More on Justification

[cjbanning]

 Continuing the train of thought started in my last post on works-righteousness, it seems like "Justification by faith" and "Justification by works" both equally put a step in between grace and salvation: either way, there's something human beings need to do in response to grace in order to be saved, and I'm not sure why one type of justification is more problematic than the other. I just don't see how it's even possible to answer the question "Saved for what?" without falling into Pelagianism. It's exactly the point that we aren't saved for anything but rather despite everything.

It seems that if grace is resistable, then merely accepting God's grace should be sufficient for salvation, and both faith and works come afterwards; if grace is irresistble, then the mere presence of grace should be sufficient and, again, faith and works come afterwards.

I don't see how any account of faith in which "confessing with your lips that Jesus is Sovereign and believing in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead"  (Romans 10:9) are seen as justifying actions doesn't automatically turn faith into a sort of crypto-work. And then it's actually the sola fide proponent who ends up falling into Plagianism and violating sola gratia.