Replies

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

He did not make the exception because he was not speaking of all kinds of works in the first place. Romans 4 is entirely in the context of Jewish law and specifically circumcision.

The strategy of RCAs to attack Luther

I don’t care about Luther. Just don’t make that jerk a hero, and you’ll never hear from me about him again.

it is a polemical tactic of RCA to misrepresent Sola fide, as you have

Either you yourself deny Sola Fide in your constructs when faith is simultaneously alone and not alone, or you obfuscate what most Protestants believe to be a fact, that we are not saved by any works at all, and good works are simply a product of salvation already in place. But I argued with you on your terms, and my objections were specifically to your conception of Faith Alone. If you cannot explain it any better, blame yourself, but I reject categorically the charge that I repeat some kind of ideological talking points without listening – through some effort, I might add, -- to what you say.

it was not because he did works of merit that [Abraham] received his justification [per Romans 4]

It was not because of circumcision and obedience to the works of Jewish Law in general that Abraham was justified according to Romans 4:3. Observe that the thrust of the argument is in verses 9ff :

This blessedness then, doth it remain in the circumcision only, or in the uncircumcision also? For we say that unto Abraham faith was reputed to justice. [10] How then was it reputed? When he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.
[11] And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the justice of the faith, which he had, being uncircumcised; that he might be the father of all them that believe, being uncircumcised, that unto them also it may be reputed to justice: [12] And might be the father of circumcision; not to them only, that are of the circumcision, but to them also that follow the steps of the faithful, that is in the uncircumcision of our father Abraham. [13] For not through the law was the promise to Abraham, or to his seed, that he should be heir of the world; but through the justice of faith. [14] For if they who are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, the promise is made of no effect. [15] For the law worketh wrath. For where there is no law, neither is there transgression.

The context is not every kind of works but works that made Abraham specifically Jewish, that is circumcision and generally works of the law that is contrasted to justice of faith.

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."

You are making a reference to Romans 4 supposedly making an argument against ability and merit as being salvific on the example of Abraham physically unable to birth a nation yet doing so by faith. There is no argument from the Catholic side that justification without ability to do good works is possible. It is sufficient to look at any healing episode and see that the person being healed could not heal himself. What you need to find is a scripture that says that in general and regardless of anything else people able to do something and not doing it are nevertheless justified by faith alone. Such scripture is not in evidence.

Annalex: I do not see contrasting works of love and faith, in Romans 4 or anywhere.

Daniel: 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

In Romans 4 the works that were excluded (in v.4) are works of circumcision (v. 9-15). Further, they were “excluded” in that particular instance of Abraham’s justification, of which we learn in Gen 15. But crossing the desert was works and that was in connection to the same promise of fecundity; of that we learn in Gen 12 and it is confirmed by St. Paul as exemplary works of faith in Heb. 11. In Gen 22 Abraham offered up his son for sacrifice and that was well was an instance of justification of Abraham where his “works made his faith perfect” (James 2:22-24). So even if Romans 4:4 excludes all works and not merely those St. Paul is talking about in the chapter, it does not logically yield justification by works alone.

Annalex: 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).

Daniel: So one must be justified in order to do works that will justify him.

No, one must simply do works out of obedience till it forms a habit, and that process is justification. Different models of justification exist and that is perhaps the most common one.

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

The criterion of their salvation is that they do these works (Mt 25:31-46). The motivation might indeed be imperfect. But the Church as a whole can supply what is wanting in an individual, so long as he maintains a familial relationship with the Church (cf. Col 1:24).

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 [by] works.” (Eph. 2:8,9)

Romans and Galatians speak of works of the law where you cite them. In Titus 3:5 “εξ εργων των εν δικαιοσυνη” is at times translated, confusingly, as “by works of righteousness” whereas “by the works of justice” is better in line with the following “excel in good works” two verses down. In Eph. 2:9 the contrast is between grace and works, and indeed it is works of any kind that you can take credit for; good works (not generally works but good works) are nevertheless an imperative as Eph 2:10 states. So you brought together a collection of quotes, the first four are very specifically mentioning works of the law and not the general works, in contrast to faith, and the last mentions general works but in contrast to grace. None of these supports Protestantism LITE that you advocate, let alone its vulgar variety.

Annalex: Abraham is justified in offering Isaac

Daniel: After also having been justified by faith

Yes, and justified by faith after being justified by the work of crossing the desert. Please, when you consider Abraham justified by faith in Gen 15, do not forget that his justification did not start there but rather in Gen 12 when God first directed his steps.

