“we are saved by works of mercy, not to the exclusion of faith itself, of course, but by the works of mercy nevertheless.
There is no "either", justification is both by faith and merit of works. And no, it does not follow that good works would be under the law: if you re-read Matthew 5-7 you see that formality of law cannot possibly apply to good works.
Paul does not simply exclude works of the law, but broadly excludes works as being the moral basis of justification. If you read Titus 3:5 you should see “not by works of righteousness which we have done” is not simply referring to formality of law.
Paul [...] is establishing that justification is a appropriated by those who have no means of justification, no merit of works, but who, like as with physically impotent Abraham, realize this but place potent faith in the living God, in this case in His mercy in Christ Jesus, and whose faith is counted for righteousness
First, Paul is merely quoting the Old Testament as regards the paternity of Abraham. But St. Paul also noticed that the faith of Abraham was unseparable of his works, crossing the desert and offering Isaac up for sacrifice (Hebrews 11).
No, in Rm. 4 Paul is not “merely quoting the O.T. as regards the paternity of Abraham,” but in order to describe how man is justified before God. As stated before, Abraham was helpless to have children, and could only believe God that He was willing and able to do what he could not do, that”what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.” (Rm. 4:21,22) Likewise sinful man unable to justify himself before a holy and just God, and can only “believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.” (Rm. 4:24,25)
That saving faith must be one that continues, and must be a faith that produces works (if able) in order to finally realize the end of faith is also true, (Heb. 6:9-12) but the fact is that Abraham was justified by such faith. And in so stating this Paul is not only excluding works of the law as procuring justification, but works that Abraham did prior to believing the promise, and prior to circumcision.
Some of the usual Protestant prooftexts refer specifically to works of the law, circumcision and kashrut being the chief contention, others contrast grace and works. Indeed, grace is not of works, as it is a gift of God (Eph. 2:9). All these prooftexts ignore the larger context where good works are urged often immediately after explaining how works of the law do not save.
Rm. 4 does NOT only refer to works of the law, nor does Eph. 2:8,9 or Titus 3:5 (written to a Gentile), but broadly contrasts faith and works as disallowing anything as meriting justification, while the later exhortation to do good works show what justifying faith. Produces.
Further, the casuistry of works being "expressive nature of faith" but at the same time apparently not being a part of faith so to justify the unbiblical slogan of "faith alone" is wholly unnecessary for one who simply reads the Holy Scripture in order to understand it, as Catholics do.
It is most evident that Catholics cannot admit any understanding of the Bible that conflicts with the self-proclaimed assuredly infallible magisterium, and thus must make the effect of initial justification its cause, and infer justificatory moral merit to works.
texts which seem to affirm merit being the basis for justification are to be interpreted in the light of the Paul's express soteriology
I would say, the words of St. Paul have to be interpreted in the light of the "express" words of Christ, not the other way around.
Wrong, an a fundamental error within Roman Catholicism. It is self evident that Divine revelation is overall progressive in nature, and thus we understand the Old Testament in the light of the New Testament, and the obscure in the light of clear, and historical narratives in the light of doctrinal explanations. Among the gospels, besides the narrative of Jesus mission and its relation to prophecy, the synoptics contain much moral teaching and the gospel of the kingdom, while John is most revelatory about the nature of Christ and of salvation to all who believe. Acts shows application of things Jesus taught, with conversion happening in one day, even in a desolate place to a man who likely was ignorant of a church, while the epistles explain the theology behind such, complementing it with additional revelation which Jesus promised. (Jn. 16:12-15)
And in which the apostle Paul is the chief revelator and theologian of the N. Covenant, being given “the gospel of the grace of God” which he neither received of man, neither was taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ. (Gal. 1:2) And who most fully deals with how one is justified as concerns faith or works, grace justifying one through faith, but a kind of faith which is expressed in works, eternal life being a pure gift of God, versus morally merited by works.
Fortunately for St. Paul, his "express" soteriology is Catholic: " [8] For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; [9] Not of works, that no man may glory. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2:8-10). We are saved by grace alone, which is not of works, through faith and good works that God gives us to do. We are not saved by faith alone in any sense in which faith can be understood to be alone (James 2:17-26)
You are construing the contrast between grace through faith versus works to mean “For by grace you are saved... not by works — but “by works of mercy“ of faith. What the texts is stating is how one is saved under grace, which is through faith, not of works, while affirming works by stating that believers are God's works, made to do good works, as faith effects such.
despite similarities with Roman Catholicism, with the latter you have proxy faith (the palsied man's infirmity was physical, not cognitive) and man meriting salvation by works he chose to do, and within a system that treats souls as Christians from essentially birth and effectually fosters confidence in one's works and the church for eventually attaining eternal life by them.
We are Christians by virtue of baptism, not birth. That is to say, at least in the case of baptised infants, God chose us before we chose Him.
One is a Christian by virtue of Christ, received by faith, which is shown in baptism. And infants need not baptism nor can they meet the requirements for baptism. (Acts 2:28; 8:37) That God chose the elect from before time that does not negate the need for conversion.
To say that good works eventually produce faith is indeed what Catholics believe, and the faith that results is not "proxy faith" but just regular Christian faith.
Good works do not “produce“ faith, though a command to do something can prepare a soul to believe, and the act can be the occasion when faith is realized.
What we conclude from Romans 4:1-5 is the Catholic teaching, that faith counts for righteousness for those unable to do the good work, but it alone does not save those who are able to do them.
