While I disagree with him on certain topics (especially his often ill-informed criticisms against the LDS Church), Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin is pretty solid when it comes to the topic of soteriology. Indeed, I would recommend his book The Drama of Salvation: How God Rescues you from your Sins and Brings you to Eternal Life (El Cajon, Calif.: Catholic Answers Press, 2015) as a very good overview of Catholic soteriology, and has many insights Latter-day Saints will appreciate, too. One such topic is his discussion of common Protestant responses to Jas 2:24 and Abraham being justified not by faith alone (see one of my discussion of Jas 2: Jeff Durbin on Luke 7:35, James 2, and Justification).
As Akin notes (p. 127-28, 129):
A common proposal among some Protestants is that the term faith is being used differently in James. Specifically, it is sometimes proposed that he is referring to “dead faith.” They treat James’ statement that “faith apart from works is dead” (v. 26; see also v. 17) as referring to a specific kind of faith—“dead faith.” James is thus taken as saying that if faith does not produce works it is “dead faith, and “dead faith” won’t save us. But reading the context shows that James is not using the phrase in this way. He is not defining the term dead faith—a term that does not even appear in the text. By saying that “faith apart from works is dead,” he is stating a fact, not offering a definition.
The problem with the interpretation is demonstrated when we test it by substituting “dead faith” wherever the text mentions “faith” . . . On the reading that James means “dead faith” when he refers to faith, people would be boasting of having dead faith (v. 14). James would make the redundant statement that dead faith apart from works is dead (vv. 17, 26) and offering to prove that dead faith is barren (v. 20). He would be offering to show people his dead faith by his works (v. 18) and commending people (“you do well”) for having dead faith (v. 19). Finally, he would be telling us that Abraham’s dead faith was active with his works (v. 22) and that Abraham believed God with dead faith and it was reckoned to him as righteousness (v. 23).
This interpretation is clearly in error.
Continuing (p. 129), Akin refutes the “mere intellectual assent” apologetic:
Another interpretation holds that the faith in this passage is mere intellectual faith. Supporters of this may appeal to James’s statement, “Even the demons believe—and shudder” (v. 19). What kind of faith do demons have? Mere intellectual assent. They intellectually assent to the truths of theology, but this is as far as their faith goes.
This understanding is closer to the truth, but it still creates problems—in fact, many of the same problems. People would be boasting of having mere intellectual assent (v. 14). James would be offering to show others his mere intellectual assent by his works (v. 18). He would be commending people for having mere intellectual assent (v. 19) and saying that Abraham’s mere intellectual assent was active along with his works (v. 22), in which case it wouldn’t be mere any more. Finally, he would be saying that Abraham’s mere intellectual assent was reckoned to him as righteousness, contradicting verse 23, which tells us that mere intellectual assent is barren.
Elsewhere (pp. 132-33), Akin correctly notes that James is teaching progressive justification, not declarative justification merely:
James is discussing ongoing justification, or growth in righteousness. This is illustrated by his citing the example of Abraham being justified when he offered Isaac on the altar (2:21). That was years after Abraham had been initially justified and, since Abraham was not repenting of a sin at the time, we know that it is a progressive, ongoing justification that is being discussed. Some call this sanctification, and sanctification does indeed involve the performance of good works and not intellectual assent alone.
On Abraham and his progressive justification, see my article on Gen 15:6 and how it does not support the common Reformed reading (i.e., that Abraham was once-for-all declared justified in this text).
