Works of the Law

[Erick_Ybarra]

I was wondering how Catholics can defend the notion that “works of the Law” refers solely to those coded mosaic laws which made the Jews distinct from the Gentiles in the Old Covenant.

Often I hear a Catholic apologist saying the following: “The scripture never says that we are justified by faith ALONE, but that we are justified by faith apart from the works of the law. They will define the “works of the law” to be things such as circumcision, holy festivals, dietary laws, Sabbaths, ceremonial purifications, etc, etc…”

When Catholics do this, they are denying that man is justified by these kind of ceremonial laws, but they are affirming that we are justified by works of love and the base moral laws that everyone knows.

But I wanted to demonstrate that we should not understand the “works of Law” to be reduced merely to the ceremonial laws. Rather, the Law is recited in some of it’s stipulations in Romans 2 where he rhetorically asks the Jew “You who teach that a man should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery?” (Rom 2). Paul taught that the Law of Moses brought the knowledge of sin and it is because of this that man is disabled from being justified before God by the works of the law. Paul however does not mean the ceremonial laws demonstrate the sinfulness of mankind, but also the moral laws, as is seen from his argument that the command “Thou shalt not covet”! Paul explains how this command brought the knowledge of sin and thus death.

I argue that works of the law include moral works of God’s holy law. What say you

 

[highplainsrider]

See Matthew 25: 31 to the end of the chapter… this is what Jesus showed to “Catholics” about “works” and the reward of exercising those “works” faithfully.

All of the Apostles, eventually, became “Catholic”. When their Gospels and letters were being inspired and composed, they were “Catholics” writing to “Catholic” communities and Churches. It is a great history, being “Catholic”, join us, rather than being content to throw stones from the outside. Come on in and learn from the “Fathers of the Church” the answers to your questions.

PT

 

[Eglantine]

noahide-ancient-path.co.uk/index.php/judaism-articles/2012/08/jesus-the-counterfeit-sacrifice-and-priest/

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

And what happens when you have the fathers disagreeing with each other?

And the writings ofbthe early fathers are much different than alot of catholics today. For instance they quote scripture much much more, they emphasize the necessity ornaments holy life, they don’t allow salvation for the heathen and unbelieving no matter what, they did not allow those who practiced sin to remain in the faithful Fellowship, they practiced a rigorous church discipline, there was just as much disagreement with each other than as there is now.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

And what happens when you have the fathers disagreeing with each other?

And the writings ofbthe early fathers are much different than alot of catholics today. For instance they quote scripture much much more, they emphasize the necessity ornaments holy life, they don’t allow salvation for the heathen and unbelieving no matter what, they did not allow those who practiced sin to remain in the faithful Fellowship, they practiced a rigorous church discipline, there was just as much disagreement with each other than as there is now.

 

[EricFilmer]

I was wondering how Catholics can defend the notion that “works of the Law” refers solely to those coded mosaic laws which made the Jews distinct from the Gentiles in the Old Covenant.

Often I hear a Catholic apologist saying the following: "The scripture never says that we are justified by faith ALONE…

I think it is important to point out that Scripture clearly states that we are not justified by faith alone:

You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. (James 2:24, RSV)

So for Catholic apologists, it is not simply a matter of pointing out that Scripture does not state that we are justified by faith alone, but that James specifically teaches the opposite. There are also numerous examples in the Bible which support our understanding that good works are an integral part of the virtue of faith.

When Catholics do this, they are denying that man is justified by these kind of ceremonial laws, but they are affirming that we are justified by works of love and the base moral laws that everyone knows.

Perhaps a bit of clarification is in order. Both Catholics and Protestants believe that we are justified by faith. Moreover, both Catholics and Protestants believe that justification does not stem from obedience to all the various laws of the Law of Moses (keep in mind that an important concept in Judaism is obedience to God’s revelation). Beyond this, differences arise. Many Protestants will add that justification comes from faith alone apart from any works (whether they be of the Law of Moses, charitable deeds, etc.). But, as I stated above, Catholics see good works as an integral part of the virtue of faith. The 2nd Chapter of the Letter of James was an elaboration on this, and includes these statements:

So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. (James 2:17, RSV)

For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead. (James 2:26, RSV)

But I wanted to demonstrate that we should not understand the “works of Law” to be reduced merely to the ceremonial laws. Rather, the Law is recited in some of it’s stipulations in Romans 2 where he rhetorically asks the Jew “You who teach that a man should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery?” (Rom 2). Paul taught that the Law of Moses brought the knowledge of sin and it is because of this that man is disabled from being justified before God by the works of the law. Paul however does not mean the ceremonial laws demonstrate the sinfulness of mankind, but also the moral laws, as is seen from his argument that the command “Thou shalt not covet”! Paul explains how this command brought the knowledge of sin and thus death.

