Thus while “works of the law” are disallowed as salvific, Rome attributes salvific merit to works of faith
First, thank you for a thoughtful response. It is cogent posts like this that make my participation in this thread a joy.
Some disagree.
Yes, that is a correct summary. Works done in obedience of law (Jewish or otherwise) or for social gain (e.g. "to boast", Eph.2:9), or for wages, do not count toward salvation, even though they can contribute to it indirectly by avoiding sin in cases where sin is also a crime. Works of faith otherwise known as works of love or works of charity, often referred to by the Scripture as "good works" have a direct salvific effect.
You are introducing a contrast Paul is not making, which is clearly not that of disallowing works done out of a certain motive or quality versus works of faith, but the contrast is works meriting justification, that believers have "truly merited eternal life," versus righteousness being imputed by faith. The argument we have is not that faith must be of a kind that works, but that works (nor faith) do not merit eternal life. Rather, justification is by imputed righteousness — Christ works being the effective cause — procured through a kind of God-given faith that will bring forth fruit unto practical holiness.
As for boasting, if believers are accounted to have "truly merited eternal life" by those “very works which have been done in God,” then it is a wage, even if by grace, and even those works done under the law work are by grace, and they who are under that system work by faith that God will justify them on account of their merits. But as in election, if justification is through faith “by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.” (Rm. 11:6) “Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. 5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.” (Rm. 4:4,5)
However, apart from eternal life, which is a wholly unmerited gift, (Rm. 6:23) works done in faith do have a reward, (Mt. 10:41; 1Cor. 3:14; 9:17) and in contrast to salvation, Paul could “boast” of what he had done, in seeking to turn the Corinthians back to faith, (2Cor. 11:10) and declare how he laboured more abundantly than the other apostles out of love for God, by the grace of God which was with him. (1Cor. 15:10)
other texts do not specify works of the law, but broadly refers to works, which it sets in contrast to faith
let us see what examples you cite.
... simply says that the law is just and good, I don't see any reference to works in general here. It is our presumption that a law is always aiming at something good, or at forbidding something bad, is it not?
Here law in its pedagogical value is contrasted to faith. I don't see good works being contrasted to faith.
Your editing of my response loses the argument. What i said in context was,
Thus while “works of the law” are disallowed as salvific, Rome attributes salvific merit to works of faith. This implies that the reason for the use of the term “works of the law” in such places as Romans 4 is to place such in contrast to “works of faith.” However, other texts do not specify works of the law, but broadly refers to works, which it sets in contrast to faith. And the law being holy just and good, (Rm. 7:12) “if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law,” (Gal. 3:21) while the “righteousness of the law” is never abrogated. (Rm. 8:4)
The argument goes on (below) to provide examples, while Rm. 7:12 and Gal. 3:21 are obviously not referenced as contrasting works versus grace but they are used to argue that if there was a way to merit eternal life by works then it would have been by the law, in which one has faith that God will justify him on account of his works-righteousness. The often-used term “works of the law” in Paul's teaching is clearly NOT to disallow “works of the law” in contrast to “works of faith” as regards to the instrumental means of justification, but to contrast “works” versus “grace through faith.” I went on to ref Titus 3:5 and 2Tim. 1:9 in that regard, to which Eph. 2:9,10 can be added, which do not mention works of the law,” but which contrast you misconstrue.
while the “righteousness of the law” is never abrogated. (Rm. 8:4)
Indeed, see my comment above. The work of the law are not salvific, that is one obeying the law simply because it is law may be avoiding certain sins, but other than that he is not advancing his sanctification and therefore is not advancing his salvation. He simply does, like the unfaithful servant, "what is required of him" (Luke 17:7-10).
The ref to “righteousness of the law” not being abrogated follows the above point as to the quality of the law, and again the argument by Paul is not one type of works versus another; rather he indiscriminately disallows “works of righteousness” as the basis for justification, in contrast to establishing that faith is counted for righteousness, though it must be a kind of faith that works, which it is elsewhere qualified as being.
I do not see an example of "other texts do not specify works of the law, but broadly refers to works, which it sets in contrast to faith" anywhere here.
The next paragraph was part of the argument and gave two examples.
The key difference as I see it between this and what Catholicism teaches is that it is not by any “merit of works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us,” (Titus 3:5) not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began. (2Tim. 1:9)
How is that not what Catholicism teaches?
Because Rome teaches that the good works that he performs by the grace truly merit the attainment of eternal life itself, (Trent, Canon 32) that “eternal life is to be offered, both as a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ Jesus, and as a reward promised by God himself, to be faithfully given to their good works and merits,” (Trent, Chapter XVI; The fruits of justification, that is, the merit of good works, and the nature of that merit) that believers “have truly merited eternal life” “by those very works which have been done in God,” (ibid, Decree on justification), Thus you must attempt to restrict “works of righteousness” “not of works,” “not according to our works,” and “to him that worketh not,” to only applying to a certain kind of works, contrasting that with “works of faith,” while the Biblical contrast is broadly between works of any kind versus faith as the instrumental means of justification by the imputed righteousness of Christ.
Christ did not indeed [need to go] to to the Cross because we were righteous or law-abiding. He did so because He is God and God loves us and all He creates.
Christ did not got the cross simply because He is loving, but because He is holy and just, and man is utterly unable to merit eternal life with Him or escape his just and eternal damnation in Hell-fire, and thus the need for the atonement. "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. " (Romans 3:25-26)
None of that negates the need for us to love God back, and indeed "faith without works is dead" (James 2:17-26), and we must "excel in good works" (Titus 3:8, the same passage that reiterates that "works of justice do not save us" (one you cite, verse 5).
