Works of the Law

[fhansen]

But if Abraham did a ‘‘work’’ then Paul says he would have been able to boast, no?

‘’ for if Abraham was justified by works he would have something to boast about’’ (rom 4:4).

Since we know that works can refer to obedience of any kind, just as James can call Abraham’s offering of Isaac as a work. According to Paul, correct me if I’m wrong, Abraham was justified without doing any works… that concerns me in my zeal to be catholic… for it is there in the text that Abraham was justified without any good works contributing to it

No, because love never boasts ( 1 Cor 13). Love is on a completely different level, in terms of motivation, than any ego-driven reasons. And since it can’t help but express itself, works follow and give testimony to that love. Again, Matt 25:31-46 give us a good idea of what that love looks like, and therefore what kind of criteria we’ll be judged on, from a human perspective. From God’s perspective, who judges by the heart rather than by outward appearances anyway according to scripture, He already knows what motivates us, whether IOW, we’re truly motivated by justice or by pride/self/flesh.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Understood.

But Paul’s argument is not that he would have boasted but that he could. What about circumcision, is that unloving selfishness? But Paul teaches that if Abraham was justified by circumcision that he would have the possibility to boadt

 

[Bookcat]

f Abraham

more older articles from Jimmy Akin

thejimmyakinstore.com/library/the-justifications-of-abraham

thejimmyakinstore.com/library/jewish-and-christian-boasting-in-romans

 

[Nita]

Understood.

But Paul’s argument is not that he would have boasted but that he could. What about circumcision, is that unloving selfishness? But Paul teaches that if Abraham was justified by circumcision that he would have the possibility to boadt

I don’t know if this will help or not, hopefully it will.

In Catholic teaching, it is ONLY God who justifies us. But** He (God) has made the bestowal of His justification contingent on certain acts required on our part. **
Now, when we perform those acts, it is not those acts or even our faith that are the actual agents or source of our justification. We don’t have that kind of power in our mind/heart; neither do human acts. Only God has the power to accomplish justification in us.

Thus, in regards to Abraham, it was not Abraham’s action of circumcising himself, or the circumcision act itself, that effected his justification. If it was, then Abraham could have boasted since he was the one who performed the act. Rather, it was God who justified him** because **Abraham carried out the action on which God had made his justification contingent.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

I don’t know if this will help or not, hopefully it will.

In Catholic teaching, it is ONLY God who justifies us. But** He (God) has made the bestowal of His justification contingent** on certain acts required on our part.
Now, when we perform those acts, it is not those acts or even our faith that are the actual agents or source of our justification. We don’t have that kind of power in our mind/heart; neither do human acts. Only God has the power to accomplish justification in us.

Thus, in regards to Abraham, it was not Abraham’s action of circumcising himself, or the circumcision act itself, that effected his justification. If it was, then Abraham could have boasted since he was the one who performed the act. Rather, it was God who justified him** because **Abraham carried out the action on which God had made his justification contingent.

I understand what you are saying. This thought runs parallel to what St. Paul says in his letter to the Galatian churches “Have you, beginning in the Spirit, are now being perfected in the flesh?” (Gal 3).

However, this still does not answer the question. For Paul says that when someone is converted to Christ, undergoes the sacrament of baptism with repentance and faith, they can now say that they have been “justified” (Rom 5:2). This is a past tense word. And Paul puts much significance on this one-time blessing. For instance look at Galatians "For even we have been justified when we believed in Jesus Christ and not by works of the Law (Gal 2). Again in the past tense.

And then we read James, where there is a child of God, Abraham, the Patriarch, the Father of the promises, and He is following God for years and years. And then toward the end of His life, out of fear of God and obedience to His will, he offers up his son according to the command of God, and is justified.

Does this mean that Abraham was condemned all up until this point? No.

But for Paul, prior to our justification, we are condemned. “Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 5:1) and “therefore having been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him” (Rom 5:9).
Do you see?