We can certainly delve into Paul in detail, but let me point out that it has been my observation that almost all Christians (Catholic, Protestant & Orthodox) believe that works are included in the process of justification, and they there is only disagreement over exactly what works one is to do. The ones who completely reject the idea that works play a part in justification are the people who think that it doesn’t matter what anyone does; everyone automatically goes to heaven (and I think this is a minority opinion, which is contrary to Scripture as well as the established doctrines of most Churches and denominations).

For example, what is your explanation of the process by which a sinner becomes justified in the eyes of God? I’m sure it includes the action of God’s grace, but it probably also includes one or more things that the sinner is supposed to do, and that he has the freedom not to do (i.e., the freedom to remain in his sins and not be justified). Such actions usually involve belief in Christ and trust in the gospel message of salvation, but these are actions nonetheless.

I argue that works of the law include moral works of God’s holy law. What say you

Highplainsrider has already mentioned the Matthew 25:32ff. This is the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, where the sheep represent those who are going to heaven and the goats represent those who are going to hell. According to the parable, the only difference between the sheep and the goats is that the former did what we call the Corporal Works of Mercy and the goats did not.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

How do we reconcile the facts that Abraham was justified in Genesis 15:6 by faith with no works for it. And the fact that Abraham was justified by works ( clearly) in genesis 22??

I appreciate what you wrote. I’m just inquiring

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Romans 4

4 What then shall we say that Abraham, [a]our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was* justified by works**, he has something to boast about, but not [c]before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
I would assume that Paul is saying that at this point, whatever meaning we give to “justified”, is teaching that Abraham was justified at this point by faith.

James 2:21
*
Was not Abraham our father** justified by works*** when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?

It is clear that James is not referring to Abraham’s justification by faith back in Genesis 15 but is teaching that Abraham was justified by works later on.

How do we understand this?*

 

[JRKH]

I was wondering how Catholics can defend the notion that “works of the Law” refers solely to those coded mosaic laws which made the Jews distinct from the Gentiles in the Old Covenant.

Often I hear a Catholic apologist saying the following: “The scripture never says that we are justified by faith ALONE, but that we are justified by faith apart from the works of the law. They will define the “works of the law” to be things such as circumcision, holy festivals, dietary laws, Sabbaths, ceremonial purifications, etc, etc…”

In my very limited experience this argument is generally used as a response to a specific assertion from one two possible sources…
The Non-Catholic who is attacking Catholic “ritualism” -
The non-Catholic who is denying the efficacy of any works.
It is important to recognize this because we should not take a specific response to a specific argument (even a common response to a common argument) as a complete and positive explanation of the Catholic position regarding works.

When Catholics do this, they are denying that man is justified by these kind of ceremonial laws, but they are affirming that we are justified by works of love and the base moral laws that everyone knows.

I will tentatively agree with this…subject to a clear understanding of what is meant by “justified by works”. If you are saying justified by works apart from faith then no…but if justified by works IN faith then yes…
I tend to think that you mean the latter but I wish to be clear in my response.

But I wanted to demonstrate that we should not understand the “works of Law” to be reduced merely to the ceremonial laws. Rather, the Law is recited in some of it’s stipulations in Romans 2 where he rhetorically asks the Jew “You who teach that a man should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery?” (Rom 2). Paul taught that the Law of Moses brought the knowledge of sin and it is because of this that man is disabled from being justified before God by the works of the law. Paul however does not mean the ceremonial laws demonstrate the sinfulness of mankind, but also the moral laws, as is seen from his argument that the command “Thou shalt not covet”! Paul explains how this command brought the knowledge of sin and thus death.

