Question regarding Paul's understanding of justification

[reccanboy]

If one reads Galatians 3 or Romans 4, Paul offers a defense against those who believe that righteousness could be gained through the Law.

First off, Paul’s understanding of the term “the Law” encompassed more than simply the ceremonial rites, but also referred to the moral law (See Romans 2 and 7), in which Paul cites from the ten commandments and attributes it to the Law.

If Paul stated that righteousness could never be gained through the Law, then how is it that a figure such as Moses, for example, could seek justification?

Would it be through faith, apart from the Law? If so, then is this a justification through faith alone? Share with me some of your thoughts.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

If one reads Galatians 3 or Romans 4, Paul offers a defense against those who believe that righteousness could be gained through the Law.

True.

First off, Paul’s understanding of the term “the Law” encompassed more than simply the ceremonial rites, but also referred to the moral law (See Romans 2 and 7), in which Paul cites from the ten commandments and attributes it to the Law.

True.

If Paul stated that righteousness could never be gained through the Law, then how is it that a figure such as Moses, for example, could seek justification?

The Law never was intended to save, so your question is inherently flawed. Justification never was through the law, it was by faith and obedience to God.

Would it be through faith, apart from the Law? If so, then is this a justification through faith alone? Share with me some of your thoughts.

Ill give you a article I wrote on Ephesians 2:8-
catholicdefense.googlepages.com/eph2

 

[KingAlfred]

If one reads Galatians 3 or Romans 4, Paul offers a defense against those who believe that righteousness could be gained through the Law.

First off, Paul’s understanding of the term “the Law” encompassed more than simply the ceremonial rites, but also referred to the moral law (See Romans 2 and 7), in which Paul cites from the ten commandments and attributes it to the Law.

If Paul stated that righteousness could never be gained through the Law, then how is it that a figure such as Moses, for example, could seek justification?

Would it be through faith, apart from the Law? If so, then is this a justification through faith alone? Share with me some of your thoughts.

Theologically speaking, St. Paul’s works can become a minefield, of sorts. Look how they were interpretted by Luther. Personally, I don’t spend much time studying Paul. His work as an evangelist and martyr is far more important to me than his theological writings. At times, I even get the slight impression that, on some level, Paul was a bit disturbed (just as Luther was, quite coincidentally), whenever I drag myself through Romans or Galatians. Paul is great in small doses.

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

Catholic Dude:
Your explanation of the Catholic teaching on justification was the best I have ever read anywhere - thank you very much for uploading that to the internet. Your grasp of the subject is masterful and meets a critical need in contemporary soteriology. You navigate scripture as deftly as any Protestant and are able to magnify the Word with the lens of Magisterial Teaching - which I believe is the duty of every Catholic chrismed with the gifts necessary for apologetics, evangelism and catechesis.

Bless you!!!

Johnny

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Theologically speaking, St. Paul’s works can become a minefield, of sorts. Look how they were interpretted by Luther. Personally, I don’t spend much time studying Paul. His work as an evangelist and martyr is far more important to me than his theological writings. At times, I even get the slight impression that, on some level, Paul was a bit disturbed (just as Luther was, quite coincidentally), whenever I drag myself through Romans or Galatians. Paul is great in small doses.

You don’t know what you are missing bro! There is nothing to be worried about, St Paul is THOROUGHLY Catholic. Once you understand what Paul is saying, especially in Romans and Galatians, you see Luther got it wrong, big time.

Here is a thread where we have been having a Romans Bible Study for Catholics:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=266994
Just search for the chapter and verse you’re looking to learn more about.

Catholic Dude:
Your explanation of the Catholic teaching on justification was the best I have ever read anywhere - thank you very much for uploading that to the internet. Your grasp of the subject is masterful and meets a critical need in contemporary soteriology. You navigate scripture as deftly as any Protestant and are able to magnify the Word with the lens of Magisterial Teaching - which I believe is the duty of every Catholic chrismed with the gifts necessary for apologetics, evangelism and catechesis.

Bless you!!!

Johnny

Thank you. I’m glad to see people are realizing the real dispute between Protestants and Catholics is over definitions, and that tossing verses back and forth without knowing this just confuses the issues. See the link in my signature for a much longer treatment of the issue.

