Review of "Paul and the Law" (1987) by Heikki Räisänen

[HIM]

Absolutely not! Paul portrays it as a power that always works to undermine the cosmos. According to Augustine, it is equal to the lack of orderliness and wholeness. We mustn't reduce sin and equate it with ill deeds

Apparently we have a contradiction.

You dichotomize the 'law of sin and death' and the 'law of God' in a way which smacks of Gnosticism or Manichaeism. Remember the Christian teaching. According to Christian theology and the principle of privatio boni, sin and evil have no impetus of their own. Evil lacks essential being.

Satan however attacks. But when we resist him he will flee. Sin's only power over us prior to us committing it, is our own lusts as James 1 says.

. Jesus says that "anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart" (Matthew 5:28). Thus, he is saying that we are bound to sin.

No He didn't. Please let's not add what is not.

We shall not think that there's a way around it.

Jesus says different. He says if we commit sin we are a slave to it. And the slave to it shall not abide in the house forever, but the Son forever. And if the Son shall set you free, free we are indeed. So be Free indeed from the slavery of sin, being disconnected from God and caught up in the power of our own lusts. As Paul wrote through Christ, he delights in the law of God but sees another law in his members. Another law, and that is said in respect to the law he said he found, that when he would do good evil is present with him. Which is said in context to the statement he made in regard to, it wasn't him that did it, but the sin that dwelt in him. He called this the law of sin. That he can't help himself but sin. And that is because he sinned and lost his connection to God. Which agrees with Jesus' words when He said he that commits sin is a slave to it. And the servant of sin shall not abide in the house forever. But the Son forever. And if the Son shall set you free, free you are indeed. As Paul wrote in chapter 6 which seven is in context to. How can we who are dead to sin live any longer therein? Knowing we have been baptized into Jesus' death we now walk in newness of life through His resurrection. Whereas before we were servants to sin now we are servants to God and His righteousness because the old man is dead through baptism and now we alive unto God through Jesus. Which is why Paul said in 8:2 that the law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus set us free from the law of sin, not being able to control ourselves because we were a servant to sin. But sin was condemned in the flesh so that the righteousness of the Law be fulfilled in us. As Jesus said if the Son shall make us free we are indeed.


Rom 6:2 God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?
Rom 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

Rom 7:20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
Rom 7:21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
Rom 7:22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
Rom 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

 

[Teofrastus]

Satan however attacks. But when we resist him he will flee. Sin's only power over us prior to us committing it, is our own lusts as James 1 says...

James is a Judaist, an opponent of Paul. I wish that Christians stopped fixating on 'lusts'. Without 'lust' we wouldn't get out of the bed in the morning, and how much good could we do then? Pride is the root of all sin, says Augustine.

 

[HIM]

James is a Judaist, an opponent of Paul.

No he isn't and no he is not. That understanding only comes from a misunderstanding of Scriptures The fact that your post is void of any real objective argument hasn't dawned on you?

I wish that Christians stopped fixating on 'lusts'. Without 'lust' we wouldn't get out of the bed in the morning, and how much good could we do then? Pride is the root of all sin, says Augustine.

I wish professing Christians would stop deriving opinion through their own subjectivity or that of others.

Take care

 

[Teofrastus]

No he isn't and no he is not. That understanding only comes from a misunderstanding of Scriptures The fact that your post is void of any real objective argument hasn't dawned on you?

From Bible Fellowship Union Web site:

James the Lord's brother was an outstanding Judaist of his day. [...] Paul brought to light the doctrine of justification by faith but James still insisted upon the place of "works"; "faith without works is dead". His zeal for the Law, though, is tempered by his Christian interpretation. (here)​

 

[Soyeong]