I argue that works of the law include moral works of God’s holy law. What say you

I agree that we should not understand the works of Law to be merely ceremonial laws.
Paul also says:
All things are lawful," but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up. (1 Cor 10:23)
Here we are given a different standard by which to evaluate our actions…By what builds up, not by what is “lawful or not lawful”. James in His letter addresses this as well. It’s not a matter of “Law” it is a matter of Love. Our actions flow not from some external “duty” but from an internal “Love” (and Love is the core value that “builds up”).

Peace
James

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Thanks you for clearing that up.

When we say that man is justified by works IN faith, isn’t this an unnessesary addition to works, since is it logically implied by the sheer fact that the person is working for God that be believes already. In other words, I would think it is redundant to imply the possibility that a man can be saved by works without believing in the God to whom he serves. Therefore when protestant apologists argues to a Catholic in debate ‘’ you are advocating that we are justified by works’’ and the catholic responds ‘‘no! Not at all. Catholics believe we are justified by faith and works!’’, isn’t this a redundant response for the protestant obviously understands the man who is justified by works is already believing. Who is working toward a god he doesn’t have faith in. I suggest then that to teach that a man is justified by works is the same thing as a man being justified by faith and works and that it is redundant to dichotomize the two principles.

Could you explain how we should understand Abraham’s justification. For Paul says he was justified by faith apart from works in genesis 15. Justified in the past tense. And then Ines teaches that Abraham was justified by works years later when Abraham was offering up Isaac on the altar. Is there 2 justifications? Was not Abraham justified when he left urbane obeyed God to come to Canaan? Was Abraham ‘not’ in a state of salvation prior to thevoffering up of Isaac?

Your thoughts

 

[JRKH]

Thanks you for clearing that up.

You are welcome.

You capture the problem quite nicely below and it is a source of frustration for Catholics to find it necessary to make such distinctions in conversation with some protestants. To explain what I mean, allow me to take the next paragraph in small sections for comment.

When we say that man is justified by works IN faith, isn’t this an unnecessary addition to works

Yes - it is also an unnecessary addition to faith. The problem comes in when the one we are discussing with seeks to separate the two - saying that works are unnecessary to salvation.

since is it logically implied by the sheer fact that the person is working for God that be believes already.

One would think so but I have been involved in extensive discussions with people who accuse Catholics of teaching a “works based” salvation. This of course is not true since we would not be Catholic, fully and practicing, if we did not have faith first…and foundationally…In short “Faith based”, not “Works based”

In other words, I would think it is redundant to imply the possibility that a man can be saved by works without believing in the God to whom he serves.

I fully agree, and yet, as mentioned above, this is precisely what we are accused of by some…

Therefore when protestant apologists argues to a Catholic in debate ‘’ you are advocating that we are justified by works’’ and the catholic responds ‘‘no! Not at all. Catholics believe we are justified by faith and works!’’, isn’t this a redundant response for the protestant obviously understands the man who is justified by works is already believing. Who is working toward a god he doesn’t have faith in.

(Bolding mine)
Yet we run into this very problem time after time - The Protestant who does NOT seem to understand that we believe that faith comes first in the order of salvation. They attack what they see as an undo emphasis on works in Catholic practice.
Now - I do not wish to give offense - I am not lumping all protestants into this category. What I am trying to express is where this argument (as described in the OP) comes from and why it is used.

I suggest then that to teach that a man is justified by works is the same thing as a man being justified by faith and works and that it is redundant to dichotomize the two principles.

Amen - Amen - Amen…

Could you explain how we should understand Abraham’s justification. For Paul says he was justified by faith apart from works in genesis 15. Justified in the past tense. And then Ines teaches that Abraham was justified by works years later when Abraham was offering up Isaac on the altar. Is there 2 justifications? Was not Abraham justified when he left urbane obeyed God to come to Canaan? Was Abraham ‘not’ in a state of salvation prior to the offering up of Isaac?

To be truthful I have not studied on this matter much.
In my view and in the contexts above it sounds to me like “Justified” might be equally expressed as being in a “state of grace”. God gave Abraham grace. Abraham responded to that grace. In that gift and response Abraham entered a State of Grace, of belief in and service to God…In this way he was Justified before God…Blameless.
In each act thereafter, he both showed his Justification and renewed it. One Justification or two or many…? Does it really matter??

