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.
Therein lies the rub.
If works done for the purpose of meriting salvation are invalid because the motive is wrong, they are automatically disqualified as saving works. Which leaves the person seeking to merit salvation through works in the same quandary he was in.
Nobody can have completely pure motives and even if it happened to be the case once in a while by accident, those few times are not going to be nearly enough to outweigh the weight of sin that is condemning us; the one sin that we committed that made us all guilty before God to begin with.
Even our best actions coupled with our purest motives are tainted by sin. They cannot be an offering acceptable to God for that very reason. That's why our works of righteousness are as filthy rags.
In the Beatitudes, Jesus did indeed hold up the standard to which we are to attain to merit eternal life. He did not establish a NEW law with that teaching but showed us what the intent of the OT Law was all along.
If men were incapable of attaining salvation through the simple outward conformity to the mere letter of the Law, then it is much less possible for men to attain salvation through the keeping of the true intent of the Law as Jesus revealed it to us.
The Law was put in charge to lead us to Christ. Jesus's expounding on it was to show us the hopelessness of the situation so that we would come to Him for FORGIVENESS.
Romans 8:1-8 1There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. 8Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
Jesus came to set us free, not to enslave us to the bondage of works again.
Powerful teaching statement Daniel...one does pause and consider.
It is not obvious from any scripture you cite. Were there a verse that said, in context "Man is saved by faith alone, and not by anything he does, not out of legal obligation, nor out of love of God, nor out of love of neighbor", and I still denied it, you then could say "you are denying the obvious". The best thing that can be said for Luther's system is that it made sense for someone who, in the grips of despair, wanted to retain some proximity to the Holy Word. But his system is not obvious, and in fact is scripturally wrong. It was not obvious even to Luther himself, -- had it been he would not try to mistranslate the Bible to get his theological fantasy some fake biblical footing.
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
For support you cite several passages from Romans 4, which indeed explain that "to him that worketh the reward is not reckoned according to grace, but according to debt". That is, of course, Catholic teaching: if you are owed something due to your work, that is not how salvation operates, being only "according to grace".
You omit the central part that explains that the Christians get Abraham's inheritance through faith rather than through the work of circumcision. That, too, is Catholic teaching. Christians are foremostly community of faith.
However, Romans 4 does nothing to discredit the salvific nature of works of love in general. I do not see anywhere in Romans 4 a teaching "contra ability and contra merit".
Further, if we look where else the New Testament scripture discusses the deeds and the faith of Abraham, se see how the same St. Paul recons the substantial work of crossing the desert, and the horrific work of offering his son up were the works of faith that pleased God; St. James says of the latter that Abraham was justified by his works (James 2:21) So as we look at the examples of works in Romans 4 -- not salvific, and Hebrews 11 -- all salvific, we see again that to St. Paul, the distinction between the two kinds of works is very vivid. Note also Romans 2:7-10. There is no broad "thesis contra ability and contra merit". There is a thesis that Christianity is a supranational system of faith rather than of ethnic heritage and laws.
your version must constantly substitute what Paul is precisely contrasting, a system of works-righteousness versus faith
I see the contrast between a system or works-righteousness and grace, which is the Catholic doctrine of salvation by grace alone. I do not see contrasting works of love and faith, in Romans 4 or anywhere.
Annalex: 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.
Daniel:Indeed he is the latter, but you wrongly contrive to set the two in opposition, as they are one event
Ah, good. Justification and sanctification is rather one process, but therefore you agree that imputation -- wherever the expression is used -- is not meant to negate a real and fundamental change in the believer. "You are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God", 1 Cor 6:11, as you point out.
So you agree that works done seeking [to] merit eternal life — and under the law they trusted God that this was the case — are a wage and invalid.
I would say that such works are works of obedience that configure the soul properly overtime. In isolation, they are not salvific, but when they become a moral habit, -- a virtue -- they become works of pure love, when the worker does not even realize he is doing something for Christ (Mt. 25:37-39).
Thus according to you works do merit eternal life but such can only [be] those done with a motive to merit eternal life
I am not sure I am parsing your grammar right, see if that [be] is in the right place. No, I don't agree. A righteous man does not feed the hungry because he is getting something for himself, even spiritually. He is feeding the hungry because he loves him who is hungry. That is the state of mind of a saint: heroic virtue, works done out of moral habit rather than out of any calculus.
this was Paul's argument
Where? Nowhere is the distinction between works of love done in obedience of moral law, and works of love done out of love apparent in Paul's writings. He is discussing circumcision in Romans 4, something that under no stretch could be seen as a work of love. That distinction that you refer to exists, but it is never discussed anywhere in the Bible. Abraham is justified in offering Isaac up, but nowhere is the disctinction you draw in the actual scripture. We are left to wonder whether he did the sacrificing out of love of God or out of obedience to God. He simply did it and it counted him for righteousness.