That is not the issue. As has been established, the classic Protestant doctrine of sola fide preaches that the kind of faith that is salvific is one that shows forth things which accompany salvation, "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." (Romans 2:13) Not because they merit it, but because that is the character of saving faith, the issue being that a soul is justified by imputed righteousness upon believing, with a faith that will follow the One whose justified them by His blood and righteousness.
You also cite 2Tim. 1:9 and, of course there, as well, the same thought is expressed: that while God saved us and, in that case, gave some of us the calling of episcopacy, "according to his own purpose and grace", we must have a response: "labour with the gospel, according to the power of God" and "stir up the grace of God which is in [us]", "[in the] spirit of power, and of love, and of sobriety" (2 Tim 1:6-9).
You left out, “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,” as what is at issue is that salvation is “not according to our works,” but by pure grace, not grace to merit salvation, but that one is justified by imputed righteousness through a kind of faith that confesses Jesus is Lord.
So no, I do not see a prooftext of faith and good works being "either one or the other".
As concerns what the basis for justification is, that should be obvious.
Each passage you cite affirms the Catholic teaching: The sovereign purpose of God is love for us; works of the law (or works of justice) do not have a salvific merit; works of faith or good works done in the spirit of love are a necessary part of our response to grace.
To which you should have said, “and which merit eternal life.” as that is Rome's false gospel, upon which a vast system is built. Each passage i cite does not affirm Catholic teaching that believers are accounted to have "truly merited eternal life" by those “very works which have been done in God,” but again they deny that any work except that of the Lord Jesus Christ atones for sin and merits salvation, and is appropriated by faith.
James 2:10-12
10For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. 11For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. 12So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty.
Once a person commits one sin, they are condemned. they need FORGIVENESS. Works could only save if someone kept the Law perfectly their entire life; only if they never sinned.
Since that is not possible, forgiveness must be granted. That's an act of mercy on the part of the forgiver, not what is due to the sinner for other good works racked up to his account.
Salvation is a gift given out of mercy. You don't work to earn a gift or earn mercy. If you earned it, it wouldn't be mercy, it would be wages.
I am reminded again of the conversation I had with a parish priest over breakfast. The subject of favorite Scripture verses came up. I said mine was Ephesians 2:8,9 “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.”
“Hmmm”, he replied, “That sounds Protestant to me.”
No lie, those were his exact words and it showed me that God's word read in context means what it says. We have no excuse for not understanding the simplicity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Of course he is making it. There is no shortage of passages where works of the law are said to be not salvific and next to it works of faith and love are urged. The first paragraph of Titus 3 is a good example, or any ending of a Pauline letter where having argued against circumcision he goes on to urge good works.
Rather, justification is by imputed righteousness — Christ works being the effective cause — procured through a kind of God-given faith that will bring forth fruit unto practical holiness.
Righteousness is real , not "imputed". "Imputed" is an Old Testament construct. A Chjristian man is a "new creature" (Galatians 6:15), not an old creature in camouflage.
if believers are accounted to have "truly merited eternal life" by those “very works which have been done in God,” then it is a wage
Yes, if a motivation is salvation, or fear of punishment, then it is no longer work of love. Salvific work imitates Christ; He worked because He loved. Romans 11 and Romans 4 that you go on to cite make the disctintions between grace and any works, not between faith and works, and are wholly Catholic doctrine of Grace Alone.
while Rm. 7:12 and Gal. 3:21 are obviously not referenced as contrasting works versus grace but they are used to argue that if there was a way to merit eternal life by works then it would have been by the law, in which one has faith that God will justify him on account of his works-righteousness
No, it is still not by law. Sainthood by definition is heroic virtue: something done out of pure love without conscious regard of one's salvation. One does not, for example, get saved by doing charity work now and then, but by becoming internally out of habit (as a "new creature") a charitable person. Sorry if I neglected to make it clear earlier.
Eph. 2:9,10 ... do not mention works of the law
No, but it only mentions works negatively in v.9 to contrast it with grace.
The next paragraph was part of the argument and gave two examples.
and I adressed them, or did I misunderstand which ones?
Thus you must attempt to restrict “works of righteousness” “not of works,” “not according to our works,” and “to him that worketh not,” to only applying to a certain kind of works, contrasting that with “works of faith,” while the Biblical contrast is broadly between works of any kind versus faith
But that "the Biblical contrast is broadly between works of any kind versus faith" is still to be proven. Please explain where do you see that. I did point out how the context always qualifies the non-salvific works.
Christ did not got the cross simply because He is loving
Yes, He did. God is love. That is all God does: He loves.
the classic Protestant doctrine of sola fide preaches that the kind of faith that is salvific is one that shows forth things which accompany salvation, "For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." (Romans 2:13) Not because they merit it, but because that is the character of saving faith
Very well, but that then denies Faith Alone. It has to be faith whose character it is to do good works, -- faith + works.
You left out [2 Tim 1:9], “Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace..."
That is another contrast between works and grace. It is not a contrast between works and faith. It makes my point.
Annalex: So no, I do not see a prooftext of faith and good works being "either one or the other".
daniel1212 : As concerns what the basis for justification is, that should be obvious.
I am sorry. If it were "obvious" to me I would not have asked. I still don't see any proof from scripture that faith and good works are mutually exclusive as "the basis for justification". I, in fact, can supply a few direct scripture passages that say, if taken at face value that good works ALONE are the basis for justification (Matthew 25:31-46, primarily, but there are several passages to that effect.)
Annalex:Each passage you cite affirms the Catholic teaching: The sovereign purpose of God is love for us; works of the law (or works of justice) do not have a salvific merit; works of faith or good works done in the spirit of love are a necessary part of our response to grace.
daniel1212 : To which you should have said, “and which merit eternal life.”
... and which merit eternal life. "Possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat...". Note that causative "for".