Replies

grace dispensed from Rome's treasury, replete with Indulgences and Novenas

These vehicles of grace, of course, are in no way exclusive. If one makes use of a particular form of spirituality, good. If he makes use of another, that is hs choice also. The necessary sacraments fopr a baptized Christian are the Confession as needed and the Eucharist "as often as you shall eat this" (1 Cor. 11:26).

In the Bible, the only thing it reveals about the postmortem state of a believer is that they immediately go into the presence of the Lord at death, or when the rapture occurs — if they are indeed a believer, and holiness be a characteristic of one. Paul makes no distinction between himself and other believers as regards his location after death, which he surely would have if such were the case, and your proof text for believers suffering purification has been shown to be invalid. And the Bible shows that it is in this life that purification takes place. (Job; 1Cor. 11:32)

(Luke 23:43) "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise."

(2 Cor 5:8) "We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord."

(Philippians 1:23) "For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:"

(1 Th 4:17) "Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."

(Hebrews 12:11) "Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby."

whoever promotes works as meriting eternal life ... is under a curse

... is merely reading the Holy Scripture as written. I understand that an anathema is an umpleasant thing to be under, but it is there, not unlike canonical scripture, for your benefit. Compare:

James 2	Trent (Session 6)
[22] Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect? [23] And the scripture was fulfilled, saying: Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him to justice, and he was called the friend of God. [24] Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only?	CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

Faith alone does not deny that preparatory works is required to be done so that he be prepared and disposed to obtaining the grace of Justification, but that He is moved, granted and gifted to believe. And that such a faith is one that endures, bearing fruit.

The doctrine of Faith Alone, whether in its wooly "classic Protestantism" form or in the crass despiritualization of modern Protestantism is contrary to the direct instruction of the Bible.

That justification is instrumentally procured by faith alone (but not one that is alone)

.. is merely reading the Holy Scripture as written.

"For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. {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, {7} Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. " (Romans 4:2-7)

"And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:" (Romans 4:11)

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

Canon 32, short version:

"If anyone says that the good works of the one justified...that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ...does not truly merit...the attainment of eternal life itself...let him be anathema."

As regards anathemas, that is what you have placed yourself under by damning all Protestants. (Prv. 17:15; Gal. 1:6-8)

Yet Catholic answers disallows that as regards judicial penalty “Anathemas are still in place today. This is the single most common falsehood one encounters regarding anathemas in the writings of anti-Catholics. They aren’t in place today. The penalty was employed so infrequently over the course of history that it is doubtful that anyone under an anathema was alive when the new Code of Canon Law came out in 1983, when even the penalty itself was abolished.”

Likewise RCA~ David MacDonald states, The anathemas were only declared against people who already belonged to the Church. They did not apply to someone say in Japan who had never heard the Gospel. They did not apply to Protestants who never belonged to the Catholic Church, which means it almost never applied Protestants after the Reformation...The current Catechism does not mention anathema, it only references Trent. Nowhere in its text does it use the word "anathema". This anathema issue was put to bed by 1983 Canon law. The anathemas per se do not apply today, since the 1983 Code of Canon Law (CIC) abolished the canonical penalty of anathema, which was a form of excommunication.

And while doctrinally they make one an excommunicated heretic according to Rome, this does not apply to those who have never been members of the Catholic Church (can. 11), and even then there is a significant list of exceptions (can. 1323). And as the majority of Catholics no longer believe in the real presence (among other things), then much of her own house is heretical.

