FOREWORD
Paul spends a lot of time talking about the Law. This term refers to the Torah. It shows why humans need God’s grace through Christ. The Law is good, but it exposes sin—it shows people their failings and that they cannot become righteous just by following rules (Romans 3:20; 7:7). For the Jews, the Law defined their covenant with God, so failing it had serious consequences. Gentiles did not have the Law, but Paul uses it to explain that all people, Jew or Gentile, fall short of God’s standards and need faith in Christ (Romans 2:12–15). In this way, the Law acts like a mirror: it diagnoses sin, but it cannot save. Paul’s focus on the Law is not about forcing Gentiles to obey it; it is about showing the universality of human sin and the necessity of justification by faith. Without understanding the Law, people would not see why grace through Christ is needed.
Notably, this argument would make no sense if the allegation of some that the Jews did not and do not understand the Law were true. Paul was not writing commentaries on the Law. He accepted that Judaism was accurately presenting the Law.
THE ARGUMENT
Justification is God declaring or making a person righteous, restoring their relationship with Him, and enabling them to live in holiness.
Paul’s teaching that “the Law does not justify” does not mean that all sin severs a person’s relationship with God.
He says the Law is good but humans are sinful. Paul did not oppose the Law’s moral content. He affirms that: God’s commandments still matter. The Law’s moral core is fulfilled in love (Rom 13:8–10). Christians walk “by the Spirit,” not lawlessly (Gal 5:13–25)So the Law ends up exposing sin rather than curing it. So justification must come from God’s grace, not from Law-keeping. The problem is us - not the Law.
Paul contrasts:
A. Justification “by works of the Law”. Attempts to secure righteousness through Torah observance, circumcision, dietary boundaries, ritual markers, covenant identity. This path cannot justify, because it relies on human performance.
B. Justification “by grace through faith in Christ”. God’s own action recreating, forgiving, and enlivening the person. This justification is a pure gift, not achievement.
Some claim that Paul rejected only the ceremonial laws, like circumcision and sacrifices, while upholding the moral commands of the Law. This is incorrect. Paul makes it clear that no obedience to the Law, whether ceremonial or moral, can justify (Romans 3:20). The Law, he says, acts as a mirror, exposing human sinfulness and revealing that every violation deserves condemnation. Circumcision is merely an example: even perfect observance of the Law’s outward or ritual requirements cannot make a person righteous. Justification comes solely through faith in Christ, which transforms the heart and produces good works, not through adherence to the Law. In Paul’s theology, all reliance on the Law—ceremonial or moral—is irrelevant for salvation; only faith in God’s grace saves.
Catholics and Protestants agree on that.
The Catholic and Protestant doctrines of justification differ primarily in how they understand what justification is. Protestants, following the Reformation tradition, view justification as a legal declaration in which God credits Christ’s righteousness to the believer; it is imputed righteousness, a one-time event received by faith alone, with good works serving only as the evidence of genuine faith. Catholics, by contrast, understand justification as an interior transformation in which God not only forgives sin but infuses grace into the soul, making the person truly righteous; justification is therefore a process, not merely a declaration, and involves faith formed by love expressed in cooperation with grace through good works. Both traditions affirm that salvation is entirely by God’s grace and grounded in Christ, but they differ on whether righteousness is credited externally (Protestant) or infused and lived out internally (Catholic).
Yet both affirm that faith is not a sign of salvation from God unless holy works are done. Protestants say you are saved by faith alone but not by a faith that is alone.
Paul’s own teaching on justification is thought to fit neatly into either the later Catholic or Protestant frameworks, though it contains elements that both traditions draw on. Here’s a careful breakdown:
1. Elements that resonate with Protestant (imputed) justification
Paul emphasizes faith, not works of the Law, as the basis of righteousness (Rom 3:28; Gal 2:16).
He repeatedly says that Christ’s righteousness is “counted” or “credited” to believers (2 Cor 5:21; Rom 4:5–6), which sounds like a forensic or declarative act.
Justification is, in many passages, a decisive act of God declaring the believer righteous apart from their ability to keep the Law.
2. Elements that resonate with Catholic (infused) justification
Paul also emphasizes that believers are transformed by the Spirit (Rom 6:4; 8:9–11).
He talks about cooperating with grace, avoiding sin, and growing in holiness (Phil 2:12–13; Gal 5:16–25).
He portrays justification as ongoing, not just a legal declaration—believers are being renewed from the inside.
MY OBSERVATION: 2 fits the notion of being saved by faith alone without good works and this faith producing fruit. The Protestant doctrine is the slipper that fits.
The Torah repeatedly promises blessings for obedience (Deuteronomy 28, Leviticus 26). God presents the Law as doable: it sets a standard and calls humans to follow it faithfully. Implicitly, God would not demand the impossible; obedience is framed as attainable in principle.
Paul, however, argues that no one can achieve perfect obedience in practice, because of human sinfulness (Romans 3:20; 7:18–19).
Paul holds that perfect obedience of the Law if it were possible, would justify. Humans will not deliver perfect obedience; therefore, justification comes through faith in Christ, not works of the Law.
The idea seems to be that though people do this to themselves - they need assistance from God's grace to break the cycle.
I affirm a contradiction. It is not for Paul to come along - he was not Moses - to say that the Torah is basically normative, showing what God requires and promising blessings for obedience not promising that anybody would obey it. Reason says it would be normative but only up to a point. Why make a law against murder if you know everybody will do it?
The Jews regarded the ceremonies and indeed the whole Law of Moses as a joy and not as a burden and not difficult (Deuteronomy 30:10-14). The psalms sang its praises.
The Law when properly interpreted and not cluttered by human tradition is not hard to keep (Deuteronomy 30:11).
The whole basis of Christian salvation is riddled with errors. It is impossible for a historical Jesus to think along Paul's lines.
PAUL'S "JESUS"
Jesus Christ Luke 16 could be Paul.
The parable there tells us of the Pharisee Jew who was rejected by God. He sincerely believed himself to be good and thanked God for making him good so he believed in grace. So he was condemned for endorsing what is now the Catholic doctrine that faith is not just imputed righteousness.
God rejected the Pharisee for believing that faith was not enough and good works were needed too, to be right with God.