Not according to your definition where I supposedly give a counter-example. I merely rebutted your interpretation of the given texts.
And they can be read much more plainly and plausibly in the sense of affirming that what we do actually matters come the Judgment Day. You're left with the unenviable task of trying to explain why Jesus' words don't actually mean what they plainly do mean. And this is the central fallacy of the "Reformed" position, as it's being touted on this thread. It requires your interpretation to make it mean something different from what it says. It is no longer Scripture, but rather your interpretation of it, that is the most important thing.
It's really not all that unenviable because what you ascertain is the plain meaning is only a reflection of your life situation, or horizon. It does not necessarily reflect what the author was intending to say let alone what the Holy Spirit was saying through the author. You take a few sentences in isolation without any surrounding context of the nearest verses, nor do you consider that the author may have a central theme around which the meaning of the verses could be effected, instead you just add your own presuppositions to the text and call it the plain meaning. That's why you have difficulty with the counter-examples. When two supposedly plain meaning passages apparantly conflict you find no way to resolve the difficulty.
What you've just described is "a work," in the context of this conversation. It's a positive and conscious act of submission that we must perform in order that justification may occur. The Pharisee, by contrast, refuses to acknowledge his sins, and is therefore not justified -- his works lead to condemnation, precisely in the manner Jesus described in Matthew 12. What you've just described is "a work," in the context of this conversation. It's a positive and conscious act of submission that we must perform in order that justification may occur. The Pharisee, by contrast, refuses to acknowledge his sins, and is therefore not justified -- his works lead to condemnation, precisely in the manner Jesus described in Matthew 12.
No, what I'm describing is an instrumental cause. For example, a carpenter uses a hammer to build a house. The house is built by the carpenter through which he uses a hammer, the tool. The work is actually done by the carpenter through the tool. The hammer cannot build the house without the carpenter. Faith is not the actual cause of our salvation its just merely the tool through which Christ works and without Christ's work the tool, faith, is not initiated.
And just to be very clear: the over-arching story of the Bible is quite obviously that salvation is a combined effort. God does the really heavy lifting, but we nevertheless have a meaningful role in the process.
I tell you what, we'll each give a narrative of the Bible that we think supports each of our major Bible theme and then we can critique each others position. Sound good?
The key to the story is that Abraham could have said no.
What evidence do you have for that? Was it his actions that was the cause or was it the instrument, his faith, that God loved? (I think I know what Paul would say.)
AMEN.
"Saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ."
"Shall the axe boast itself against him that heweth therewith? or shall the saw magnify itself against him that shaketh it? as if the rod should shake itself against them that lift it up, or as if the staff should lift up itself, as if it were no wood." -- Isaiah 10:15