 

[brownjt]

Theologically speaking, St. Paul’s works can become a minefield, of sorts. Look how they were interpretted by Luther. Personally, I don’t spend much time studying Paul. His work as an evangelist and martyr is far more important to me than his theological writings. At times, I even get the slight impression that, on some level, Paul was a bit disturbed (just as Luther was, quite coincidentally), whenever I drag myself through Romans or Galatians. Paul is great in small doses.

Tell the Pope you think Paul was alittle disturbed! I guess you have proof of that. Paul was the greatest evangelist that lived and is reponsible for this “jewish” faith being told to the Gentiles. That is how we got to where we are now.

 

[reccanboy]

The Law never was intended to save, so your question is inherently flawed. Justification never was through the law, it was by faith and obedience to God.

Ill give you a article I wrote on Ephesians 2:8-
catholicdefense.googlepages.com/eph2

If Moses couldn’t be justified by the Law (which includes the moral law, as Paul mentioned in Romans 2 and Romans 7:7.), then how was he justified?

After reading your article, I noticed something you said: “Contrary to this thought, Paul actually teaches nobody can be saved by keeping the Mosaic Law because the Mosaic Law was never designed to save and make one a member of God’s spiritual family (Gal 3:16ff). Only a soul which is alive by sanctifying grace can be saved and receive adoption as children of God (2 Cor 3:2ff).”

Do you deny that Moses had sanctifying grace and received adoption as the child of God? If so, was he still not obligated to follow the precepts of the Law, as to not commit mortal sin?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

If Moses couldn’t be justified by the Law (which includes the moral law, as Paul mentioned in Romans 2 and Romans 7:7.), then how was he justified?

Think of the Mosaic Law as a contract, you cannot go ignoring parts of the contract (eg moral teachings only), you must keep it all. So when Paul says APART from the Law, he means outside of that contract.

After reading your article, I noticed something you said: “Contrary to this thought, Paul actually teaches nobody can be saved by keeping the Mosaic Law because the Mosaic Law was never designed to save and make one a member of God’s spiritual family (Gal 3:16ff). Only a soul which is alive by sanctifying grace can be saved and receive adoption as children of God (2 Cor 3:2ff).”

Do you deny that Moses had sanctifying grace and received adoption as the child of God? If so, was he still not obligated to follow the precepts of the Law, as to not commit mortal sin?

Moses had sanctifying grace, I never denied or implied that he didn’t.

 

[SergiusPaulus]

Think of the Mosaic Law as a contract, you cannot go ignoring parts of the contract (eg moral teachings only), you must keep it all. So when Paul says APART from the Law, he means outside of that contract.

Moses had sanctifying grace, I never denied or implied that he didn’t.

Hmm, wasn’t Moses still obligated to keep all of the Law? So according to Catholic teaching, he must have kept ALL of the Law in order to die in a state of grace.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Hmm, wasn’t Moses still obligated to keep all of the Law?

Yes, but the Law wasn’t the grounds in of itself for him to be justified.

It is similar to how Noah was assigned to build the ark, it wasn’t building in and of itself that he was justified by.

So according to Catholic teaching, he must have kept ALL of the Law in order to die in a state of grace.

It depends on what you mean here by “all.”

If you mean if Moses sinned even once then he didn’t keep it ‘all’, then I would disagree because the Law never operated on a “one strike” principal.

If you mean “all” in the sense he kept it to the best of his ability, including offering proper sacrifices for his sins and such, then yes it was required. Not all sins removed one from the Mosaic Covenant, only certain grave sins ‘cut you off’, and this corresponds roughly to mortal sins.

It’s similar to how as Christians we must keep “all” of Christ’s Commandments.

 

[reccanboy]

Yes, but the Law wasn’t the grounds in of itself for him to be justified.

It is similar to how Noah was assigned to build the ark, it wasn’t building in and of itself that he was justified by.

Yes, but in keeping the Law, you are being justified by the works of the Law.

According to Catholicism, Moses was justified by doing the works of the Law.