And as relates to Trent versus the Reformers, John Neuhaus states,

Most scholars, whether Catholic or Protestant, agree that they did not understand the Reformers, especially Luther and Calvin, adequately. And there is slight disagreement, perhaps no disagreement, that the Reformers, especially Luther, could have expressed themselves more clearly, carefully, and consistently...Most scholars, whether Catholic or Protestant, agree that they did not understand the Reformers, especially Luther and Calvin, adequately. And there is slight disagreement, perhaps no disagreement, that the Reformers, especially Luther, could have expressed themselves more clearly, carefully, and consistently.. . the Catholic Church, knowing that all theological formulations fall short of expressing the fullness of truth, trusts the continuing guidance of the Spirit in a course of doctrinal development toward the ever more adequate articulation of God's Word relative to the questions posed by the time . . . In the intervening years, and especially in the theological dialogues of the last thirty years, Reformation Christians have made a convincing case that what they mean by sola fide is not what Trent condemned. — Evangelical and Catholics Together: Toward a Common Mission, edited by Charles Colson and Richard John Neuhaus, Dallas: Word Publishing, 1995, Neuhaus' chapter, "The Catholic Difference," 175-227; quote from 209-210:

Your FM once again ... i included Rm. 4 already

I don't know what FM is, and your link is not helping.

Fundamental Misapprehension regarding distinctions and what sola fide means.

You did include Romans 4 now, and I explained in the first part of the responding post that Romans 4 is wholly in the context of works of the law, so it does not address the issue of the role of good works.

As explained, it is not, as Abraham was justified before the law, and not by good works which he did prior to the law, and before circumcision.

Protestant sola fide does teach that a "soul is counted righteous because of faith," but it does not teach that the soul is counted righteous because of a faith WHICH IS alone, or by merit of works

All this looks like an attempt to verbalize "We are not saved by faith alone" while avoiding a direct contradiction to the Protestant heresy, each flavor of which still says "we are saved by faith alone".

No, but if we want to contest sola fide then their definitions must be dealt with, and in which the component of a justified soul which is the instrument of justification is precisely God-given faith, but again, of a type that confesses Jesus is Lord in word and deed.

evangelical faith was largely responsible for the Christian character of America

Yes, it is. It is also responsible for the de-Christianization of America underway today. I would agree that Protestantism produced some good fruit, especially in its earlier and less "evangelical" forms. Protestantism was an experiment. Man learned the Protestantism's lessons. It is now falling apart because the experiment is over. The traditional Protestant denominations, Presbyterian, Congregational Anglican and Methodist -- those that built America -- are tapering off; they are being replaced by a collection of self-styled communities that function as social clubs where a boring sermon Sunday morning is a price of admission.

And when faced with the fact that Catholic faith in Catholic countries unceasingly had fared bad, and that comparatively Roman Catholics in this country are far behind evangelicals in works of faith, you will say it is not the fault of the faith but of the people not obeying it. Likewise Evangelical faith, which has not been tried and found wanting, but increasingly found wanting to be tried in the modern world. If one went back and examined what was overall preached and expressed one will see relatively much more on holiness and consecration.

In France (76% Catholic ) only 12 percent say they go to church on Sunday (5 percent in Paris), in Ireland (90% Catholic) less than 50 percent attend Mass even once a month, in Italy (97 % Catholic) church attendance has fallen to 30 percent,

The first distinction which needs to be made again is that of the basis for justification, imputed (declared) righteousness procured by God-given faith (qualified as to its confessional character) in Christ and His blood, (Rm. 3:25-4:1-24) versus making justification to be on the basis of infusion, of an actual righteousness, and eternal life life gained by merit of works.

You derive the imputed character of grace from Romans 4:7, but that is a citation from the Old Testament, and brought in by St. Paul to contrast grace to the works of circumcision (v 10). The infused and transformational grace is taught everywhere else in the New Testament, including in the thematically close to the Romans Galatians: "in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature" (Gal 6:15). Jesus, of course, minced no words on that: "Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect" (Mt. 5:48).

This is missing it. The fact that Rm. 4:7 is from Ps. 32:1,2 and contrasts circumcision does not negate imputed righteousness as being something credited versus an actual interior holiness (though the convert has that also), but it confirms it. The reason Paul invokes this is not to contrast the IR of the New Covenant with that which Abraham received before circumcision, but to illustrate it as being just that, with this righteousness preceding the work of circumcision, with faith being counted for righteousness. (Rm. 4:9-11) Thus all who will effectually believe are justified by such faith as will be baptized.