There is obviously something a tad bit distinct going on in the situation of Abraham at the mountain where he offered up Isaac, and the hearer of the gospel who gets justified in conversion (1 Thes 1:9).

 

[Nita]

I understand what you are saying. This thought runs parallel to what St. Paul says in his letter to the Galatian churches “Have you, beginning in the Spirit, are now being perfected in the flesh?” (Gal 3).

However, this still does not answer the question. For Paul says that when someone is converted to Christ, undergoes the sacrament of baptism with repentance and faith, they can now say that they have been “justified” (Rom 5:2). This is a past tense word. And Paul puts much significance on this one-time blessing. For instance look at Galatians "For even we have been justified when we believed in Jesus Christ and not by works of the Law (Gal 2). Again in the past tense.

I’m not grasping your point. Sorry, but I don’t understand at all your stress on the past tense - why that poses a problem for you, or why you find it so significant.

And then we read James, where there is a child of God, Abraham, the Patriarch, the Father of the promises, and He is following God for years and years. And then toward the end of His life, out of fear of God and obedience to His will, he offers up his son according to the command of God, and is justified.

Does this mean that Abraham was condemned all up until this point? No.

James wasn’t implying that Abraham was condemned up to that point. He’s not denying the “reckoned as righteousness” that occurred years earlier.

But for Paul, prior to our justification, we are condemned. “Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 5:1) and “therefore having been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him” (Rom 5:9).
Do you see?

I don’t know what you mean when you ask “Do you see?” Could you tell me what you expect me to see from that passage.

There is obviously something a tad bit distinct going on in the situation of Abraham at the mountain where he offered up Isaac, and the hearer of the gospel who gets justified in conversion (1 Thes 1:9)

Again, I’m just not getting your point. You’ll have to explain. Are you perhaps wondering how Abraham could be justified prior to Jesus shedding His blood for our redemption - as tho there’s a justification not dependent on Christ’s sacrifice???

Sorry to be so dense.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

There are three separate justifications of Abraham in Genesis. If faith alone justified and works made no difference why would there be three separate justifications?

 

[pneuma07]

I understand what you are saying. This thought runs parallel to what St. Paul says in his letter to the Galatian churches “Have you, beginning in the Spirit, are now being perfected in the flesh?” (Gal 3).

However, this still does not answer the question. For Paul says that when someone is converted to Christ, undergoes the sacrament of baptism with repentance and faith, they can now say that they have been “justified” (Rom 5:2). This is a past tense word. And Paul puts much significance on this one-time blessing. For instance look at Galatians "For even we have been justified when we believed in Jesus Christ and not by works of the Law (Gal 2). Again in the past tense.

And then we read James, where there is a child of God, Abraham, the Patriarch, the Father of the promises, and He is following God for years and years. And then toward the end of His life, out of fear of God and obedience to His will, he offers up his son according to the command of God, and is justified.

Does this mean that Abraham was condemned all up until this point? No.

But for Paul, prior to our justification, we are condemned. “Therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 5:1) and “therefore having been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him” (Rom 5:9).
Do you see?

There is obviously something a tad bit distinct going on in the situation of Abraham at the mountain where he offered up Isaac, and the hearer of the gospel who gets justified in conversion (1 Thes 1:9).

Hi Erick !

You are receiving a lot of good responses IMHO. Let me try to add :twocents: on this point.

*Being “justified” means being made righteous, that is, being accepted by God’s merciful justice to enter into communion with him and, consequently, to be able to establish a far more genuine relationship with all our brethren: and this takes place on the basis of the complete forgiveness of our sins. *, explains B16 in his audience of November 2006 quoted by Bookcat. ( needless to say I second Bookcat’s advise to read this catechesis as well as the other two delivered two years letter that he links. )

If you more or less share that definition, it means Abraham had already entered into communion with God when he was commanded to sacrifice his son. He had moreover lived in communion with God for years and years. As you state Abraham “was not condemned” before this supreme request by the Lord.

