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).
That is a wonderful post. Thank you very much.
There IS a verse that states it.....
Ephesians 2:1-10 1 And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience— 3among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. 4But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, 5even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ— by grace you have been saved— 6and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
It doesn't say *works of the Law*, it just says works, period. It's all about God and Him GIVING us salvation.
It doesn't get much simpler than that.
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".
When it says “not by works” “to him that worketh not” and “not by works of righteousness” it is NOT because Paul forgot to make the exception you seek, nor to exclude works from being what faith effects, but because it excludes merit of man's works-response as being the basis of justification, and it is also not the actual instrumental means of justification, even when manifested in works.
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.
The strategy of RCAs to attack Luther, which includes many exaggerations or false charges, to negate sola fide is a failed one and attests to a weak argument. His own theology was in development, and unlike te pope, he is not needed to teach sola fide, but his means and the validity of what he began to recover is established, though it is a polemical tactic of RCA to misrepresent Sola fide, as you have. It is Rome's system that is scripturally wrong, and had it been he would not have exalted herself above Scripture and try to get their theological fantasies some fake biblical footing, while militating against Biblical literacy among the laity, while today most of her commentators take other tact, which is basically “hath God said?” by their liberal interpretive hermeneutic.
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.
You are behind in my posts, and that is not at all contrary to sola fide here, but establishes it, as it was not because he did works of merit that he received his justification.
That, too, is Catholic teaching. Christians are foremostly community of faith.
That is not the issue, though their comparative lack of faith-works while her apologists attack sola fide as being contrary to fruitful faith is.
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".
You may not be able to, but if a man cannot birth a nation, and is justified not because of his works but by faith, then it is "contra ability and contra merit."
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.
Of course not, as works are excluded, including Gentiles and without any qualification as to what kind of works, because they are not the basis by which one is justified. And though faith and works go together as an effect must have a cause, i see faith as being the cause of fruit and procurative instrument of justification, even when manifested in works.
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.
Surely you should have know that. In fact, Calvinism holds that regeneration precedes faith and repentance washing, justification and sanctification, though all occur at the same time. In Arminianism it is also one event, and neither event excludes preparatory work or the growth in holiness which saving faith is to effect.
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).
So one must be justified in order to do works that will justify him.
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.
I agree that should be the case, but i dare say a survey of why Roman Catholics hope to go to heaven and why they do good works in that regards will reveal that their church is effectually fostering doing works in the hope of gaining eternal life, not a love that is disinterested in anything but love for God and man.
this was Paul's argument although he simply contrasted the system of works-merit with faith. Sorry, it is just not there.
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.
Arguments from silence can be wrongly used for many things, but what we see in Paul's exclusion of procuring justification by works by a good man prior to the law, (Rm. 4:1-3) and before circumcision, (Rm. 4:10,11) which corresponds to baptism, as well as works of the law, (Gal. 3:11,12) as well as “works of righteousness,” (Titus 3:5) and just “not be works.” (Eph. 2:8,9) Yet you want to restrict this so as to allow works of love, but those world of love cannot be done apart from having justifying faith which causes them. While works as a testimony to faith can be said to justify one as confirming a living faith, they are not the instrumental cause of procurement.
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.
After also having been justified by faith. This was touched on on a previous response.
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.
Grace is what God show, faith is what He gives in grace, and works of God are what grace effects through faith.
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).
No, the head is justificatory faith, and works inseparably follow.
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.
Yes they are all referred to as saints, but it was informal, and the term lacks any formal use as in a canonized saint. And an examination of the word for saint will clearly show it is used for any believer. Paul was “called an apostle” and the Corinthians were “called saints.” (1Cor. 1:1,2) The words “to be” are not in the Greek but are supplied, as the KJV also shows by placing them in italics, and saint refers to what they were as well as what they are called to be, to be practically what they are positionally in Christ.
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.”
One merits eternal life by his goodness and his works and his faith, but not by works alone and not by faith alone.
No. "But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the , his faith is counted for righteousness." (Romans 4:5) One must be made Godly in order to do works of faith and love.
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.
Only by esisgesis do we read, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of works, but by works, lest any man should boast.” As election is not by our choice, and repentance is granted, and faith is given, then it is not of works though they follow. It is true that one's true goodness and works of faith are only by God's grace, but one must be in Christ to be and to do such, which is appropriated by God given faith, even when expressed in baptism.
[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). ]
You have, “not by works of righteous that we have done, but by works of righteous that we did in faith, He saved us.” You continue to not only use Scriptural exhortations to do works as a response of being saved in order to negate prior distinctions that works do not save them, and also continue to insist, despite much evidence and my own affirmations, that Protestants think that works are opposed to faith. The latter begets the former.