Generally speaking, Paul is not at odds with the message of Jesus. After all, Jesus explains that he gives his life as a ransom for many. He declares that he was to be lifted up for the redemption of sinners, and the benefits of his salvation were to be enjoyed by those alone who believe in him. Jesus relativizes religious law, and he detests practicing the law in public: "Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven" (Matthew 6:1-5). In this case, righteousness gives no rewards! Already here can we see the beginnings of Pauline theology. But Paul develops Jesus's message to its logical conclusion. James Jeffrey explains that Paul "received his gospel from Jesus Christ. It may present views of the gospel not to be found in the teaching of Jesus, but which are complementary and in many cases the logical outcome of that teaching" (Jeffrey, The Gospel of Paul-The Gospel of Jesus, 1899, p. 54, here). He says:

In more recent times some critics have endeavoured to make out that the writings of the great Apostle set forth a different gospel from that contained in the sayings of Jesus as recorded in the Synoptic Gospels. We recognise the profound truth of Peter's words, "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life." But it does not follow that the same Spirit of Truth who spake in and through Jesus Christ (Hebrews 2:4) does not speak in and through Paul. Jesus distinctly assured His disciples that He had not spoken the last word or summed up the whole truth to them, and that the Holy Spirit who was to come after His departure would reveal to them new and fuller developments of the truths taught by Himself. [...] Writing to the Galatians, [Paul] says: "For I make known to you, brethren, as touching the gospel which was preached by me, that it is not after man. For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ" (Galatians 1:11-17); [...] [Paul] rests his teaching on the direct authority of Jesus Himself: "I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you" (I Corinthians 11:23). (ibid. pp. 9-11)​

As long as Paul was a stickler for the law, he could not receive the Spirit, because he had God pinned like a butterfly on a velvet-covered board. Religious law "kills" God, thwarts revelation! Only after he was struck down by God on the way to Damascus, and forced to abandon the law, he was ready to receive the happy tidings. The Spirit was released from its confinement in religious law.

While God can progressively reveal more information about how to act in accordance with His nature, God's nature is eternal, so what has been revealed at a later time will always be in accordance with what has previously been revealed, and we see this coming into play in Acts 17:11, where they were praise for diligently testing everything that Paul said against OT Scripture, if there was any extent to which Paul was at odds with OT Scripture and the message of Jesus, then we should reject what He said and should not believe his claims that he received the Gospel from Jesus or that he was following the Spirit, but the reality is that they were not at odds to any extent. Christ's Gospel called for us to obey the Law of God (Matthew 4:17-23), this was the same Gospel that Paul received from him and taught to Gentiles (Romans 15:18-19), and this is in accordance with receiving the Spirit (Ezekiel 36:26-27). In Acts 5:32, the Spirit has been given to those who obey God, so it is only those who obey the Law of God who receive the Spirit.

Our salvation is from sin and sin is the transgression of the Law of God, so living in obedience to it is the benefit of our salvation from not living in obedience to it. Furthermore, us embodying the Law of God is the way to believe in the one who is the embodiment of the Law of God. While Jesus was against people doing their works of charity in front of others in order to be seen by them, there is a world of difference between that and you saying that he detested obeying the Law of God in public or that there is no reward for righteous works. Paul said that he will render each according to their deeds (Romans 2:6), that each will receive a reward according to their labor (1 Corinthians 3:8), that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, where good or evil (2 Corinthians 5:10), and so forth. At not point did Paul say that he was forced to abandon the Law of God on the way to Damascus.

No, God did not command the massacre. Priests and prophets interpreted God's will, and then they proclaimed that God has ordered it. Nobody has immediate knowledge of the will of God except Jesus Christ (Luke 10:22). It was the job of priests and prophets to serve as intermediaries between God and the people. Priests have always figured out the will of god(s) by different means. For example, the Roman augurs looked for signs in nature, such as the flight of birds, to figure out the will of the gods. So when the Jewish priests say the words "God says...", it shall be read as "The priesthood interprets God as saying that..."

The Bible says that it is God who commanded the destruction of AI because of their wickedness. If you want, you can turn a command of God into the priesthood interpreting God, turn a just judgement into a massacre, turn a wicked king into an honorable one, and turn the reason for the just execution of a wicked people into the Israelites refusing to listen to their heart, hardening their heart, and believing that the letter of the law is the command of God, but then you would be rewriting the story as fan fiction and not would not be speaking about what the Bible says.