Wouldn’t you nevertheless suppose that, no matter what had been before, a rejection of God’s command even at that point would have broken Abraham’s communion with him ? That comes indeed out of the nature of communion itself IMHO.

Being in communion with God means you love Him, and out of love you obey him. Doesn’t it ?

By offering Isaak Abraham confirmed and strengthened his status of communion with God, or his righteousness, expressing his love for Him.

We can consider this achievement as different from being received into communion with God the first time. But in any case ( when you enter communion, when you confirm and strengthen it, when you re-enter it after forfeiting it by having chosen sin ) you go nearer to God. Or you become nearer to God. Or, if you prefer, in any case you are being saved.

I hope this can help.
In Christ
P7

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

For Paul, when a person is “justified” upon their faith in Jesus Christ, the are transferred from being in a state of “condemnation” to being in a state of “acquittal” from the wrath of God.

Acts 13:38-39
*
38 Be it known unto you therefore, brethren, that through this man is proclaimed unto you remission of sins:39 and by him every one that believeth is** justified *from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

to be “justified” here is being “right” with God, in a position where wrath no longer lingers over a person but grace and acceptance.

Paul taught that to be “justified” was a gift that is given when someone is converted and baptized (1 Cor 6) - “You have been washed, you have been sanctified, you have been justified in the name of Jesus and by the Spirit of our God”. These are all past tense verbs.
It has already happened to them, in some sense (without denying the progressive aspect)

Paul says “It is God who justifies, who is He who condemns?” (Rom 8:34). Therefore the absence of justification is condemnation. Therefore to be “justified” is to be freed from any faults or sins, basically pardon, the forgiveness/remission of the guilt of sin (Rom 4:9-11).

And Paul inextricable ties the labor which was needed to bring about our “justification” to the sacrifice of Jesus (Rom 4:25; 5:9). There is no work in the human creature, other than the sacrifice of Christ, that brings about our “justification”- the state of forgiveness.

Catholics are always quick to point out James to prove that justification is by works and faith. However, this is a justification that takes place much later in Abraham’s life. I would not disagree with the genuineness of Abraham’s justification by works. However, we was justified, in Genesis 15:6, apart from works at all.

Romans 4:1-2 “For what did Abraham our father find according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he would have reason to boast, but not before God. For the Scripture says ‘Abraham believed God and it was reckoned for righteousness’. Now to him who works, the wages are not counted for grace, but as debt. But to him who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness”.

Paul teaches that Abraham was justified before God by grace and faith, and not of works. Had Abraham done works for his justification, then he would have reason to boast and his justification would have been by his own merit.

James understood that, for he quotes Genesis 15:6. But James also understands that faith in God is always together with works, and therefore works also can be used for justification, but not in anyway conflicting with Abraham’s previous right-standing with God.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Hi Erick !

You are receiving a lot of good responses IMHO. Let me try to add :twocents: on this point.

*Being “justified” means being made righteous, that is, being accepted by God’s merciful justice to enter into communion with him *and, consequently, to be able to establish a far more genuine relationship with all our brethren: and this takes place on the basis of the complete forgiveness of our sins. , explains B16 in his audience of November 2006 quoted by Bookcat. ( needless to say I second Bookcat’s advise to read this catechesis as well as the other two delivered two years letter that he links. )

If you more or less share that definition, it means Abraham had already entered into communion with God when he was commanded to sacrifice his son. He had moreover lived in communion with God for years and years. As you state Abraham “was not condemned” before this supreme request by the Lord.

Wouldn’t you nevertheless suppose that, no matter what had been before, a rejection of God’s command even at that point would have broken Abraham’s communion with him ? That comes indeed out of the nature of communion itself IMHO.

Being in communion with God means you love Him, and out of love you obey him. Doesn’t it ?

By offering Isaak Abraham confirmed and strengthened his status of communion with God, or his righteousness, expressing his love for Him.