So “good works eventually produce faith,” and one is “saved by works of mercy” done in faith, but “faith counts for righteousness for those unable to do the good work.” Under the last provision Rome affirms sola fide, by a kind of faith what will work. I agree faith and works are so much conjoined that it is hard to separate them, but while all that man does is by grace, works have no merit themselves that save; man has nothing to offer God that he may escape hell to gain glory, but can only place his faith in the mercy of God in Christ, which is counted for righteousness, appropriating forgiveness and justification, which he then lives out, having been regenerated. The latter is the necessary attribute of saving faith, assuming opportunity, and one can be said to have been justified by works of faith, as establishing one is a saved soul, in contrast to a barren faith.
if we reason that souls merit eternal life in the sense of a recompense given them for their works, which God does for works in general, then i see no difference between this and the Judaizers
The difference is that one who follows a formal law receives the benefit in this life (stays out of jail, gains respect of his tribesmen, pockets the wage), and one who does the good works of charity receives the eternal benefit by suffers in the temporal life. (Matthew 6:2, 6:5, 16:25)
The lost Pharisees hope of reward was not simply for this life, and they had faith that God would count them morally worthy of reigning with the Messiah. Likewise the Judaizers Paul combated.
Saving faith is confidence in the Lord and not one's own worthiness. One can have faith that God will be faithful to reward his sufferings and works, but he can never suppose his works make him morally worthy of God and eternal life with Him, which is only gained by Christ on His blood-expense and righteousness, and is received by the damned destitute soul by faith. Works of love and suffering wrought as a result of being accepted in the Beloved will be rewarded, but do not morally merit eternal life.
While Roman Catholicism may define merit in a way that excludes moral worthiness, and make a distinction in what type of works are recompensed, unless souls are made to face their sinfulness and moral destitution, and absolute need for salvation on Christ's expense and righteousness, then they will go one presuming that to some degree or another their morality and or the power of their church will gain them eventual cohabitation with almighty God. And which is what Rome effectually fosters. And such will tragically die in their sins, to their eternal horror.
Sure it does; “εξ εργων των εν δικαιοσυνη” refers specifically to works of justice (I know the referred Protestant translation here is “righteousness” to obfuscate this point), and it is contrasted to “καλων εργων” (good works) in verse 8.
Abraham was helpless to have children, and could only believe God that He was willing and able to do what he could not do, that”what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.” (Rm. 4:21,22) Likewise sinful man unable to justify himself before a holy and just God, and can only “believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.” (Rm. 4:24,25)
St. Paul’s point however is not “to describe how man is justified before God” but rather to conclude what he actually concludes, that this particular episode in Abraham’ justification happened without circumcision (Rm 4:10). Were St. Paul giving a broad lesson on justification here, he would not have ignored the crossing of the desert and the sacrifice of Isaac, which both were not manifestation of faith alone.
Abraham was justified by such faith
But not by faith alone because his justification began with crossing the desert and ministering to the Angels of the Trinity, all good works rather than mere faith.
Rm. 4 does NOT only refer to works of the law, nor does Eph. 2:8,9 or Titus 3:5 (written to a Gentile), but broadly contrasts faith and works
Romans 4 refers to circumcision. Eph 2:8-9 contrasts grace and works, not faith and works. titus 3 contrasts works of justice in v 5 to good works verse 8.
Catholics cannot admit any understanding of the Bible that conflicts with the self-proclaimed assuredly infallible magisterium
You are the only one here talking about the Magisterium. I simply show you what the scripture actually says. The scripture does not support justification by faith alone, and in fact you yourself don’t believe in faith that is separated from works. You just stick to the slogan that does not express neither the scripture nor your beliefs.
Annalex: the words of St. Paul have to be interpreted in the light of the "express" words of Christ, not the other way around.
Daniel: Wrong, an a fundamental error within Roman Catholicism
Wow, it is rare that the Protestant laughable hermeneutics that ignore the words of Christ in favor to their twisted interpretation of a few passages in St. Paul is admitted to so honestly.
the apostle Paul is the chief revelator and theologian of the N. Covenant
Well, “chief revelators” would be the Evangelists who actually revealed to us the facts of the Christ’s ministry on earth. However, why is it that you think St. Paul reveals something Christ did not teach? Or, if you don’t think that, then why call listening to the words of Christ and understanding St. Paul through them “fundamental error”?
What the texts [Eph 2:8-10] is stating is how one is saved under grace, which is through faith, not of works.
One is saved not “under grace” but “by grace” and grace is “not of works”. We receive grace through faith and we must “walk in the good works”. We are in other words saved by grace alone but not by faith alone, but rather through faith that also walks the good works.
And infants need not baptism
Sure they do, because it is at baptism that God steps into their life and leads them to mature faith. Acts 2:28 refers to baptism of adults; however, the requirements to repent a child fulfills by default, since a child has nothing to repent of.
Good works do not “produce“ faith
Good works produce the habit of self-denial, which is the cornerstone of Christian faith.
Rome affirms sola fide, by a kind of faith what will work
“A kind of faith that will work” is indeed what Catholicism teaches saves us, but that is by definition not “Sola Fide”, since is affirms that works must accompany faith. What you offer in that paragraph is convoluted sophistry to excuse that silly Protestant slogan. You do not believe in Faith Alone. You believe in Faith That Works. That part of your beliefs is perfectly Catholic.
The lost Pharisees hope of reward was not simply for this life
But they were not lost on the account of such hope. They were lost because they denied Christ both personally and by lacking in charity. Remember, Christ never condemned their beliefs but rather the hypocrisy of their works: “All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not; for they say, and do not.” (Matthew 23:3)
unless souls are made to face their sinfulness and moral destitution, and absolute need for salvation on Christ's expense and righteousness, then they will go one presuming that to some degree or another their morality and or the power of their church will gain them eventual cohabitation with almighty God
Christ gave us Catholics the Church to lead us to the understanding of the “absolute need for salvation on Christ's expense and righteousness” and to salvation through that. You see a contradiction where there is none. Christ is the goal; Church is the path.