Your statement makes no sense what-so-ever.
If Paul’s words about ‘works’ are nothing but circumcision, then it’s really stupid to claim that salvation is not through circumcision, but then that God will judge us by our ‘works’ of circumcision.
How do you justify breaking up the Law of God into circumcision on one hand, and then keeping everything else?
In Romans 3, when Paul refers to ‘works of the law,’ he refers to far more than simply circumcision. He specifically refers to lies in chapter 3, to faithlessness in the heart in chapter 2, to stealing, adultery, and idol-worship, also in Chapter 2.
All these things fall under the heading of ‘works of the Law’ when Paul writes in his letter to the Romans.
I also believe that it was Jesus who said, “For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”
Heaven and earth, I notice, have not passed away, nor has all of Jesus’ work been accomplished, since he has not yet returned. Therefore, either we are justified by the ENTIRE Law, including the Ten Commandments, or we are not.
The ‘render according to his works’ verse that you referred to is only one verse in the entire first three chapters of the letter to the Romans. Of course, Paul then spends the rest of the chapter and into Chapter 3 explaining how there is not a single person who is righteous and who deserves anything from God. So rendering to us according to our works, without grace, is nothing but giving punishment to us.
And then Paul comes to this:
“21But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.”
Paul does not say grace-and-works, Paul does not say grace-plus-merit, Paul does not say grace-plus-sacraments, Paul does not say grace-plus-membership-in-some-church-in-Rome.
If you think that the Romanist works were so necessary for salvation, wouldn’t Paul have mentioned them? Wouldn’t he have explained them? The closest we get is the ‘law of faith,’ and Paul then spends the entirety of chapter 4 explaining how Abraham’s righteousness didn’t come from anything he did, but instead because he believed the Lord’s promises.
Don't be silly. Can you not see that Paul is using "works" with two different meanings? He must be since in one passage he says that God will repay everyone according to his works and in another he says that we are not saved by works. In Romans 2 he defines works as either doing evil or doing good. Latter he uses works to denote circumcision and the Mosaic Law. This latter meaning is especially clear in Ephesians. There is no contradiction if you look beyond the mere word and look at it context.
If you think that the Romanist works were so necessary for salvation, wouldn’t Paul have mentioned them?
He did, in Romans 2. In Ephesians 5 he also clearly states that immorality will loose us our salvation.