Nor does this ref negate what is to be the result of this declarative righteous with its heavenly position, as being so under grace the believer is both rightly motivated and enabled to pursue fulfilling their righteous of the law. (Rm. 8:4)

you cannot have Moses and Paul both stating that Abraham was justified in Gn. 15:6, with many other verses stating justification is by faith, and never saying that justification was procured by any kind of works

St. Paul refers to the crossing of the desert described in Gen 12 as well as the birth of Isaac, and St. James-- to the sacrifice of Isaac. As St. James explains, all these are instances where works of faith cooperated with confessional faith and made the faith perfect. So the statement that the Scripture "never says that justification was procured by any kind of works" is simply not so.

That other verses state justification is by faith, and never say that justification was procured by any kind of works is true. The fact that Abraham did works of faith but that it was his faith which was counted for righteousness affirms that it was not works but faith that instrumentally appropriates justification, but again, it is a working type of faith.

if that means that making a manifest response such as Gn. 22 evidences is absolutely necessary to be justified then Gn. 15:6 must be rejected as being a present justification, and thus Abraham was not saved until such an expression

There is a string of manifestatons of faith starting with Gen 12, on to Gen 15 and then Gen 22. You are trying to single out one episode and declare that uniquely salvific for Abraham. That is not an objective reading of the scripture, but prooftexting: proclaiming one passage as supporting some extreme position and ignoring others.

Rather, i have dealt with all the main verses on justification by faith, while in response you sought to ignore or misconstrue distinctions in them, and use James and Mat. 25 as your real proof texts, while you misrepresented sola fide as teaching a faith with no prep work or a faith that does no works. In the above, i was responding to the premise of your use of Ja. 2, in which the example of Abraham's justification is Gn. 22, and pointed out that this would deny Gn. 15:6 as faith being what is counted or righteousness. If we allow a faith-works prior to that then it still denies Rm. 4, as in contrasting faith with works as justificatory, it refer to Abraham's works prior to justification. "What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? {2} For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. {3} For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. " (Romans 4:1-3)

The fact is that justification is a process that typically lasts a lifetime. Moments of pure declarative faith are parts of justification,. They are not the whole of justification.

This is different than the contention that Abraham's justification was never by faith alone, but which produces works. We agree with growth in sanctification, and i can allow that one is justified upon faith-works in the sense that such confirms the justifying nature of faith. But apart from teaching that lost men are “dead in sins” and unable to escape his just damnation and gain glory on the basis of his own goodness or worthiness, and so must trust in the Lord Jesus to save them by His sinless blood, then what happens when emphasizing justification by ones goodness and works of faith is that souls will see themselves as worthy of eternal life due to their self-perceived merit, and escape the abasement and contrition which heart looks for salvation by faith.

If you pardon a long quote: ...

One of the classic Old Testament texts on justification is Genesis 15:6. This verse, which figures prominently in Paul's discussion of justification in Romans and ..

Now, if justification is a once-for-all event, rather than a process, then that means that Abraham could not receive justification either before or after Genesis 15:6. However, Scripture indicates that he did both.

..The problem for the once-for-all view of justification is that is that the call of Abraham to leave Haran is recorded in Genesis 12:1-4—three chapters before he is justified in 15:6. We therefore know that Abraham was justified well before (in fact, years before) he was justified in Gen. 15:6.

But if Abraham had saving faith back in Genesis 12, then he was justified back in Genesis 12. Yet Paul clearly tells us that he was also justified in Genesis 15. So justification must be more than just a once-for-all event.

But just as Abraham received justification before Genesis 15:6, he also received it afterwards, for the book of James tells us, "Was not our ancestor Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was brought to completion by the works. Thus the scripture was fulfilled that says, 'Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness,' and he was called the friend of God." (James 2:21-23)

James thus tells us "[w]as not our ancestor Abraham justified ... when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?" In this instance, the faith which he had displayed in the initial promise of descendants was fulfilled in his actions (see also Heb. 11:17-19), thus bringing to fruition the statement of Genesis 15:6 that he believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.