In Luke 10:22, Jesus said that all things have been committed to me by my Father, that no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and no one knows who the Father is except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him, which notably is not saying that nobody has immediate knowledge of the will of the Father except Jesus.

All peoples in history that have become worshipers of religious law have self-destructed. This was the consequence of the Mosaic religion, Islamist religion, Nazism, and Communism. The Hittite religion is a perfect example. It was extremely legalistic, and that's why the Hittite empire suddenly went up in smoke in 1180 BCE. Western civilization, on the other hand, builds on Christianity, a non-legalistic religion. (The king must take care of legal matters.) It explains the success of the West, despite the many setbacks caused by ideological law-mongers, who attempted to bring us back to religious law in different forms.

The nation of Israel still stands while many nations who have opposed Israel are no more. The reasons that the Bible gives for the times that Israel was exiled from the land was because of their disobedience to the Law of God, not because of their obedience to it. Religious laws are also fundamental to Western civilization, such as with the Ten Commandments. Legalism has always been a perversion of the Law of God that undermines both the intent of what God has command and why He commanded it.

Let us make clear, once and for all, that the Mosaic law was given to Israel only (Leviticus 26:46): "These are the commandments which the LORD commanded Moses for the children of Israel on Mount Sinai" (Leviticus 27:34). Thus, the Gentiles are not under the law and have never been under the law, and Paul underscores this (Romans 2:14-15). So if any prophet, including Jesus, says that we are expected to follow the Mosaic law, it is only valid for the Jews. However, the law only served to confine Israel until the coming of Christ (Galatians 3:19-24). It was temporary and is no longer valid.

The Mosaic Law was given to Israel in order to equip them to be a light and a blessing to the nations by turning the nations through spreading the Gospel by turning them from their wickedness and teaching them to obey it through faith in accordance with the promise. The Law of God is how we know what sin is (Romans 3:20), so if Gentiles have never been under it, then Gentiles have never needed to refrain or repent from sin, have never needed grace, have never needed the Gospel, have never needed faith in the promise, and have never needed Jesus to have given himself to redeem him from all lawlessness. In Romana 2:13-15, it says that only doers of the law will be justified and that Gentiles are by nature doers of the law, which underscores that Gentiles are under God's law. God's word leads us to God's word made flesh because it teaches how to know him through being like him, not so that we can reject God's word and go back to living in sin. In Psalms 119:160, the sum of God's word is truth and all of God's righteous laws are eternal and the only way that God's word can become no longer valid is if God's word made is no longer valid. Jesus did not go around telling people telling people to stop repenting because the eternal Law of God has ended, but just the opposite, he called for people to repent, so you should not interpret Galatians 3:19-2in a way that undermines everything that he accmplished through his ministry and through the cross

However, there's another sense in which we can speak of the law, namely the law of the heart. Paul explains that Gentiles, who do not have the law, often do better than the Jews, which have the law. Such Gentiles are doers of the law, which counts them as God's people. Thus, it is not enough to have the law. In fact, it plays no role at all, anymore. As a matter of fact, Gentiles seem to be doing good without it. David H. J. Gay says:

Indeed, even before the giving of the law to Israel, some pagans had a more finely-tuned sense of right and wrong than some of the godly. Take the episode of Abraham (and Sarah) lying to Abimelech king of Gerar, the latter's reaction, and his reproof of the father of the faithful (Gen. 20). Abimelech certainly showed a greater sense of morality than Abraham. The same can be said for Abimelech king of the Philistines and Isaac (and Rebekah) (Gen. 26). Hamor the Hivite, though he certainly had his faults, showed more integrity than Jacob's sons (Gen. 34). Where did pagans get their sense of right and wrong, their sense of injustice? Romans 2:14-15 is the clear biblical explanation. (Christ is All, p. 47)​

Changing the medium upon which God's law is written from stone to our hearts does not change the content of what it instructs us to do. For example, the command to honor our parents written on stone has the same content as that command written on our hearts. Paul saying that Gentile are doers of the law is opposed to you saying the Gentiles have never been under it and you saying that it plays no role at all anymore. Romans was not written to pagans, but rather it is speaking to and about Gentile believers.