The Philadelphia Confession of Faith: “Although temporary believers and other unregenerate men, may vainly deceive themselves with false hopes and carnal presumptions of being in the favor of God, and (in a) state of salvation, which hope of theirs shall perish; yet such as truly believe in the Lord Jesus, and love him in sincerity, endeavoring to walk in all good conscience before him, may in this life be certainly assured that they are in the state of grace, and may rejoice in the hope of the glory of God, which hope shall never make them ashamed.” Philadelphia Confession of Faith, Chapter XVIII, Article 1.
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.
Your argumentation here much shows the opposite, and as you are forbidden to you allow Rome to be wrong, your conclusions are required.
Christ did not go to the cross simply because He is loving
Yes, He did. God is love. That is all God does: He loves.
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.
The issue was why Jesus went to the cross. Motive and means.
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.
Grace is not what God does, it is what He shows by doing something, that by grace through faith saving sinners. 2Tim. 1:9 is between faith and works, Timothy being saved by faith, (v. 5) while his calling “in Christ Jesus before the world began” was purely by election as per Rm. 9.
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.
To think that one is saved by a kind of faith that will not work by love is wrong, as is supposing the works make him morally worthy, or that works of faith justify one initially, a he must be justified to do such works. Also, denying that he is presently saved means he is not. Faith is not doubt, and 1Jn. 5:13 refers to the criteria by which the believer may know he is saved. Trent itself allows for assurance by “special revelation,” while it does disallow that one can know he “either cannot sin any more, or, if he does sin, that he ought to promise himself an assured repentance.”
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.
You will not get that out of Rm. 3:26,27, but you will if you continue on in Romans, and anyone reading my words will see i often affirm the same, as Sola fide does, despite the constant misrepresentation by RCAs. Faith saves but it is a kind of faith that works by the Spirit.
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.
I went on to say, “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 [as] spontaneous conversions before baptism.” Before works of faith by the redeemed can be expressed, they must be redeemed by God-given faith, as Cornelius and household were, though that faith may be realized in the course of obeying a command from God.
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.
It is impossible to practice sound exegesis when one ignores genres and forces a description to determine a doctrine over a theological treatise on the matter. Again, while faith and works are inseparable in cause and effect, when the actual issue of what means procures justification is dealt with then it is faith. It is impossible to read Rom. 3-5; Eph. 2:8-10; Tits 3:5; 2Tim. 1:9 and not conclude that the means by which one is justified is faith, which is Protestant soteriology, as is that this faith in one that is fruitful by nature. In contrast, what you have is a soul being justified by works of faith which he cannot do until he is justified. You cannot have God justifying the unGodly which worketh not, and then have him justified by doing works of love as a response to being justified, unless we ar talking about justification in a another sense.
In an evidential sense it can be said one is saved by faith and works, for if the former will not effect the latter, if able, then it is sterile and not salvific. And a faith that works by the Spirit is what evangelical Protestant faith has overall shown, in contrast to Rome's predominate religious effects with her salvation on an installment plan thru reliance upon an autocratic self-proclaimed infallible entity which she seeks to extrapolate from Scripture, but it based upon her own claim to be infallible.
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?
No, and not at the same time if i were, but here i was simply affirming (again) that if a faith is salvific then it must be one that is fruitful by nature.
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.
What Rome turns that into is another thing. Sola fide does teach that "grace gives us a virile faith, which is lived out, doing works such as Mt. 25 refers to," except that it holds that justifying faith is not because it expresses works, but it does works because it is fruitful by nature, being by nature a good and perfect gift from God, (Ja., 1:17) and is preceded by conviction and desire, that also being enabled by “the God of all grace.” This means justification occurs before works of faith, as one could not have such until he is justified and born again. And as said, if baptism by desire is allowed, Rome would hold to a pure faith appropriation of justification.
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).
Grace is the undeserved, unmerited favor of God, shown to man not because he morally deserves it, by which favor God gives faith, and which causes works, “faith which worketh by love,” showing the “obedience of faith” (Rm. 16:26) in motive response to grace. What we believe determines our actions, and why we believe is because God awakens sinful man to see his condition and need, and grants him faith to be saved, resulting in seeking to do the will of the Object of faith.
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.
That mere intellectual faith, that will not work, is not salvific, has never been in dispute, but God justifies the unGodly by a faith that will work, yet presently has no works of faith, as he had not yet come to faith. The “work of God” which justifies is believing, (Jn. 6:29) but which is manifest in doing.
Works co-operate with faith and make the faith perfect and together they justify a man (James 2:21-22).
They do as in establishing that is saved as a possessor of justifying faith, which being from God is perfect before expression, but is made perfect in the fulfilled by works. A prophecy from God is true from the beginning, but it is made “perfect” by its literal manifestation. Sinful man has no moral merit by which he may be justified, no matter how many works he may do, so he must place all his faith in the mercy of God in Christ, not confidence that his works or church affiliation will save him. Until he/she has that conversion, they are yet in their sins. Abraham was justified because he believed God to do what he could not do, and not by his works, though his works establish that faith as salvific. “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” (Rm. 10:10)