"On this view, God is not concerned with whether the person obeyed God by living a holy life or whether he was baptized."
Of course, no Christian actually believes that God does not care about our obedience to Him. Sola Fide simply means we cannot earn our way into heaven. That is it. Nonetheless, this same misrepresentation is routinely repeated by apologists for the Church of Rome. Belief in Sola Fide is by no means an equivalent to upholding antinomianism. Another key component of the Catholic apologetics argument being critiqued is cited here as follows:
"Paul emphatically rebuked Peter. Man reaches heaven by the universal action of faith, which is always “working through love” (Gal. 5:6). Both Jews and Gentiles are justified by faith, as one family of God, which automatically dismantles any separation between them.
Galatians 2:16 has nothing to do with the Catholic belief that good works and receiving the sacraments are necessary, but not sufficient, for salvation. Deciding who spends eternity in heaven remains entirely the prerogative of our loving Creator, who has given ample guidance to the faithful. Our Protestant brothers and sisters have been misled about the meaning of the text, so let us gently show them their error (2 Tim. 2:25)."
The author abuses certain passages of Scripture and simply spews off assertions that are contrary to what has already been explained in the first paragraph. Justification does not depend on obedience to the Mosaic Law, since it is by faith. Justification does not depend on any other law for the same reason. We are justified by faith, apart from the merit of good works. Consider, as an example, Romans 13. To say that we are required to follow the Law of Love rather than the Law of Moses misses the entire point. The Law of Love was literally embedded into the Mosaic system. So it is not something new by any means. The concept was taught in Leviticus and many other places throughout the Old Testament. To say that a person is not justified by the Law encompasses the Law of Love. This excerpt from John Gill's Exposition of the Bible Commentary is pertinent here:
"for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified; reference seems to be had to (Psalms 143:2) and contains a reason why these believing Jews relinquished Moses in his law, in whom they formerly trusted, and looked to, and depended on for their justification, because that by obedience to the law of works no sinful mortal man can be justified in the sight of God."
And lastly, there are reputable translations of the Bible that render the Pauline text being discussed in the following manner (which further proves that Galatians 2:16 reinforces justification by faith alone in a straightforward manner):
"Yet we know that a person is put right with God only through faith in Jesus Christ, never by doing what the Law requires. We, too, have believed in Christ Jesus in order to be put right with God through our faith in Christ, and not by doing what the Law requires. For no one is put right with God by doing what the Law requires." (Galatians 2:16, Good News Translation)
Interestingly enough, the Good News Translation is approved by the Roman Catholic Church for adherents to use in study. Following is another translation of Galatians 2:16:
"yet we know that no one is justified by the works of the law but by the faithfulness of Jesus Christ. And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by the faithfulness of Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified." (Galatians 2:16, New English Translation)
"tn Or “faith in Jesus Christ.” A decision is difficult here. Though traditionally translated “faith in Jesus Christ,” an increasing number of NT scholars are arguing that πίστις Χριστοῦ (pistis Christou) and similar phrases in Paul (here and in v. 20; Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 3:22; Eph 3:12; Phil 3:9) involve a subjective genitive and mean “Christ’s faith” or “Christ’s faithfulness” (cf., e.g., G. Howard, “The ‘Faith of Christ’,” ExpTim 85 : 212-15; R. B. Hays, The Faith of Jesus Christ [SBLDS]; Morna D. Hooker, “Πίστις Χριστοῦ,” NTS 35 : 321-42). Noteworthy among the arguments for the subjective genitive view is that when πίστις takes a personal genitive it is almost never an objective genitive (cf. Matt 9:2, 22, 29; Mark 2:5; 5:34; 10:52; Luke 5:20; 7:50; 8:25, 48; 17:19; 18:42; 22:32; Rom 1:8; 12; 3:3; 4:5, 12, 16; 1 Cor 2:5; 15:14, 17; 2 Cor 10:15; Phil 2:17; Col 1:4; 2:5; 1 Thess 1:8; 3:2, 5, 10; 2 Thess 1:3; Titus 1:1; Phlm 6; 1 Pet 1:9, 21; 2 Pet 1:5). On the other hand, the objective genitive view has its adherents: A. Hultgren, “The Pistis Christou Formulations in Paul,” NovT 22 (1980): 248-63; J. D. G. Dunn, “Once More, ΠΙΣΤΙΣ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥ,” SBL Seminar Papers, 1991, 730-44. Most commentaries on Romans and Galatians usually side with the objective view."
Brandon Addison provides these relevant comments on the subjective genitive phrases:
"...if one wants to argue for the subjective genitive here or elsewhere in Galatians (διὰ τῆς πίστεως ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ) then we are all sons of God because of Christ’s faithfulness, in which case, something like imputation is functioning as Christ’s faithfulness imputes benefits to believers."