Your thoughts

Be careful what you ask for…bwaaahaaaahaaaaa…

Peace
James

 

[highplainsrider]

[In my view and in the contexts above it sounds to me like “Justified” might be equally expressed as being in a “state of grace”. God gave Abraham grace]

You are well stated above. Words have a way of confusing a well reasoned discussion. When we come to “understand” usage and meaning, then enlightenment arises.

Peace,
PT

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

You are welcome.

You capture the problem quite nicely below and it is a source of frustration for Catholics to find it necessary to make such distinctions in conversation with some protestants. To explain what I mean, allow me to take the next paragraph in small sections for comment.

Yes - it is also an unnecessary addition to faith. The problem comes in when the one we are discussing with seeks to separate the two - saying that works are unnecessary to salvation.

One would think so but I have been involved in extensive discussions with people who accuse Catholics of teaching a “works based” salvation. This of course is not true since we would not be Catholic, fully and practicing, if we did not have faith first…and foundationally…In short “Faith based”, not “Works based”

I fully agree, and yet, as mentioned above, this is precisely what we are accused of by some…

(Bolding mine)
Yet we run into this very problem time after time - The Protestant who does NOT seem to understand that we believe that faith comes first in the order of salvation. They attack what they see as an undo emphasis on works in Catholic practice.
Now - I do not wish to give offense - I am not lumping all protestants into this category. What I am trying to express is where this argument (as described in the OP) comes from and why it is used.

Amen - Amen - Amen…

To be truthful I have not studied on this matter much.
In my view and in the contexts above it sounds to me like “Justified” might be equally expressed as being in a “state of grace”. God gave Abraham grace. Abraham responded to that grace. In that gift and response Abraham entered a State of Grace, of belief in and service to God…In this way he was Justified before God…Blameless.
In each act thereafter, he both showed his Justification and renewed it. One Justification or two or many…? Does it really matter??

Be careful what you ask for…bwaaahaaaahaaaaa…

Peace
James

Very helpful.

Next question. If Abraham was justified when he offered up Isaac, was he unjust (or condemned) the whole time prior to? And if it means he was in a constant ‘‘state of grace’’ what significance does God’s justification of Abraham exclusively at the point where he was going to kill Isaac. Do you see what I am asking? If to be justified is to be in a state of grace, which idea I like, then does Abraham’s justification with Isaac simply reaffirming Abraham’s righteousness or is this a real transition in Abraham’s life from being condemned to being justified.?

 

[JRKH]

Very helpful.

I’m glad.

Next question. If Abraham was justified when he offered up Isaac, was he unjust (or condemned) the whole time prior to? And if it means he was in a constant ‘‘state of grace’’ what significance does God’s justification of Abraham exclusively at the point where he was going to kill Isaac. Do you see what I am asking? If to be justified is to be in a state of grace, which idea I like, then does Abraham’s justification with Isaac simply reaffirming Abraham’s righteousness or is this a real transition in Abraham’s life from being condemned to being justified.?

This starts to get too convoluted for my simple mind…For me, Abraham entered a state of grace (justification) the first time God called him and he said, “Yes Lord”.
After that it is a matter of perseverance. Each yes to God is maintains the state of grace, each no - or doubt or whatever, weakens it.

We might view the matter with Isaac as the “ultimate test” of his commitment. He came to the altar in a state of grace and left in a state of Grace…His willingness to sacrifice Isaac would certainly have been a tremendous “boost” in his level of grace - of his commitment to God - But I hesitate to say that he was still in a “condemned” state before this.
But like I say - this is getting too deep for me. Maybe another can offer a more complete answer.
Sorry I could not be more help.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Just noted a new thread on the subject of Justification you might be interested in…
It’s here

Peace
James

 

[highplainsrider]

Abraham’s “justification vs grace filled” seems like a complicated question to arrive at what conclusions? You are missing the symbolism of the whole story. The father, Abraham, is about to offer his son, because God said so. So the son is loaded with the wood (prefiguring Christ) and taken to a hill (prefiguring Golgetha), Abraham is about to do the deed, but God intervened and provided a different offering - a young ram. God asks, man responds (obediently or disobediently), God responds with approval (Grace) or disapproval (something less than satisfaction).
Is there some other meaning one is suppose to understand here?

 

[TimothyH]

I was wondering how Catholics can defend the notion that “works of the Law” refers solely to those coded mosaic laws which made the Jews distinct from the Gentiles in the Old Covenant.