Grace is the rubric under which salvation is accomplished, which you try to equate it with the instrumental means, which is faith
I did not equate grace with anything, surely not with faith. Grace elicits three responses in us, the response of faith, the response of love, and the response of hope. We are not saved by any response in isolation, but by grace alone.
faith would still be the means to appropriating justification
It is, but it is not the only means. Faith and works of love are the necessary responses to grace (Eph 2:4-10).
In the Bible all believers are called saints
No, we don't know that "all" are thus called. Some, perhaps, most are indeed addressed to as saints (or holy men). Some are said to be simply "called to be saints"; this indicates that they are not saints yet. It is possible today to call someone a living saint as well. We are being sanctified. If your point is that the modern usage of "saint" is formalized and Paul's was informal, I agree.
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.”
No, I am fine with the original, "to him that worketh not, yet believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reputed to justice, according to the purpose of the grace of God" (Romans 4:5). I simply believe that this verse does not contradict "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? (James 2:21-22). One merits eternal life by his goodness and his works and his faith, but not by works alone and not by faith alone.
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
Yes. It is plain in the text.
[Your] 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.
Depends. In Tutus 3:5-8, for example, works of justice (v 5) are contrasted with mercy, baptism (v 5), and grace (v 7). Then good works are urged (v 8). In Eph 2:4-10 grace (vv 4-8) is contrasted with works (v 9); then, perhaps so that we don't, God forbid, go Protestant and think that works are opposed to faith, St. Paul points out that good works prepared for us are a manifestation of grace (v 10).
But generally, yes, anyone arguing scripturally against Protestant heresies should examine Protestant prooftexts in context, using a good translation (Douay is best unless one reads Greek). Every time one would find that either the very prooftext is not saying what the Protestant exegete would have you believe it says, or the larger context would clarify the meaning so that the intended impact is the Catholic doctrine, rather than the defended heresy. It is not difficult, and it is a shame that so many Catholics would shy away from biblical arguments.
Love was the motive, the cross was the method, but the atonement was the necessity
Yes. But it is still, simply, love. Love is not only a feeling, it is what you do, the greatest of all virtues.
["Faith Alone"] is a reaction against Rome's institutional system of sacramental works-righteous.
Yes, it is. The Protestant error is twofold. First, "faith alone" is plain unscriptural; it can be made fit into the scripture by enormous convolutions of additional sophistry (all these discourse of how faith is driving works or all works are really works for a wage, etc). Second, it misses the intended target because the sacraments are not works to begin with.
distinguishing grace vs one kind of works yet equating grace with another kind of works
If that is what you read from what I wrote, I ddi not write it very well. However, re-reading my "[2 Tim 1:9] is another contrast between works and grace. It is not a contrast between works and faith" I do not see how you woudl reach the conclusion that you reached. Grace is something God does. Works and faith are something man does. Grace cannot be equated with anything man does or thinks or feels; it is grace.
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
There are three responses to grace: faith, love (or charity) and hope, and all three interconnect in the person. To think that one is saved by faith alone without the works of love is one disordered response (works become unnecessary), to say that one can merit heaven for being a nice guy is a disordered response (faith becomes unnecessary), and to say that one has been saved already (hope becomes presumption) is a disordered response as well. Either of the three disorders is also a sin, of sloth, of pride, and or presumption.
Of course, if one reads Romans 3:26-27 correctly, then he would realize that "believing in Jesus" is more than having faith alone, it also means believing in His moral instruction, which deals primarily with right works.
Mt. 25:31-36, [...] and other texts certainly would seem to support a works=salvation soteriology
Yes. Directly they do; one surely can see that works of love described therein cannot happen in one who does not imitate Christ, in his own works of self-denial, and so has faith in some inchoate level.
All must be reconciled, and Romans and the epistles mainly provide the theology which is largely missing in the gospels
Reconciled, they are. Controverted they are not. There is nothing in Romans or any other epistle that teaches anything Matthew 25 did not contain. Romans 2:7-10 is a Reader's Digest version of Matthew 25:31-46, written wihtout a hint of "reconciling" it to anything even vaguely Protestant. We are saved by works of love and faith together. We are not saved by faith alone. There is nothing in the Epistles that teaches Protestant theological error either. And how can it be? It is impossible to read Matthew 25:31-46 and not conclude that the primary basis of salvation is good works.
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
Are you saying that it is possible for one to be counted righteous but then not have faith that is salvific?
If you were to simply say, on the other hand, that "grace gives us a virile faith, which is lived out, doing works such as Mt. 25 refers to" -- you'd be saying what the scripture is saying, and be sterling Catholic with that.
While faith and works are distinguished as regards how justification is appropriated, the two are synonymous as characterizing the redeemed
Faith is not exactly works, but the two are not in opposition in justification either (grace is in ontological opposition to both faith and works, which two are proper responses to the former). It is possible to do works but not out of love, and so contrary to the faith; it is possible to have faith as intellectual assent without doing any works. Works co-operate with faith and make the faith perfect and together they justify a man (James 2:21-22).