Abraham therefore received justification—that is, a fuller fruition of justification—when he offered Isaac.2 The problem for the once-for-all view is that the offering of Isaac is recorded in Gen. 22:1-18—seven chapters after Gen. 15:6. Therefore, just as Abraham was justified before 15:6 when he left Haran for the promised land, so he was also justified again when he offered Isaac after 15:6.

Therefore, we see that Abraham was justified on at least three different occasions: he was justified in Genesis 12, when he first left Haran and went to the promised land; he was justified in Genesis 15, when he believed the promise concerning his descendants; and he was justified in Genesis 22, when he offered his first promised descendant on the altar.

SALVATION PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE

This affirms Sola fide, as it does not need to hold that Abraham was not justified prior to Gn. 15:6, but that as your (? - the link says it is not there) post teaches, Abraham had indeed received justification by faith before Gn. 22. He did works before that, but Paul states it was not his works but his faith that was counted for righteousness. He first needed to be justified to do works in response to grace.

What your post says is not that Abraham was first justified in Gn. 22, but that “he also received it afterward”, “that is, a fuller fruition of justification—when he offered Isaac” in Gn. 22. I can concur with this as in the established sense above. But what the issue then becomes is the doctrine of increasing one's justification. Sola fide certainty believes one is to grow in holiness, and that holiness is a necessary attribute of salvific faith. Believers have a heavenly altitude, but such faith also is to increasingly work toward a heavenly attitude. However, the increased justification per Rome is part of her justification based upon an actual interior “infused” holiness, and i can understand how this can be derived. Under sola fide being washed, sanctified and justified is also one event, but the difference is that the righteousness imputed is of Christ, and can never been improved upon, though its outworking must. As the iniquity of us all was laid upon Him, that (thank) “God made Him who knew no sin to become sin for us, so that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him” (2Cor. 5:21) [“ginomai” = “came,” “become,” etc. is rendered into “might be made”]. But a believer is also being saved, and his should progressively become more established in the faith, and moving toward its realization.

man is not justified by faith alone in the sense that it is not an inert faith that remains without evidences, which James is opposing, but one that overall enduring responds by works.

Verbalize all you want -- that statement still confirms that works are a necessary component of faith.

It is not needless definitions, but necessary to distinguish what actually procures justification, though they are indeed inseparable in cause and effect outworking. So is God and His Word.

“no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. [But] Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life (CCC 2006,10)

So, what is unclear about that?

Not unclear, but contrasts the unmerited initial grace of forgiveness, which is sola fide, versus salvation by grace through merit. If the first is granted, then the latter can be accepted as eternal life also being a “reward” for God-given faith as manifested by works.

it is you who are using a specious substitution here, ignoring the actual means by which justification by IR is appropriated by God's grace (“Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace” — Rm. 4:16), which is by God-given faith in Christ and His blood, so you can teach salvation by grace through merit, while the very verse you want to hijack to that end is about election NOT being a result of any merit of man!

Of course grace is not by any merit of man. Where did I say any different? But grace is not faith -- obvious in the case of a child you yourself bring up. It is true that faith is our response to grace, -- but so are our works (Eph 2:10).

Grace grants repentance and gives justifying faith, which works.

What this [Col 1:24] does not support is a type of bank account or “treasury of the satisfaction” won by Paul which he deposited into for future withdrawals via Rome

Why doesn't it (I assume you mean "treasure of merit")? St. Paul says that his suffering in some mysterious way builds up the Church and united with the suffering of Christ. But Christ's suffering is our treasure. Christ asked us to "build treasure in heaven" (Luke 12:33). Col 1 makes that request tangible to us. There are plenty other quotes from Paul where he not only describes his own suffering by urges others to "mortify the deeds of the flesh".