Often I hear a Catholic apologist saying the following: “The scripture never says that we are justified by faith ALONE, but that we are justified by faith apart from the works of the law. They will define the “works of the law” to be things such as circumcision, holy festivals, dietary laws, Sabbaths, ceremonial purifications, etc, etc…”

When Catholics do this, they are denying that man is justified by these kind of ceremonial laws, but they are affirming that we are justified by works of love and the base moral laws that everyone knows.

But I wanted to demonstrate that we should not understand the “works of Law” to be reduced merely to the ceremonial laws. Rather, the Law is recited in some of it’s stipulations in Romans 2 where he rhetorically asks the Jew “You who teach that a man should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery?” (Rom 2). Paul taught that the Law of Moses brought the knowledge of sin and it is because of this that man is disabled from being justified before God by the works of the law. Paul however does not mean the ceremonial laws demonstrate the sinfulness of mankind, but also the moral laws, as is seen from his argument that the command “Thou shalt not covet”! Paul explains how this command brought the knowledge of sin and thus death.

I argue that works of the law include moral works of God’s holy law. What say you

You are 100% correct.

God’s divine law given to Israel through Moses contained laws about kindness to strangers and sojourners, the command to forgive debts and release slaves every seven years, and a whole host of other commands about loving one’s neighbor as one’s self. The essence of the Torah law was not ceremonial, but rooted in morality and love for one’s neighbor.

The Levitical laws were not just ceremony, nor were they created simply to show the distinction between Jew and Gentile. The Levitical laws were divine commandments from God, a measuring stick against which every Jew was to be judged by God. The levitical laws include the Ten Commandments which form the bedrock of Christian morality to this day. For a Jew under the old covenant, the greatest law was the Shemah Yisrael from Dueteronomy 6.

***Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one; and you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength. *(Deuteronomy 6:4-5)

The words of the Shemah were to be recited by every faithful Jew in their morning and evening prayers, and were to be ever on their lips. This was the central creed of the Jews and in it was contained the essence of the entire Torah.

Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” He said to him, “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.” (Matthew 22:36-40)

When Jesus is asked about the first and greatest commandment, he goes back to the Shemah Yisrael, and reminds the Jews that the essence of the Torah laws were love of God through love of neighbor. This is orthodox Jewish as well as Orthodox Catholic understanding, that the Torah was not just ceremonial.

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You pay tithes of mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier things of the law: judgment and mercy and fidelity. [But] these you should have done, without neglecting the others. Blind guides, who strain out the gnat and swallow the camel! (Matthew 23:23)

“Works of the Law” means love of neighbor and other basic moral teachings as well. Catholics don’t believe that these justify us. They believe that they demonstrate our love to God, prove our faithfulness, and that we must prove our love to God. Saying we love him is not enough.

Indeed someone might say, “You have faith and I have works.” Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. (James 2:18)

We must demonstrate our love. We must demonstrate our faith. God want’s faith, but not just any faith. God wants the fullness of faith - faithfulness. We must demonstrate out faith through faithfulness - the fullness of faith.

Catholics do not believe that our demonstration of faith through works justifies us.

-Tim-

 

[onemangang]

To put it very simply, I once heard a priest say that it is grace and mercy which we are justified and gave a little ananolgy. He said (I’m paraphrasing) that we are now children of God in a divine family through Christ our Lord. Being a child in a family, if you break a family rule by tossing a ball in the house which caused damage to a flat screen TV, you are not required to pay for the flat screen in full, instead you, in their grace and mercy give you chores to do, things like help out your brother or sister, or rake the neighbors yard, and when the child, shows sorrow for his\her misdeeds out of the love the child has to please parents, they perform these task that the parents have set aside for them .When they perform these task in obediance out love, the parents hearts are warmed. So the only merit the work had, was due to the love, grace and mercy of the loving parents to begin with, and the parents were the ones who assigned the work in the first place, like helping your neighbor etc…etc… The works performed by faith are a gift of mercy and in them, are lessons on love.

 

[EricFilmer]

How do we reconcile the facts that Abraham was justified in Genesis 15:6 by faith with no works for it. And the fact that Abraham was justified by works ( clearly) in genesis 22??