However, the apostle says that APART from the Law, the righteousness of God has been revealed, through faith. (Rom. 3:21-22)

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

Theologically speaking, St. Paul’s works can become a minefield, of sorts. Look how they were interpretted by Luther. Personally, I don’t spend much time studying Paul. His work as an evangelist and martyr is far more important to me than his theological writings. At times, I even get the slight impression that, on some level, Paul was a bit disturbed (just as Luther was, quite coincidentally), whenever I drag myself through Romans or Galatians. Paul is great in small doses.

Paul is ***the ***pre-eminent Christian theologian for all ages. Your difficulties with St. Paul are not reflective of his enormous significance in explaining the saving action of God in Jesus Christ.

To all: read St. Paul devoutly, prayerfully, frequently.

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

If Moses couldn’t be justified by the Law (which includes the moral law, as Paul mentioned in Romans 2 and Romans 7:7.), then how was he justified?

After reading your article, I noticed something you said: “Contrary to this thought, Paul actually teaches nobody can be saved by keeping the Mosaic Law because the Mosaic Law was never designed to save and make one a member of God’s spiritual family (Gal 3:16ff). Only a soul which is alive by sanctifying grace can be saved and receive adoption as children of God (2 Cor 3:2ff).”

Do you deny that Moses had sanctifying grace and received adoption as the child of God? If so, was he still not obligated to follow the precepts of the Law, as to not commit mortal sin?

Moses lived in the Old Covenant economy. He cannot be held to NT standards seeing that the events described in Ephesians 4:7-10 had not yet occurred (the passion and glorification of Christ).

 

[reccanboy]

Moses lived in the Old Covenant economy. He cannot be held to NT standards seeing that the events described in Ephesians 4:7-10 had not yet occurred (the passion and glorification of Christ).

That would contradict Paul’s usage of Abraham to demonstrate justification by faith.

If Paul can use Old Testament figures that had the Gospel beforehand:

Galatians 3:8 The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”

Then it demonstrates that these figures had the same method of salvation as Christians. The fact is that the Law could never justify anyone, as Paul stated. Faith apart from the Law can justify.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Yes, but in keeping the Law, you are being justified by the works of the Law.

According to Catholicism, Moses was justified by doing the works of the Law.

However, the apostle says that APART from the Law, the righteousness of God has been revealed, through faith. (Rom. 3:21-22)

No. It is not the Law in and of itself, that is what you need to get.
Rom 2: 28A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man’s praise is not from men, but from God.
Read Heb 11, everyone mentioned was in different circumstances in which they had to obey God, but the common theme was that they looked beyond this life and focused on the life to come. The Law was not an end in itself, it pointed to Christ, and the OT saints recognized this, even if it was only implicitly. The Law literally had a start date and an end date, it was a temporary fixture. Living by faith and obedience (Heb 11:6) with the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the way salvation has been from Adam till the end of time.

When Paul says “apart from” he means it is not the Law in and of itself. According to your logic, people like Moses and David wouldn’t have to obey a single rule of the Mosaic Law and they would be fine.

 

[reccanboy]

When Paul says “apart from” he means it is not the Law in and of itself.

Paul was not arguing against people who believed that the Law in and of itself saved people. The Jews never believed this. They believed that God saved them by his mercy, but through their obedience to the Law.

Look at the epistle to the Galatians; the Gentile Judaizers believed in justification through faith in the sacrifice of Christ, but they also believed in justification by the Law. Paul calls them false brethren, for they were seeking to be justified by faith, along with being justified by the works of the Law.

According to your logic, people like Moses and David wouldn’t have to obey a single rule of the Mosaic Law and they would be fine.

If they were truly regenerated believers, which they were, they would seek to glorify God by obeying the Law.

 

[Catholic_Johnny]

That would contradict Paul’s usage of Abraham to demonstrate justification by faith.

If Paul can use Old Testament figures that had the Gospel beforehand:

Galatians 3:8 The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to Abraham: “All nations will be blessed through you.”

Then it demonstrates that these figures had the same method of salvation as Christians. The fact is that the Law could never justify anyone, as Paul stated. Faith apart from the Law can justify.

I was responding to this quote of yours:

Do you deny that Moses had sanctifying grace and received adoption as the child of God? If so, was he still not obligated to follow the precepts of the Law, as to not commit mortal sin?