I have already responded to Col. 1:24 and “some mysterious” is what is clear in Col. 1:24, and it best relates to his enduring afflictions in building up the body, and to which he often referred to. (Eph 3:13; Phil 2:17; 2Tim 2:10) While we are affected by the condition and works of others, as per Jn. 4:38 and 1Cor. 12:26) this is not that of a heavenly deposit out which Rome formally dispenses indulgences for full or partial remission of the temporal punishment due to sin. And the power to bind and loose is never autocratic or exampled as doing such, but must be soundly Scriptural and includes both the miraculous as well as the declarative sense. (1Cor. 5:5; Acts 9:40; 13:10,11; 14:9,10; 15; Ja. 5:15)

To reiterate and expand upon what i said before, Scripture reveals the postmortem condition of the redeemed to be with the Lord, with no distinctions being made between such a man as Paul versus the Corinthians. The treasure in heaven corresponds to the rewards laid up for the elect. (Mt. 10:42; 16:27; 2Tim. 4:8; 2Jn. 1:8; Rev. 11:18) But there are different degrees of rewards according to one's labor, and as regards grief, there will be loss by works being burned up. (1Cor. 5:15) Likewise there are different degrees of punishment for the lost (“many stripes” vs fewer), according to their works, depending upon grace given. (Lk. 10:12; 12:48; 2Pt. 2:13)

The first known use of plenary indulgences was in 1095 when Pope Urban II remitted all penance of persons who participated in the crusades and who confessed their sin. The teaching of the existence of the thesaurus Ecclesiae and of the Church’s power over it was developed by the Scholastic Theologians at the beginning of the 13th century (Hugo of St. Cher), and was officially proposed by Pope Clement VI in the Jubilee Bull ‘Unigenitus Dei Filius’ (1343), and later by Pope Leo X in the Indulgence Decretal ‘Cum postquam’ (1518). (Ott)

The idea of the ToM and Indulgences are not justified by Scripture but are part of Romes evolving theology based upon her presumption that “No limit is placed upon this power of loosing,” which includes binding the Bible to loosing gambling as a mean of ecclesiastical support (though not dogma, it flows from it), and which power is based upon the premise that whatever she infallible defines is infallible.

The criminal on the cross or the penitent publican hardly can be said to have had confidence in their own works as meriting eternal life

St. Dismas did works of faith and mercy, and Christ promised him eternal life. He defended the innocent Christ, did penance for his sin, and asked Christ to "remember him". Perfect Catholic conversion story, that includes in one whole faith and good works.

Again, one must obey light if he will come to Christ, (Jn. 3:19-21) and that is not contrary to sola fide, and it was not merit of works that procured justification here any more than it was for the penitent publican of Lk. 18, as Scripture promises that “The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.” (Ps. 34:18) Scriptural historical Protestant conversion. If Rome only fostered such then both would be in fellowship.

You make works being the cause of justification

Grace alone is the cause of justification. I never said any different.

As said, grace is what faith and works operate under, but essential initial justification is procured by faith, of a type that will show works.

[your] attempt to restrict [salvific works] to motive is untenable

So you say, but I see no reason it must be so. It is rather typical for Paul to contrast works of the law to faith and grace and go on to urge people to do good works. Making that distinction I am in good company.

No, your company is with those who confuse effect with basis or actual instrumental means, as again, the exhortation to do good works follows the contrast between works meriting justification, versus faith.

Rome has works meriting (recompense owed) eternal life

You liek to insert that "merit" everywhere. Works merit salvation in the simple sense that works are the basius on which sovereign Christ grans us salvation (Matthew 25:31-46). No, Christ does not owe us anything. The Church does nto teach that He does. The Church simply takes His words at the face value.

Rome is the one which bases its soteriology upon such “proof texting” or Scripture wresting and not sound exegesis, in which Scripture interprets Scripture, working to reconcile all together. In which we see the faith of those being rewarded as manifested by their works.