We can consider this achievement as different from being received into communion with God the first time. But in any case ( when you enter communion, when you confirm and strengthen it, when you re-enter it after forfeiting it by having chosen sin ) you go nearer to God. Or you become nearer to God. Or, if you prefer, in any case you are being saved.

I hope this can help.
In Christ
P7

I agree with this in totality.

The problem I have is that I hear that Catholics believed that when Abraham was justified in Genesis 15:6, that this was a justification by faith and works. But the problem is, it says he believed and that faith was accounted for righteousness, not works. Paul sees the principle of free grace on the whole scenario, for Abraham believed in God’s promise, and this was reckoned for righteousness.

Obviously this is not speaking of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. But faith is considered by God to be righteousness. But faith itself is not a work. Faith and works live together, but they are distinct in some small way. Enough that Paul sees them as opposed at some point in our salvation “through faith, and not of works” (Eph 2:10).

 

[Nita]

For Paul, when a person is “justified” upon their faith in Jesus Christ, the are transferred from being in a state of “condemnation” to being in a state of “acquittal” from the wrath of God.
…
to be “justified” here is being “right” with God, in a position where wrath no longer lingers over a person but grace and acceptance.

Yes. But is is a “state” that Our Lord is continually maintaining or effecting in us -** as long as **we remain in union with Him. Were He to cease justifying us, our justification would cease. He justified me at Baptism initially; He justified me on the next day; He justified me yesterday; … He’ll justify me in the future as long as I remain in Him.

As Pope Benedict XVI said: “Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ.” (General Audience Catechesis 11/19/08)

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

See I would not call that justifications. I would call it sanctification, which is just as required for the day of judgement.

 

[Nita]

See I would not call that justifications. I would call it sanctification, which is just as required for the day of judgement.

So, do you consider justification a one time event? If so, I can see why you have difficulty understanding how it can be said that Abraham was justified in Genesis 15 and then again in Genesis 22. Perhaps you need to increase your understanding/definition of “justification” so it encompasses all the justification Scripture passages without causing conflict.

BTW, I would not use the plural “justifications”. It’s not like there are a bunch of separate different ones. He continues to justify me from moment to moment as long as I am in union with Him.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

I think that in the new testament takes on a bit of a different meaning. Not that it is opposite to the old testament, but the fulfillment. Justification begins and is a state of grace which beegins at baptism and remains until he or she dies.

 

[Nita]

I think that in the new testament takes on a bit of a different meaning. Not that it is opposite to the old testament, but the fulfillment. Justification begins and is a state of grace which beegins at baptism and remains until he or she dies.

There are many terms used in the NT that are part of, or encompassed by the term “justification”. Like you, Catholics also say it is being in the “state of grace”. But our meaning or definition of saving/sanctifying/justifying grace is usually different from the Protestant one. By this grace, we mean the supernatural life of God, a participation in it; a participation in the Divine nature. A real infusion of it into our soul.
Eph. 4:18 they are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart;

2 Peter 1:4 …become partakers of the divine nature.

1 John 3:9 …for God’s nature abides in him…

And of course the source of this supernatural life is Our Lord; His Spirit in us. We can’t produce it!! We continually need Him to provide an ongoing flow, so to speak, of this life into our soul. He began giving it at the time of Baptism; He continues to give it **as long as **we remain in Him and He in us.
John 7:38-39 He who believes in me, as the scripture has said, Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water.’" Now this he said about the Spirit, which those who believed in him were to receive; for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

 

[Nita]

I think that in the new testament takes on a bit of a different meaning. Not that it is opposite to the old testament, but the fulfillment. Justification begins and is a state of grace which beegins at baptism and remains until he or she dies.

There really is only one righteousness or justification for mankind – OT or NT times - and that is the righteousness obtained for us by Jesus’ redeeming sacrifice. It was carried out/fulfilled in linear time when Jesus was on earth - but all of created time is/has been eternally present to God. Our way of expressing how righteousness could be reckoned to Abraham prior to Our Lord’s crucifixion might be something similar to: He was made just/righteous in anticipation of (or in advance because of) Our Lord’s redeeming sacrifice which would be carried out in time.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Justification does not necessarily begin at baptism and continue until one dies.