However, as I've already explained, the law of the heart is a product of evolution, which means that it is ambivalent. ("Take care of your neighbour and be a responsible parent and citizen. This will owe you respect. On the other hand, ravage the land of the neigbouring people. This will make you a hero.") So the natural law is both good and evil, and it cannot always be trusted. (Thomas Aquinas thought so, but he was wrong.)

There's yet another sense in which we can speak of the law, namely the general legalistic tendency in human psychology. Again and again people fall for diverse "isms", which only cause destruction. It is clear that legalism, in whatever form, has only destructive consequences. We have no other choice than to rely on natural law. But we must be careful, as it might lead us astray, and then we're bound for damnation.

In this sense, we are being oppressed by the law. We are hemmed in by life's necessities, expected to become respectable citizens and waste our lives on meaningless jobs. Like the many young Russian and Ukrainian men, today, we are expected to sacrifice our life on society's altar. And if we do not comply, then we will be tormented by the mob, and this is also according to natural law. The law torments us, but religious law makes matters even worse. The law of sin is indeed the same as religious law, because the latter points out our sinfulness and oppresses us, and Paul explains all about it in Galatians.

In Deuteronomy 5:31-33, Moses wrote down everything that God commanded without departing from it, so it was commanded by God and is not the product of evolution, and in fact it contains many laws that could only by known about God through divine revelation. The Bible consistently speaks in favor of obeying the Law of God and against lawlessness, but you seem to think that the Law of God is the problem. Do you think that God misled His people when he gave the law and that He shouldn't be trusted when His word says that His law was given for our own good (Deuteronomy 6:24, 10:12-13)?

To say that the Law of God oppresses us is to say that the giver of the law oppresses us, which is blasphemy against God. Again you keep ignoring that Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Law and God and contrasted that with another law that was working within his members to hold him captive. If your interpretation of Galatias is correct, then according to God, you should reject what Paul said in favor of following Him instead. If there was a king who gave laws to govern the conduct of the citizens of his kingdom and there was someone going around speaking against obeying what the king commanded, then they would not be a servant of the king, but rather they would be his enemy. Sadly, you interpret Galatians in a way that makes Paul out to be an enemy of God instead of a servant of God and then choose to follow him instead of following God. In Romans 8:4-7, those who walk in the Spirit are contrasted with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to the Law of God, so if someone is an enemy of God just for refusing to submit to His law, then it is that much more true for someone who teaches others to refuse to submit to it. It is bizarre for someone to think that they are serving God by teaching rebellion against obeying what He has commanded.

 

[Teofrastus]

While God can progressively reveal more information about how to act in accordance with His nature, God's nature is eternal, so what has been revealed at a later time will always be in accordance with what has previously been revealed...

We know today that creation is ongoing. New worlds are created and new species emerge, and humanity and their society evolve. As a consequence, God has no other choice than to change his methods while relating to creation. The Christian God is a relational God. He relates to you differently as a child than as an adult. He has different demands. That's why the law was given as a temporary measure, until the Israelites were ready to receive the Gospel of Christ (Galatians 3:23-25).

The Bible says that it is God who commanded the destruction of Ai because of their wickedness.

Both the king of Ai and Jesus Christ were crucified for their wickedness, i.e., their breaching of the law as perceived by the priests.

Paul saying that Gentile are doers of the law is opposed to you saying the Gentiles have never been under it and you saying that it plays no role at all anymore.

That's not what I said. I argued that Gentiles are doers of the natural law, but have never been under the Mosaic law. The natural law has much in common with the Mosaic law, and that's why Paul finds that Gentiles are sometimes doing better than the followers of the Mosaic law.

To say that the Law of God oppresses us is to say that the giver of the law oppresses us, which is blasphemy against God.