Rewards are is something given to the lost or saved for their works, and it can be said to be a reward of a faith (Heb. 10:35) which works by love, yet eternal life is an entirely unearned gift. (Rm. 5:15,16,18; 6:23) Rome does hold that eternal life is “a grace mercifully promised to the sons of God through Christ Jesus,” but its system by which one typically becomes a Christian as an infant by purely unmerited grace, with afterward believers also gaining eternal life by meritorious good works by God's grace, with its emphasis upon personal merit and the power of the Church, with the latter being a vast bureaucracy managing a complicated soteriology, promotes confidence in both as the basis for attaining eternal life.

This militates against the need for a Biblical day of salvation such as the Holy Spirit provides multiple examples of, typically being immediate conversions, with its abasement of self and its consciousness of negative salvific merit and instead of a deserving of damnation, and thus a reliance upon the mercy of God in Christ to be freely justified. Out of which faith flows faithfulness, with all the members of the church helping this growth, but being Scripturally centered and dependent upon God's manifest power and not the arm of the flesh or particular self-promotion. It is one thing to do works out of gratitude for having eternal life as a free gift after many offenses, and then seeking to walk accordingly in the love and fear of God, and to be found in Him without spot, and blameless on the practical level (as he is so on Christ), and it is another to have confidence that your good life and works make you worthy, and in an an entity which basically bills itself as a life insurance company but whose claim to supreme authenticity is overall Scripturally and testimonially presumptuous.

In one sense believers are to seek to walk “worthy” of eternal life, and faith as manifested by works is recompensed, and the interdependence of the church works toward this working out of faith, but Rome has largely effectively turned this into an intricate and complicated systematized salvation, instituted and maintained by an autocratic magisterium which fosters faith in herself, and which effects mere religion over regeneration with its manifest evidences.

grace through faith, not of works, lest any man should boast

Indeed, grace is not of works and we shouild not boast of our works as if it is them that produced grace. We are certainly saved through faith as it is through faith that we do the works that God had prepared for us (Eth. 2:10). This passage is a perfect expression of Catholicism, and it flatly cotnradicts "Faith Alone"

No, it only flatly contradicts your straw man of it, and any claim that you are dealing with the matter objectively. For the _time, sola fide does not mean faith which is alone, while for all her emphasis upon works of faith, it is Roman Catholicism that manifestly comes behind sola fide evangelicals, which it claims are the ones deficient in grace, and not worthy of the title “churches” in the proper sense, while the latter manifests more of the qualities which are the basis for the claim to be a church.

No, not only. We see from Matthew 12:32, for example, that some sins may be forgiven in the “world to come”, and again 1 Cor. 3:13 refers to the trial when the works are made manifest on the “day of the lord”. Understand though that the purgatory is in no way outside of the presence of the Lord, as in fact, it is His love that purifies the soul as if by fire.

your proof text for believers suffering purification has been shown to be invalid

No it hasn’t been (when, by whom? Did I respond?). That is exactly what 1 Cor 10-15 is, believers being purified and the reference to “day of the Lord” indicates it happens after they die. Of course, the fact that there also is chastisement throughout one’s life (which your quotes show to exist, and no one argued otherwise), -- does not contradict the fact that there is also final purification in Purgatory. If anything, chastisement in lifetime (also known as justification) shows that when necessary it continues after death in the life eternal.

So faith is not alone and also is alone. This is ridiculous, and of course it contradicts the direct scripture on the subject

[quotes form Romans 4 regarding Abraham’s faith and canons 9, 32 of Trent]

Canon 9 merely re-states what James 2:17-26 says: that one is not justified by faith alone, and indeed even though in the life of Abraham we see stages of justification that involved no works, precisely, no circumcision, we also see stages when his justification was based on works of crossing the desert and offering up Isaac. So canon 9 is in no way overturned by Romans 4. Canon 32 says further that good works “performed by the grace of God” merit “the attainment of eternal life”. That is a summary of Matthew 25:31-46, and again, in no way is overturned by Romans 4:11, which merely points to the fact that the children of Abraham were not justified by their circumcision.

