Ali Hasan Al-Areedh, in his book فتح المنان في نسخ القرآن, agrees with the rationale I presented here and rejects that 3:102 was abrogated. He writes that God has immediately explained what He meant by
حق تقاته ("as he ought to be watched out for") by following it with the words "do not die except as Muslims!" He says that 64:16 is meant to curb excessiveness in religiosity, such as monastery life.
In his discussion, he refers to some very interesting quotes of prominent scholars. He quotes Abu-Ja`far An-Nahhaas saying,
معنى قول الأولين نسخت هذه الآية، أي نزلت بنسخها، وهما واحد، وإلا فهذا لا يجوز أن تنسخ، لأن الناسخ هو المخالف للمنسوخ من جميع جهاته، الرافع له المزيل حكمه، فهو في الحقيقة من بيان المبهم وتفسيره، وليس من الناسخ في شيئ، لأن الآية الأولى نص مبهم، والثانية نص مفسر، على معنى واحد، فلا تعارض بينهما ولا منافاة
Translation: The meaning of the former scholars when they said this verse "abrogated" the other verse is that it copied it. They are the same thing. There can be no abrogation here, because
the abrogating is that which differs with the abrogated in every aspect, lifting it and removing its ruling. In fact, this is
an elaboration of something vague. The first verse is vague and the second elaborates it with the same meaning. There is no contradiction between them nor negation.
Ah, how I wish the scholars followed those guidelines before they made their abrogation claims.
Another interesting angle Al-Areedh presented was a quote from Abul-Hasan Ash-Shaazhuliyy, who has been honored by his peers with the special title العارف بالله (The Knowledgeable of God). He said that 3:102 dealt with faith and monotheism while 64:16 dealt with practice and good works. That is because 3:102 follows with "Do not die except as Muslims" while 64:16 follows with "Listen and obey and spend, that is better for you."