As I showed in 169, Daniel substituted the problem with another not being argued.
I am sorry, but I have searched this page looking for evidence of this alleged obfuscatory shift of arguments and cannot even begin to figure out where you got them from. I have no idea what you are talking about. I have read Daniel’s posts and do not get from them what you apparently are getting. I am disappointed in myself for that, because I would sincerely like to grasp where this perception gap is occurring, because maybe then I could help clear it up.
But at this moment I’m not getting it. Daniel is simply restating seven ways till Sunday the standard Reformation approach to the multidimensional nature of justification, and adding insight from Catholic thinkers as an added benefit. Even if I put on my “try to think like a Catholic to understand this” hat, it’s not working for me. There is no pretense in anything he has said, nor myself nor the others recently here. Can we only convince you we are not “pretending” if we surrender our principles and pretend to agree with you?