damning all Protestants

Anathema does pertain to all Protestants, so long as they hold to the counterscriptural theological fantasy of Faith Alone. An anathema is a form of instruction in the faith: it shows which beliefs fall outside of the authentic Christianity. However, since everyone is judged by their works and individually it is quite possible for individual Protestants to be saved by their good works. Further, as far as the canon law is concerned, indeed the non-Catholics cannot be anathemized; it is simply a good idea for them to be aware that their views are not compatible with the one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.

in the theological dialogues of the last thirty years, Reformation Christians have made a convincing case that what they mean by sola fide is not what Trent condemned [quote from “Evangelical and Catholics Together: Toward a Common Mission”].

Father John Neuhaus was sure full of hope in 1995. So, what about you: do you agree with Canon 9 and 32?

[Romans 4 is not in the context of works of the law], as Abraham was justified before the law, and not by good works which he did prior to the law, and before circumcision

Romans 4 mentions circumcision in every verse between 9 and 12 and justice of the law in every verse 13 through 16. The point of the discourse is that “is it of faith, that according to grace the promise might be firm to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all”. The reason for the letter is to explain to the Romans that they need not be circumcised. Faith is contrasted to the works of the law and even specifically circumcision, not to just any works.

we want to contest sola fide then their definitions must be dealt with

Yes. I understand that. Indeed, no Protestant yet has come up with the idea that we should do bad works. Faith Alone means that justification is apprehended through faith alone but the faith must be accompanied by works at all times. I can repeat that, but it does not make it any less nonsensical nor less counterscriptural.

you will say it is not the fault of the faith but of the people not obeying it. Likewise Evangelical faith,…

Yes. The difference is that the Catholic faith is a heritage of antiquity and early Middle Ages, and Protestantism has the dirty paws of modernity all over it, and yet the Catholic remnant thrives.

The fact that Rm. 4:7 is from Ps. 32:1,2 and contrasts circumcision does not negate imputed righteousness as being something credited versus an actual interior holiness (though the convert has that also), but it confirms it.

The scripture needs to be read in the context in which the inspired writer wrote it. In Romans 4 the context is the absence of the need for the Romans to be circumcised. You remove isolated verses from Romans 4, and build a nonsensical soteriology of faith-alone-yet-not-alone on them. Just face the scripture as written: we are not saved by faith alone.

under grace the believer is both rightly motivated and enabled to pursue fulfilling their righteous of the law

Right, because he is not saved by faith alone.

it was not works but faith that instrumentally appropriates justification, but again, it is a working type of faith.

That is not what James 2:21-24 says about Abraham, and faith alone “instrumentally appropriating justification” while being “working type of faith” is sophistry not found in Romans anywhere.

Annalex: There is a string of manifestatons of faith starting with Gen 12, on to Gen 15 and then Gen 22. You are trying to single out one episode and declare that uniquely salvific for Abraham. That is not an objective reading of the scripture, but prooftexting: proclaiming one passage as supporting some extreme position and ignoring others.

Daniel: Rather, i have dealt with all the main verses on justification by faith, while in response you sought to ignore or misconstrue distinctions in them, and use James and Mat. 25 as your real proof texts, while you misrepresented sola fide as teaching a faith with no prep work or a faith that does no works. In the above, i was responding to the premise of your use of Ja. 2, in which the example of Abraham's justification is Gn. 22, and pointed out that this would deny Gn. 15:6 as faith being what is counted or righteousness. If we allow a faith-works prior to that then it still denies Rm. 4, as in contrasting faith with works as justificatory, it refer to Abraham's works prior to justification. "What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? {2} For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. {3} For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. " (Romans 4:1-3)

The scripture mentions justification of Abraham three times. The first time, Gen 12 is by works of faith, the second, Gen 15 is by believing what God tells him (compare to Luke 1:18-20), and the third is Gen 22, by offering up Isaac. None of these episodes deny the other, yet in order to build up your theory you have to ignore the first and the third episode, and then construe the second episode as being a Faith Alone model. I understand that there are distinction between the Faith Alone as you theorize it and Faith Alone of the common type that denies any works, preparatory or done in faith, but this distinction is not important to me, because it simply masks the cardinal error of separating faith and works under some dubious verbiage.