This is what Luther is saying, as I've already explained. Luther learnt from Paul, who says: "For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression" (Romans 4:15). Thus, God's divine will, equal to the divine law, is received as devilish wrath: "God can be found only in suffering and the cross" (LW 31: 53). In order to bring to heal the sinful condition, God's divine law exacerbates egocentrism, pushing the human subject deeper into sin. In the typical case, the sinner must be driven into despair before he can come to faith and take the Gospel to heart. See, for instance, von Loewenich, Luther’s Theology of the Cross (1976).

Again you keep ignoring that Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Law and God and contrasted that with another law that was working within his members to hold him captive.

What Paul delights in is the very same law that pushes him into sin. It's the very same force. He explains that, without knowledge of the law and what is good and evil, he wouldn't know sin (Romans 7:7). It's the same thing that happens with Adam and Eve in the Garden. When they become aware of good and evil, they immediately suffer the fall from grace. They realize that they live in sin and become ashamed of themselves (Genesis 3:8-11). Their eyes are opened to what is called the natural law, or the law of the heart. If you know 'good' then you know that you're a sinner.

It's the same God who is behind the darkness of human existence. Luther explains that God becomes visible precisely in the things that we perceive as other than the divine, such as misery, weakness and strife. He says that "it could never be enough for a man, nor could it benefit him to know God in his glory and majesty unless he knows him at the same time in the humility and shame of the cross" (The Heidelberg Disputation XX). God is behind the suffering of his Son. God is behind Paul's suffering, although he experiences it as the workings of the devil. It's because God takes the devil into his service: "as the devil is working his damnedest against the work of God, he is by dint of his own work but working against himself and forwarding God's work" (LW 29).

 

[Soyeong]

We know today that creation is ongoing. New worlds are created and new species emerge, and humanity and their society evolve. As a consequence, God has no other choice than to change his methods while relating to creation. The Christian God is a relational God. He relates to you differently as a child than as an adult. He has different demands.

God's righteousness is eternal (Psalms 119:142), which means that all of His instructions for how to act in accordance with Hid righteousness are therefore also eternally valid (Psalms 119:160), which means that they don't change, but eternal laws can be conditional so that the way that they apply changes depending upon the circumstances. For example, the Israelites were given a number of laws while they were wandering the wilderness for 40 years that had the condition "when you enter the land..." that only apply when someone is living in the land. Or for example, a father could have an unchanging rule that everyone who us under 18, so someone can could still act in accordance with that rule as they change from being a child to an adult. The unchanging rule can still be valid even after a child becomes and adultery, but if the father were to have another child, then they would still have a curfew, so a a change in the rule would mean that the father no longer thought that anyone should have curfews even if they are under 18, or in regard to God, a change in His law would mean that an action was no longer in accordance with His eternal righteousness.

Someone who disregarded everything that their schoolmaster taught them after they graduated would be missing the whole point of a school master and would need to go back for a remedial education. A student does not move on to algebra by disregarding everything that they were taught about addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, but rather their new teacher builds upon what they were previously taught. Someone who moves on from the basics so that they are no longer even doing the basics is regressing rather than progressing by building upon the basics.

That's why the law was given as a temporary measure, until the Israelites were ready to receive the Gospel of Christ (Galatians 3:23-25).

In Matthew 4:17-23, the Gospel of Christ calls for us to obey the Law of God, which is in accordance with Jesus being sent as the fulfillment of the promise by blessing us through turning us form our wickedness (Acts 3:25-26), and which is the Gospel that was made known in advance to Abraham in accordance with the promise (Galatians 3:8). In Galatians 3:26-29, every aspect of being children of God, in Christ, through faith, children of Abraham, and heirs to the promise is directly connected with living in obedience to the Law of God through faith. In 1 John 3:4-10, those who do not practice righteousness in obedience to the Law of God are not children of God. In 1 John 2:6, those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked, which was in obedience to the Law of God. In Romans 3:31, our faith upholds God's law. In John 8:39, Jesus said that if they were children of Abraham, then they would be doing the same works as him. In Genesis 18:19, Genesis 26:5, and Deuteronomy 30:16, the promise was made to Abraham and brought about because he walked in God's way in obedience to His law, he taught his children how to do that, and because his children did that. So you are interpreting Galatians 3:19-25 in a manner that is contrary receiving the Gospel of Christ in accordance with Galatians 3:26-29.