I appreciate what you wrote. I’m just inquiring

To understand this, I think it is helpful to keep in mind that at the time of Abraham there was no Law of Moses nor Scripture. All that existed at that point was the oral tradition of the pre-Abraham accounts of salvation history, which would eventually be recorded in Genesis.

When God established a covenant with Abraham, the basic aspect of it was belief and trust. These were the foundational “good works” which were expected in order to have faith. To a person of Abraham’s era, it was a big step to believe in an invisible God who had no name, no idol, no temple, or established priesthood representing him.

Not only was Abraham to believe in God, but also trust him to keep the promises he made in the covenant. Despite being a nomad, God promised him a land of his own. Despite the fact that Abraham and his wife were elderly and childless, God promised them descendants.

Although there were no works of the Law of Moses at that time, Abraham still had to do “works” for the sake of the covenant, and, as I stated, these works were belief and trust. The result is that Abraham had faith, but faith was not simply something that he had, but something that he had to live and to put into action. His faith was manifested through actions of belief and trust.

Romans 4

4 What then shall we say that Abraham, [a]our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was* justified by works***, he has something to boast about, but not [c]before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.”
I would assume that Paul is saying that at this point, whatever meaning we give to “justified”, is teaching that Abraham was justified at this point by faith.

James 2:21
*
Was not Abraham our father** justified by works*** when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?

It is clear that James is not referring to Abraham’s justification by faith back in Genesis 15 but is teaching that Abraham was justified by works later on.

How do we understand this?

The context of this part of Romans is that some of the ancient Jewish converts to Christianity believed that Christians had to be circumcised, and therefore they wanted to impose this upon Gentiles. God commanded that circumcision be a sign of the Covenant of Abraham, and Abraham’s circumcision is recorded in Genesis 17:26. But Paul rejected the idea that the circumcision of the Covenant of Abraham was a necessary condition of the New Covenant with Christ. In Romans 4, he makes a reference to Genesis 15:6, pointing out that Abraham was considered righteous in the eyes of God long before his circumcision.

Nevertheless, going back to what I stated above, Abraham still performed a “good work” in order to demonstrate his faith and be deemed righteous, because Genesis 15:6 states that “he believed the Lord”.

Later, as the Letter of James points out, Abraham’s faith and trust in the Lord was demonstrated in his willingness to sacrifice Isaac.

 

[fhansen]

I was wondering how Catholics can defend the notion that “works of the Law” refers solely to those coded mosaic laws which made the Jews distinct from the Gentiles in the Old Covenant.

Often I hear a Catholic apologist saying the following: “The scripture never says that we are justified by faith ALONE, but that we are justified by faith apart from the works of the law. They will define the “works of the law” to be things such as circumcision, holy festivals, dietary laws, Sabbaths, ceremonial purifications, etc, etc…”

When Catholics do this, they are denying that man is justified by these kind of ceremonial laws, but they are affirming that we are justified by works of love and the base moral laws that everyone knows.

But I wanted to demonstrate that we should not understand the “works of Law” to be reduced merely to the ceremonial laws. Rather, the Law is recited in some of it’s stipulations in Romans 2 where he rhetorically asks the Jew “You who teach that a man should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery?” (Rom 2). Paul taught that the Law of Moses brought the knowledge of sin and it is because of this that man is disabled from being justified before God by the works of the law. Paul however does not mean the ceremonial laws demonstrate the sinfulness of mankind, but also the moral laws, as is seen from his argument that the command “Thou shalt not covet”! Paul explains how this command brought the knowledge of sin and thus death.

I argue that works of the law include moral works of God’s holy law. What say you

From my understanding the CC teaches this as well. But scripture also tells us that the Law is holy, spiritual, and good, and that Jesus summed up the Law and the Prophets with the greatest commandments, love of God and neighbor, which are said to fulfill the Law ipso facto.

So the gospel has nothing to do with no longer needing to fulfill the law, rather it’s a question of how the Law is to be fulfilled, via our own efforts, as Paul apparently exceeded at while he was a Pharisee, or by grace/love, life with the Spirit of God indwelling, which can only begin, from the human perspective, with faith. On the one hand we trust in ourselves to become righteous/worthy, on the other hand we trust in God to make us righteous/worthy. Or, to put it another way, we must obey by the spirit rather than by the letter of the Law. This is the difference between the old and new covenants.