Adoption is not taught in the Torah as an individual status as in the NT. Israel is referred to frequently as “my son” (Hosea) in allegorical terms, but Jesus is the one who makes us His brothers and sisters and through His passion, resurrection and ascension makes what Hebrews calls “a new and living way” to the Father. Paul teaches that through CHRIST we have been given the gift of adoption (Rom 8) whereby we cry out “Abba, Father”. This is unheard of in the OT except in poetic language in reference to the nation or in specific reference to the Davidic Messianic dynasty.

Per the Law, St. Paul uses the expression as a reference to justification by works - and in this point, many Catholics have overreacted to Luther (see post #2 by KingAlfred). Luther’s caveat “faith alone” is what causes consternation among Catholics. This is because only in rhetoric can faith and deeds be separated - not in reality. To discuss it abstractly, we must assure the consciences of believers that it is Christ who saves, and we who receive the saving benefits (please see: Zechariah chapter 3 for a beautiful illustration of the passivity of the saved person). Clearly we will receive rewards for our virtuous deeds (Rev 19:8) - how is this possible without merits? And how are merits accepted if works have no role in the divine economy?

What the Judaizers were doing was adding requirements to the saving work of Christ - particularly circumcision. This was as St. Peter says, ‘a yoke that neither we nor our fathers could bear.’ Adding circumcision or any other legal requirement to the saving action of Jesus is most certainly heterodox and demands correction.

Works are the motions and actions of saving faith. What St. Paul warns against is those who think they will be justified by works apart from saving faith.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Paul was not arguing against people who believed that the Law in and of itself saved people. The Jews never believed this.

The Judaizers did, hence Gal 3:16ff.
16The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise.

21Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given that could impart life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law.
Justification is “apart from” the Law because God’s promise to Abraham would have been supplanted if He changed the promise to be dependent on the Law. Yet the Law came “450 years” after God’s promise to Abraham, thus God’s plan of salvation was in place long before. And in v21 Paul says IF the Law had the power to bring spiritual life, THEN righteousness would have come by the Law, but the fact is the Law inherently LACKS the power to save. Whether you keep the Law or Jesus keeps the Law for you is irrelevant because the Law by its nature was never intended to justify.

They believed that God saved them by his mercy, but through their obedience to the Law.

There is truth to that, but it was only for those who understood the purpose of the Law. The Judaizers had a wrong view of the Law and were using it to pridefully boast and beat down Gentile Christians, see Rom 2:17-24.

Look at the epistle to the Galatians; the Gentile Judaizers believed in justification through faith in the sacrifice of Christ, but they also believed in justification by the Law. Paul calls them false brethren, for they were seeking to be justified by faith, along with being justified by the works of the Law.

There technically isn’t such thing as a “Gentile Judaizer.” The Judaizers were Christian Jews using the Law as a tool to pridefully boast and look down upon Gentile Christians. The Gentiles were similar to how Blacks were treated by some racist Whites 50 years ago, the racists would look down upon Blacks as stupid and inferior, and that is what the Judaizers (not all Jewish Christians) were doing to Gentiles.

If they were truly regenerated believers, which they were, they would seek to glorify God by obeying the Law.

Then you proved my point. It wasn’t the Law in and of itself.

 

[KingAlfred]

“You don’t know what you are missing bro! There is nothing to be worried about, St Paul is THOROUGHLY Catholic. Once you understand what Paul is saying, especially in Romans and Galatians, you see Luther got it wrong, big time.”

I think I know quite a bit about Paul. I’ve simply reached the point in my spiritual and intellectual growth where I view him as the proverbial ‘double-edged sword’. The Church itself included books in the New Testament to deliberately offset his emphasis on salvation by faith alone. Don’t get me wrong. I like Paul, and venerate him. I just don’t dwell on his writings.

 

[KingAlfred]

Tell the Pope you think Paul was alittle disturbed! I guess you have proof of that. Paul was the greatest evangelist that lived and is reponsible for this “jewish” faith being told to the Gentiles. That is how we got to where we are now.

I agree completely. Notice that I said his role as evangelist is what I value most. And you’re right – I should probably bring this up the next time I speak to the Pope. Thanks for the reminder.