God's law is God's word and Jesus is God's word made flesh, so us embodying God's word by living in obedience to it through faith is the way to receive the one who is the embodiment of God's word, which is why God's word leads us to him, and it is absurd to think that the way to receive the one who is the embodiment of God's word is by rejecting God's word. The only way that God's word can be temporary is is God's word made flesh is also temporary, but the sum of God's word is truth and all of God's righteous laws are eternal (Psalms 119:160).

Both the king of Ai and Jesus Christ were crucified for their wickedness, i.e., their breaching of the law as perceived by the priests.

Again, the Bible says that God commanded the destruction of Ai because of their wickedness, but regardless of who was doing the judging, the people of Ai were extremely wicked, so the people who judged them were acting justly, while Jesus was not wicked, so the people who judged him were acting unjustly.

That's not what I said. I argued that Gentiles are doers of the natural law, but have never been under the Mosaic law. The natural law has much in common with the Mosaic law, and that's why Paul finds that Gentiles are sometimes doing better than the followers of the Mosaic law.

I don't see any grounds for thinking that Romans 2 refers to obeying something other than the Law of Moses, for example:

Romans 2:25-25 Circumcision has value if you observe the law,but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26 So then, if those who are not circumcised keep the laws requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27 The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker.

Being circumcised/having a circumcised heart is directly connected with living in obedience to the Law of Moses, so Gentiles keeping the requirements of the law is clearly speaking about Gentiles living in obedience to the Law of Moses and there would be no reason to regard them as though they were circumcised is they were doing something other than or contrary to the Law of Moses. Likewise, if Gentiles weren't keeping the Mosaic Law, then there would no reason to think that they were condemning Jews who weren't keeping it. In addition, both natural law and the Law of Moses are based on God's image, so I don't see any reason to think that following one is good while following the other is bad or to think that they are different or contrary to each other to any extent.

This is what Luther is saying, as I've already explained. Luther learnt from Paul, who says: "For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression" (Romans 4:15). Thus, God's divine will, equal to the divine law, is received as devilish wrath: "God can be found only in suffering and the cross" (LW 31: 53). In order to bring to heal the sinful condition, God's divine law exacerbates egocentrism, pushing the human subject deeper into sin. In the typical case, the sinner must be driven into despair before he can come to faith and take the Gospel to heart. See, for instance, von Loewenich, Luther’s Theology of the Cross (1976).

What Paul delights in is the very same law that pushes him into sin. It's the very same force. He explains that, without knowledge of the law and what is good and evil, he wouldn't know sin (Romans 7:7). It's the same thing that happens with Adam and Eve in the Garden. When they become aware of good and evil, they immediately suffer the fall from grace. They realize that they live in sin and become ashamed of themselves (Genesis 3:8-11). Their eyes are opened to what is called the natural law, or the law of the heart. If you know 'good' then you know that you're a sinner.

It's the same God who is behind the darkness of human existence. Luther explains that God becomes visible precisely in the things that we perceive as other than the divine, such as misery, weakness and strife. He says that "it could never be enough for a man, nor could it benefit him to know God in his glory and majesty unless he knows him at the same time in the humility and shame of the cross" (The Heidelberg Disputation XX). God is behind the suffering of his Son. God is behind Paul's suffering, although he experiences it as the workings of the devil. It's because God takes the devil into his service: "as the devil is working his damnedest against the work of God, he is by dint of his own work but working against himself and forwarding God's work" (LW 29).