Grace is what God show, faith is what He gives in grace, and works of God are what grace effects through faith

This is a strangest definition of grace. Are you sure you don’t mean “sacrament”? Grace is commonly known as invisible. At any rate, god doesn’t just “give” faith; faith hope and charity are biblically the three responses to grace (1 Thess. 1:3, 5:8), all three generated in the man, whereas grace is ontologically with God and is in no way generated even by Him.

the head is justificatory faith, and works inseparably follow

Inseparably, but not automatically. Man has to will every work; this is why telling him that he is saved by faith alone is telling him perhaps something one has convinced himself to be the case, and yet something that is false. From today’s readings:

[16] If thou wilt keep the commandments and perform acceptable fidelity for ever, they shall preserve thee. [17] He hath set water and fire before thee: stretch forth thy hand to which thou wilt. [18] Before man is life and death, good and evil, that which he shall choose shall be given him: [19] For the wisdom of God is great, and he is strong in power, seeing all men without ceasing. [20] The eyes of the Lord are towards them that fear him, and he knoweth all the work of man. [21] He hath commanded no man to do wickedly, and he hath given no man license to sin: [22] For he desireth not a multitude of faithless and unprofitable children.
(Ecclesiasticus or Syrach 15)

they are all referred to as saints, but it was informal

Formal canonization indeed is a relative novelty in the Church, as in fact the separation emerged between men believed privately to be holy and men believed to be holy universally and whose holiness manifested itself in miracles.

But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the UNGODLY, his faith is counted for righteousness." (Romans 4:5) One must be made Godly in order to do works of faith and love

Yes, one must be initially converted. This does not mean we are saved b y faith alone, as one who hypothetically, received a certain faith, could produce good works, but chose not to, is not saved, -- his faith is dead. Note that Abraham, to one episode of whose life this verse is referring to, unlike such hypothetical ungodly convert, did plenty of works throughout his blessed life, and was justified also by his works (James 2:23)

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

Indeed, but we don’t read that. Grace is entirely, unreservedly not by works.

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

I simply read what is written and explore the context beyond Protestant prooftexts. It is not my invention that Eph. 2:8 is followed by Eph 2:10 and Titus 3:5 is followed by Titus 3:8. The prior distinction is between works and grace in the case of Eph. 2 and between works of justice and good works in Titus 3. Read it – it is right there.

as you are forbidden to you allow Rome to be wrong, your conclusions are required

This breaks my parser again

The issue was why Jesus went to the cross

Because He loves us.

Grace is not what God does, it is what He shows by doing something

Grace is, however you phrase it, something of God and in God. A few comments above I said more on the subject, see the paragraph that begins “This is a strangest definition of grace”.

2Tim. 1:9 is between faith and works

Who hath delivered us and called us by his holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace (2 Tim. 1:9)

To think that one is saved by a kind of faith that will not work by love is wrong

Wrong indeed, I agree. We are not saved by faith alone.

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

I just go by your representation of Sola Fide and I agree pretty much that the way you interpret Sola Fide the only thing that is wrong with the slogan is that it contradicts the scripture and mislabels the content. However, I can assure you that there is no shortage of Protestants, many on this thread, who believe in the vulgar version of Sola Fide: that faith alone saves, and works that one might do in gratitude for the gift of salvation do not make any difference in whether he is saved. That is the kind of counterscriptural vulgarity that I am primarily opposed to.

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[…]”

Yes. I have no quarrel with that.

when the actual issue of what means procures justification is dealt with then it is faith when the actual issue of what means procures justification is dealt with then it is faith

It is faith that worketh in love (Gal 5:6) and not faith alone, so you are pointing out a meaningless distinction to save your false slogan.

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

In any meaningful sense we are saved by faith and works. As to the “installment plan”, since you seem to understand that justification is a life long process, I don’t understand the desire to mock the work of the Church in fostering it along.

if a faith is salvific then it must be one that is fruitful by nature.

So therefore Sola Fide is nonsense as it presupposes works, and the entire controversy disappears.

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

First, we have no scripture that says that initial justification always occurs before works. We might agree that it does simply because people usually have a state of mind (akin to faith) before they do anything. But it is not as such in the scripture. Second, it is rather an exception that faith is not followed by works as most people are capable of some good works, just like mist people are capable of getting baptized by water.

Grace is the undeserved, unmerited favor of God

This is much better than “what God shows” and I agree with the entire paragraph.

God justifies the unGodly by a faith that will work, yet presently has no works of faith

Occasionally, but that does not elevate Sola Fide into any kind of soteriological principle, especially one flatly contradicted by scripture. The good works are still there with faith as its inseparable quantity, as you seem to agree.

Sinful man has no moral merit by which he may be justified

Yes, that is Catholic teaching. One burdened by sin should first have that sin confessed and absolved, and only following absolution is he capable of contributing to the treasure of merits through his works.