Justification begins at baptism and continues until one mortally sins.

If they repent it resumes.

If they don’t repent it doesn’t resume and if they die in that state they go to Hell.

They can go to Hell for just ONE unrepented mortal sin!

Faith CONTINUING THROUGH “God willed works” is what saves!

Not faith alone and not faith + works.

The totality of grace that yes sanctifies us and perfects us if not completely here then through purgation in purgatory to perfect holiness so that we are able to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Faith alone cannot accomplish this feat without passing THROUGH “God willed works”.

And faith alone does not NECESSARILY ALWAYS pass through “God willed works”–it certainly can but it doesn’t ALWAYS–it fails to pass through when one mortally sins!

Show me how many people believe in faith alone AND mortal sin!

Show me how many people believe in faith alone and also believe that all imperfection to sin–even venial sin must be COMPLETED to enter Heaven!

You won’t find people like that!

And the reason you won’t find people like that is the very reason why some people WANT to believe in faith alone–they want their PERFECTION to the holiness we must have in heaven to be EASY!

You’ll see a million threads around here about justification by faith alone!

You’ll never hear what MOTIVATES those threads by faith alone advocates.

What motivates them is the DESIRE for perfection to be easy!

What motivates them is the DESIRE not to have to worry about mortal sin–to deny its existence.

What motivates them is the DESIRE to deny suffering that can bring about perfection in purgatory!

What PROTESTANTS PROTEST about is James 2:24 saying that we ARE NOT justified by “faith alone” but by works–they don’t like that truth from the Holy Spirit because it is HARD!

They PROTEST against mortal sin because it makes the journey towards salvation and residence in heaven HARD!

They PROTEST against purgatory because suffering is HARD!

Who advocates the easy way?

The devil!

Now I wouldn’t say that Protestants who mistakenly believe in faith alone are filled with the devil–most of them don’t know that they’re only believing in half of the truth–the initial justification half side of the truth,

As long as they can narrowly limit their minds to only that side of the truth they don’t have to face the mortal sin suffering purgatory remove all attachments to creatures perfection side of the truth.

If a Catholic believes that any “man made or initiated works” will justify them or bring them to heaven are they wrong? Yes. Has any Catholic ever thought that way in the history of the world?

I’m sure some have but most don’t and that isn’t what the Catholic Church teaches.

Are some Catholics guilty of thinking that they hardly ever mortally sin? Yes–that is the Catholic counterpart error to the faith alone error.

“The road to eternal life is narrow and rocky and FEW there are that find it.”

That’s what Jesus says. What that means is faith alone and once saved always saved and no mortal sin and no purgatory and no picking up your cross and following Jesus everyday just won’t cut it!

Don’t PROTEST the hardness of salvation–embrace it!

 

[PoorKnight]

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

Hello Erick,

I can’t add much to the discussion that hasn’t already been added except this:

You might want to check out the Dead Sea Scroll 4QMMT. It is the ONLY other refference in Biblical history times to use the phrase “Works of the Law”. Besides Paul and 4QMMT there are no other uses of the phrase durring the thousands of years that the Bible was being written.

The scroll was a letter from the Essenes to the Sadducees written in about the 150’s BC. Of the things it addresses as “Works of the Law” are things like chasing dogs out of Jerusalem, making sure you have the right kind of sticks to start the fires in the Temple and a discussion on whether or not a ritually clean pitcher would become unclean if the liquid was poured into an unclean bowl.

What are not mentioned are what Catholics would call the Works of Mercy - most of which are listed in Matthew 25:31-46 (and note that both the sheep AND the goats call Christ “Lord” - so they have faith - but only the sheep are sent to heaven because of their works).