If Luther was saying that the God oppresses us by giving us a law that He said was given for our own good, then he was committing blasphemy against God, which is contrary to what Paul taught. It is not obeying the Law of God that brings wrath, but refusing to obey it, so what oppresses us the opposite of the Law of God. In Psalms 119:142, the Law of God is truth, and in John 8:31-36, it is sin in transgression of the Law of God that puts us on bondage while it is the truth that sets us free. Furthermore, your posts in this thread are opposed to following truth.

A law that exacerbates sin is a law that is sinful, however, Romans 7:7 says that the Law of God is not sinful, but is how we know what sin is, so he was contrasting the law that is sinful with the law that is how we know what sin is, yet you keep making the error of conflating them by mistaking what Paul said about the law of sin and attributing it to the Law of God. For example, there is nothing innate to the command not to covet that causes coveting to increase, but rather he said that the law that was causing sin to increase was within him. The command against coveting leads us to refrain from coveting, which causes sin to decrease, so Paul did not say Law of God causes coveting to increase, but rather he said that it is the law of sin working through the Law of God that causes coveting to increase.

It is absurd to think that Paul delighted in being pushed to sin, but rather he despaired that he was being pushed to sin when he wanted to obey the Law of God, so I don't see how you can read Romans 7:21-25 and think that Paul speaking about another law that was waging war against the law of his mind is the same as the law. You keep ignoring that Paul contrasted the Law of God that he served with his mind with the law of sin that he served with his flesh, so you can keep insisting that is is the same law, but not without being contrary to what he said.

 

[Teofrastus]

[...]

Soyeong, do you purify a house suffering from 'leprosy' (meaning that it has "greenish or reddish depressions that appear to be deeper than the surface of the wall") with a bird's blood? (Leviticus 14:52). No? Then you're a breaker of the law! Have you ever sat where a menstruating woman has sat and not undergone a cleaning ritual? (Leviticus 15:19-21). No? Then you're a breaker of the law! You ought to suffer the same fate as the king of Ai, then!

There are so many stupid laws, and so many cruel laws, in the OT. Homosexuality is a capital crime, and sexual intercourse with a woman who was known to be menstruating is also a capital crime. But this has nothing to do with the Gospel of Jesus. How can one argue that Jesus wanted us to fulfil such perverse laws? It is unrealistic to think so, considering the content of Jesus's mission. Jesus and Paul had nothing else than the OT to build on, but we have! Arguably, the OT should be uncanonized and declared apocryphal, because it is incompatible with the Gospel message. It has again and again caused Christians to regress to a legalistic mindset inspired by Bronze Age laws. It is idiocy to believe that Joshua could command the sun and the moon to stand still (Joshua 10:13), and that a she-ass could speak (Numbers 22:28). Such nonsense is a burden for Christians. But from an uncanonical OT we could lift out freely what we find valuable, and reject the rest.

Adolph von Harnack thinks that Paul involves himself in difficulties, because "of the inadequacy of the means by which [he] thought that he could maintain the canonical recognition of the Old Testament" (Marcion, p. 133). After all, the law pervades the entire OT. On the other hand, he argues that the church did right in preserving it as a canonical document, despite the fact that it brought Christianity into a tragic conflict. But "still to preserve it in Protestantism as a canonical document since the nineteenth century is the consequence of a religious and ecclesiastical crippling" (p. 134).

Jesus says that "the sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath" (Mark 2:27). Thus, the law was made for man, and not man for the law. But the law-mongers throughout history have reasoned as if man was made in order to fulfil the law. This is a false view, according to Jesus; but it is exactly how Stalin reasoned. The only purpose in the life of a citizen is to keep the Communist society going. No! Society and its laws exist to serve the citizens. Thus, if the laws have played out their role, they shall be abolished. Von Harnack says:

Through the Reformation, biblicism, which even earlier was growing, received extraordinary strengthening, and this benefited the Old Testament, too. It is true that in the Lutheran territories its dubious effects were less strongly felt, but they were all the more powerful in the Anabaptist churches, in those churches formed by a mixture of Anabaptism and the Reformation, among which were the Calvinist churches. Here the Old Testament that was placed on a fully equal footing with the New Testament had an unhealthy effect on dogmatics, on piety, and on the practice of the Christian life. In some groups it even produced an Islamic zeal, while in others it called forth a new kind of Judaism and promoted everywhere a legalistic entity.​

