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".
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.
Your response is one attempt after another to deny the obvious. When Paul speaks of “works of the law” by which a man sought justification by the merit thereof, and he distinguishes them with faith as the means of appropriating justification, you insist he is really only disallowing the former because a “legal obligation are thereby containing their own rewards, and distinguishing them “works of faith” by which a man merits eternal life according to the law of Rome, yet Paul's whole thesis is contra ability and contra merit. Abraham was helpless to birth a nation, but his faith was counted for righteousness. Certainly he would have to put his faith into action, but it was not his actions that appropriated the promise, but his faith. “And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. {22} And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. {23} Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; {24} But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; {25} Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification. " (Romans 4:21-25)
"{3} For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. {4} 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. {6} Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, " (Romans 4:3-6)
But while the kind of faith can be qualified, your version must constantly substitute what Paul is precisely contrasting, a system of works-righteousness versus faith. And as Abraham himself was before the law, with righteousness being imputed before he was even circumcised, “works of the law” are not simply what are disallowed, but what they represent, and if there had been a law or system of merit which could have given eternal life, righteousness should have been by the law.
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.
Indeed he is the latter, but you wrongly contrive to set the two in opposition, as they are one event, (1Cor. 6:11; cf. Acts 10:43ff; 15:8,9; Eph. 1:13) You can see if you can get transformed of the occurrence of the word “logizomai” in the New Testament:
Total KJV Occurrences: 42
think, 7: 2Co. 3:5, 2Co. 10:2 (2), 2Co. 10:7, 2Co. 10:11, 2Co. 12:6, Phi. 4:8; imputed, 5: Rom. 4:11, Rom. 4:22-24 (3), Jam. 2:23; counted, 4: Rom. 2:26, Rom. 4:3, Rom. 4:5, Rom. 9:8; reckoned, 4: Luk. 22:37, Rom. 4:4, Rom. 4:9-10 (2); accounted, 2: Rom. 8:36, Gal. 3:6; reckon, 2: Rom. 6:11, Rom. 8:18; suppose, 2: 2Co. 11:5, 1Pe. 5:12; account, 1 1Co. 4:1; accounting, 1: Heb. 11:19; charge, 1: 2Ti. 4:16; conclude, 1: Rom. 3:28; count, 1: Phi. 3:13; despised, 1: Act. 19:27; esteemeth, 1: Rom. 14:14; impute, 1: Rom. 4:8; imputeth, 1 Rom. 4:6; imputing, 1 2Co. 5:19; laid, 1: 2Ti. 4:16; numbered, 1: Mar. 15:28; reasoned, 1: Mar. 11:31; thinkest, 1: Rom. 2:3; thinketh, 1: 1Co. 13:5; thought, 1: 1Co. 13:11
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.
So you agree that works done seeking merit eternal life — and under the law they trusted God that this was the case — are a wage and invalid. Thus according to you works do merit eternal life but such can only those done with a motive to merit eternal life, or escape judgment. And that this was Paul's argument although he simply contrasted the system of works-merit with faith. Sorry, it is just not there.
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.
It is not surprising then that you seem to only be able to see Rm 4 and 11 as making a distinction between grace and works. Grace is the rubric under which salvation is accomplished, which you try to equate it with the instrumental means, which is faith, in order to substitute that for works. I referenced Rm. 4:16 which defines this: Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace;” while i went on to ref. Rm. 11:20: “Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith.” Faith is the instrumental means in contrast to works, and even if you made a restriction to the latter which Paul did not, then faith would still be the means to appropriating justification. Its time to acknowledge that.
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.
In the Bible all believers are called saints, (Acts 9:13,32;41; 26:10; Rm. 1:7; 8:27; 12:13; 15:25,26,31; 1Cor. 1:2; etc.) and no distinction is ever made in regards to postmortem destination.
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.
So one merits eternal life by his goodness and his works, and so “to him that worketh not” only refers to works of wrong motive, and Abraham was justified by a good heart and works, though the contrast is with faith, while you make the effects of justification to also be its cause! Thus your translation: “To him that worketh not with impure motive, but believeth on Him that justifieth the unGodly, his good heart and works of faith are counted for righteousness.” I just cannot find it in the Greek.
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.
So “by grace are ye saved through faith..not of works” is contrasting the works with grace, not faith, although faith and works though both are instrumental means, and grace is the dispensation rubric under which both faith and works are exercised. And you are accusing us of engaging in exegetical slight of hand.
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.
Honestly, that is like the thief who complained that he could not find a police station. You context argument simply consists of finding the fruit of faith in a verse following one which is contrasting faith and works, and then stating that the contrasts is between grace vs works, but which ignores the distinction between the two instrumental means which is being made.
Christ did not got the cross simply because He is loving
Yes, He did. God is love. That is all God does: He loves.
Here you are ignoring the word “simply.” Love was the motive, the cross was the method, but the atonement was the necessity. So great salvation by the Great God and Savior, so for great sinners as you and me. Worthy is the Lamb that was slain, to the glory of God the Father.
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.
By now i hope you realize it really does not, though its emphasis is a reaction against Rome's institutional system of sacramental works-righteous.
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.
It is grievous but revealing how must not only render “not according [or because] of works” to be distinguishing grace vs one kind of works yet equating grace with another kind of works. Paul has just affirmed Timothy's salvation as being due to genuine faith, (2Tim. 1:5) while the verse is actually referring to or encompassing heir election, which was because of any works they has done according to Rm. 9.
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".
The effective basis is Christ and His blood and righteousness, while the instrumental basis for appropriating it is either works-merit which would include any such system, in contrast to man abssing himself as one unable to escape hell/merit heaven as God must be holy and just, and casting himself on the mercy of God in Christ, who met the demands of each as scapegoat/atonement, "To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus. {27} Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. " (Romans 3:26-27)
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.) ... 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".
As for texts such as Mt. 25:31-36, though some see this as referring to the kingdom age, that and other texts certainly would seem to support a works=salvation soteriology, while the publican simply humbled himself before God, trusting in his mercy to be justfied, and John has texts such as Jn. 6:29, while Acts has faith expressed in baptism resulting in regeneration, as well spontaneous conversions before baptism. All must be reconciled, and Romans and the epistles mainly provide the theology which is largely missing in the gospels, including ecclesiology. And by which all can be reconciled, with grace giving a virile faith by which one is counted righteous, which is then lived out if salvific, doing works such as Mt. 25 refers to, loving your brother as well as your enemy, and who have the right to the tree of life on the basis having a kind of virile faith which bears fruit of obedience.
While faith and works are distinguished as regards how justification is appropriated, the two are synonymous as characterizing the redeemed. And like Jesus said, “For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?,” (Mt. 9:5) though they were two different events, yet in result they were concomitant, so it is also allowable for faith and works to be used thusly as regards cause and effect.