The only other thing I can add is that Steve Ray takes on the question of when Abraham was “justified” in his speach “Abraham Revealing the Historical Roots of Our Faith” (you can get the speach on an MP3 download for about $3. lighthousecatholicmedia.org/store/title/abraham-revealing-the-historical-roots-of-our-faith

There are actually numerous (around 6) different times, according to Scripture, when Abraham was “justified”. Steve Ray goes over each one of these in that speach.

This is consistant with Catholic teaching that the initial gift of Faith we can do nothing to earn, nor can we do anything to earn the gift of His Grace, however, we do need to continuously co-operate with God and His plan in order to remain in a State of Grace.

Just some additional information that you might find helpful.

God Bless

 

[highplainsrider]

Well said, Brothers, I don’t think I can add any further enlightenment to the above discourses.

Steve Ray should nails it for Erik.

However, I do believe Erik is parsing Scripture instead of seeing it as a total organic oneness - a revelation of our salvation. He may be attempting to see it as a complete work of detailed “how to read me” instructions manual. This book, “The BIBLE”, was written by the Church for the Church, for Catholics, who heard the content of the Book long before it was written down. The Truth of Christ’s mission and the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit had to be understood, in the “Works” of the Church - Corporal and Spiritual Works - as the Church Faithful lived the Gospel. St Paul did warn that one could lose one’s salvation. This has been articulated in the above posts.

The separation of our Protestant brethren truncated their history, and their authority, of being ONE, “as my heavenly Father and I are one…” As one denomination chooses to read and interpret what St. Paul means, may be different from what another denomination means by the same verse. Catholics do not, nor ever had this fuzzy challenge to what they understand about what any of the writers wrote and mean of what they wrote.

Revelation is encapsulated in Jesus Christ. What is abbreviated, as Scripture, is completed in the Traditions of Faith and practice that produced the written manuscript around 380’s AD. This wisdom is well spelled out above, in each of the statements articulated by Jerry-Jet.

For the life of me, I am mystified at the length to which this topic has grown. LOL Erik must be writing a book for beginning Protestant Apologists to evangelize soft Catholics, who wander through life wonder if God still exists?

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Actually,

I have been extremely eager to join the Catholic Church. I am trying to defeat my own barriers.

However, the more and more I peer into Catholicism, the more I realize that the people do not realize the truth.

For instance, that “they may be one Father, as we are one” (John). This does not just refer to doctrinally unity, but to love and relationship. Many Catholics who attend the same parish don’t even know each other. Stop bragging about unity.

I’ve conducted years and years of door-to-door evangelism and open-air preaching and consistently Catholics differ on a great many things. They are unaware of their own history.

Let’s just say that there was aboslute unity on faith and morals for all Catholics in the world, which if your honest you will know is not true (in fact you can only confess this absolutely true of the papal office and the college of bishops), but the Catholic Church contains no real love for mankind, this is not walking in the truth, as the apostle John foresaw people being one.

On top of that, the arguments of Scripture do go in a different direction that Catholics want it to.

With reference to the “works of the Law”, Paul says that “sin” is the subject which disables mankind from being “justified by the works of the Law” (rom 3:20). Well, then if you define the “works of the law” as ONLY ceremonial works, then you would have to conclude that we CAN be justified by moral obedience, love, charity, mercy, longsuffering, kindness, gentleness, etc,etc But the problem that St. Paul outlines in Romans 3 is that “NO ONE IS RIGHTEOUS” - NOT “NOT EVERYONE HAS THE LAW OF MOSES”

Pauls says
“NO ONE HAS DONE ANYTHING GOOD; NO, NOT ONE” (rom 3:11)

NO

“ITS A SHAME THAT THE WHOLE WORLD DOES NOT HAVE THE LAW OF MOSES”

Their throats are graves full of wickedness and the peace of God and the fear of God thay have not known
(rom 3:11-19)

Therefore, if this is the description of mankind that Paul is presenting, that all human beings are “under sin”- meaining enslaved to sin, that means that we cannot get our selves righteous by any moral or ceremonial law.