charm me most,
I sacrifice them to his blood.
See, from his head, his hands, his feet,
sorrow and love flow mingled down.
Did e'er such love and sorrow meet,
or thorns compose so rich a crown.
Were the whole realm of nature mine,
that were an offering far too small;
love so amazing, so divine,
demands my soul, my life, my all."
=========
"If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1Jn 1:9 AV)
No mention of "penance" here, only confession--and repentance, a change of mind inferred--any attempt to add to God's work of forgiving and total cleansing by insisting on subsequent acts of contrition would be just a deep, deep insult to the merciful nature of The God, and counted as yet another gross sinful mistake in estimating the character of Christ, IMHO.
I infer from this that you mean this as a (veiled?) insult for the way I presented the passage regarding regret vs. repentance. You probably know that in the AV the translators were faithful to the reader in that they italicized the words that they added to the translation that were not in the Greek text. So that is what I do when presenting the KJV/AV here so that the same faithfulness to the translation is observed. If this little detail is not observed, and the verse no longer distinguishes these added words, the the verse can no longer be presented as nor clain to be as from the Crown-Authorized Bible.
Also, the translation may be read leaving those added words out, without violating the translation or the sense of the original text from which it was translated. Sometimes when I present the passage from the AV, I may, without removing the added words (honoring the translators) do strike them through, so as to encourage the reader to read the passage eliminating the added words, and thereby see that the meaning may be a bit limited by the added word(s). In doing so, I have not changed the original text at all, nor the English sense of it.
Since a translation is not inspired, and what I have done is not dishonoring, the innuendo I take from your comment that I have done something to mar or defile the passage is unacceptable. You did not mean it as a scholarly correction, did you?