Yes, that is an acceptable and Catholic statement, and I never denied that Gen 15 is by faith apart from any works. It simply is not a complete description of the process of justification. Further, one indeed must understand that works of faith merit salvation because it is the sovereign will of God that they do. There is nothing we can think or do to obligate God to anything.

the difference is that the righteousness imputed is of Christ, and can never been improved upon, though its outworking must

First my link should be SALVATION PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE, sorry about that. Yes, and that ides, that one becomes poof-justified completely in one second and then somehow improves the “outworking” is not in the scripture. Again, in the case of Abraham, the scripture refers to his justification in three episodes that spanned a long time, and never mentions that any of these three episodes was one justification that “cannot be improved”. This is how the scripture describes the process of justification, in context and in detail:

[2] Grace to you and peace be accomplished in the knowledge of God and of Christ Jesus our Lord: [3] As all things of his divine power which appertain to life and godliness, are given us, through the knowledge of him who hath called us by his own proper glory and virtue. [4] By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature: flying the corruption of that concupiscence which is in the world. [5] And you, employing all care, minister in your faith, virtue; and in virtue, knowledge;
[6] And in knowledge, abstinence; and in abstinence, patience; and in patience, godliness; [7] And in godliness, love of brotherhood; and in love of brotherhood, charity. [8] For if these things be with you and abound, they will make you to be neither empty nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. [9] For he that hath not these things with him, is blind, and groping, having forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. [10] Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time.
(2 Peter 1)

necessary to distinguish what actually procures justification, though they are indeed inseparable in cause and effect outworking.

Faith has a role to play in justification. This is all Romans 4/Gen 15 say. It never says anything about procurement versus outworking.

the unmerited initial grace of forgiveness, which is sola fide

No, that would be Sola Gratia, the Catholic teaching, and not Sola Fide, a Protestant error.

Grace grants repentance and gives justifying faith, which works

It is grace that is justifying, not faith, but again, what you probably mean to express here is the Catholic doctrine of Sola Gratia.

While we are affected by the condition and works of others, as per Jn. 4:38 and 1Cor. 12:26) this is not that of a heavenly deposit out which Rome formally dispenses indulgences for full or partial remission of the temporal punishment due to sin

Why is it not? So, when St. Paul mortifies his flesh and endures suffering, it is building up the Church, but the moment St. Peter affirms that formally, it stops being so?

The treasure in heaven corresponds to the rewards laid up for the elect […]Likewise there are different degrees of punishment for the lost

You just described the Treasure of Merit, thinking that you disprove it.

the power to bind and loose is never autocratic or exampled as doing such, but must be soundly Scriptural

The scripture itself is the product of the Church’s power to bind and loose. That power, however, cannot be capricious: it has to accord with the deposit of faith once delivered to the saints.

it was not merit of works that procured justification [for the Good Thief on the Cross] any more than it was for the penitent publican of Lk. 18

Why, penance is works, both for the Good Thief and for the penitent publican, and it procured justification. Compare Acts 2:38-40.

essential initial justification is procured by faith, of a type that will show works

All justification is by both works and faith, because like you yourself admit, faith that shows no works is not faith – it is “dead” (James 2:17f).

The detailing of some doctrines is done by the magisterium for the benefit of the faithful. See for example, the clarity that the canons of Trent produced, sharply delineating truth and falsehood between apparent confusion of the Reformation. It is a good thing. It is also in no way negates the simply life of faith and internal conversion, instantaneous or otherwise.

For the _time, sola fide does not mean faith which is alone

As you explained many times, Sola Fide means faith that alone procures salvation and is not alone because it has works. This is either meaningless or false. The simple and true statement would be that faith and works together procure salvation, and not faith alone.