According to Wikipedia (in the article about the Epistle of James) Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have historically argued that the passage James 2:14-26 disproves the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Protestants, however, resolve the apparent conflict between this passage and the teachings of Paul in an alternate ways. Then as an example of Protestant view Wikipedia provides the following text:
> Paul was dealing with one kind of error while James was dealing with a different error. The errorists Paul was dealing with were people who said that works of the law were needed to be added to faith in order to help earn God's favor. Paul countered this error by pointing out that salvation was by faith alone apart from deeds of the law (Galatians 2:16; Romans 3:21-22). Paul also taught that saving faith is not dead but alive, showing thanks to God in deeds of love (Galatians 5:6 ['…since in Christ Jesus it is not being circumcised or being uncircumcised that can effect anything - only faith working through love.']). James was dealing with errorists who said that if they had faith they didn't need to show love by a life of faith (James 2:14-17). James countered this error by teaching that faith is alive, showing itself to be so by deeds of love (James 2:18,26). James and Paul both teach that salvation is by faith alone and also that faith is never alone but shows itself to be alive by deeds of love that express a believer's thanks to God for the free gift of salvation by faith in Jesus.
Now, I am doubly puzzled by this. First, I'd like to ask: is this actually the Protestant view? If yes, then which Protestants? Because this text doesn't actually sound to me as "salvation is by faith only, no deeds are required". What actually is the meaning of "justification by faith alone"?
Second, this text supposedly provides an explanation which is different from that of Roman Catholics and the Orthodox. Now, I myself am an Orthodox and I am ignorant about Roman Catholicism (and I don't really care much about it), but I can't see in this text things that contradict my Orthodox faith. So my second question is this: Is there something non-Orthodox, or non-RomanCatholic in this text that I can't see?
If I have to add something important to this text, then it would be this: We are saved by Gods grace. When someone has no deeds, then he is in a spiritual state when he has barred himself from receiving the Gods grace. Thats why deeds are required but by themselves they are worthless and contain no saving power, and it is unwise to be proud about deeds.