​

[Churches] have been fearful about a break with tradition, while they do not see, or else they wrongly estimate, the far more fateful consequences that will continue to develop more and more from the maintenance of the Old Testament as a sacred and therefore infallible document. Yet the greatest number of objections that "the people" raise against Christianity and against the truthfulness of the church arise out of the recognition that the church still accords to the Old Testament. To clear the table here and to give the place of honor in confession and instruction—that is the great deed that is being demanded today, already almost too late, of Protestantism. (pp. 136-37)​

Jesus explains that from this point all knowledge of God would come through him (John 14:6-7; Matthew 11:27; Ephesians 2:18, etc.). It means that all the scholarly knowledge about the pre-history of Christianity, and all the expertise on the Mosaic law, constitute not a religious perspective but a secular one (cf. p. 138).

 

[fhansen]

Heikki Räisänen (Paul and the Law, 1987) is critical of Paul and what he sees as the many self-contradictions and ambiguities in Paul’s position. Paul sets up the antithesis of faith and works and paradoxically claims that the law is overcome and yet remains valid. Räisänen says that Paul “is torn into two directions, and he is incapable of resolving the tension in terms of theological thought” (p. 264).

But this is the predicament of life! We are indeed torn into two directions. Luther’s theology of the cross builds on Paul’s radical dualism of law and Gospel, and he manages to make sense of Paul’s paradoxical theology. But Räisänen does not engage with Luther in this book.

Nor can the author make sense of Paul’s view that it is his own teaching that really ‘upholds’ the law. Arguably, it is rhetorical. Paul thinks that it is not good enough if one upholds 80% of the 613 Mosaic regulations (provided that law is defined simply as Torah). If we’re going to follow the law, 100% is required. But because “all are under sin”, nobody can manage this, and the only way out is to turn to the Gospel. Thus, Paul makes sense, after all. The demonic power of the law forces people into the fold of the Gospel. This is also how Luther sees it.

The author thinks that Paul gives his readers a distorted picture of Judaic religion, i.e., as anthropocentric legalism in which the law is an end in itself. Thus, he agrees with the modern critique of the legalistic picture of ancient Judaism. Indeed, according to Judaic theology this is completely wrong. But it is a different thing on the level of everyday life. We know how hypocritical people are, how they project themselves as righteous and upstanding citizens in order to secure a high status in society. It is part of original sin, and that’s why Paul associates the law with sin. He probably had good reasons to think that the law encourages hypocrisy, falsity and a tendency of being judgmental towards others. We must also analyze the effects of theology on human psychology.

Räisänen explains that, elsewhere in the NT, “faith comes in as a complement to obedience to the law, making good the lack of perfection as regards the latter” (p. 195). It would mean that there is no essential conflict between law and Gospel. The conclusion is that Paul is alone in early Christianity with his law/Gospel dualism. The author is probably right in this, and that’s why we are so lucky to have Paul’s letters. I’m impressed by the author’s scholarly knowledge but not by his understanding of Paul, which is shallow. I give the book three stars.

Paul understands the relationship between faith and the law perfectly, as has the church since the beginning. The law is good, holy, righteous and spiritual (Rom 7). It tells us what righteousness “looks like”, how we “ought to be”, but cannot accomplish that righteousness in us. Only God can do that, can justify -make just- the ungodly. So while the old covenant is about the law and my ability to keep it, to have a righteousness of my own, the new covenant is all about reconciling and uniting man with God, who accomplishes righteousness in us, a new righteousness that the law and the prophets testify to (Rom 3:21), one that fulfills the righteous requirements of the law (Rom 8:4), without regard to the law. So then the following verses, as examples, make perfect sense:

“To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.” Rom 2:7

“All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.” Rom 2:12-13

In order to fulfill the law without hearing it one must be in union with, and heeding, God. Then we do works of grace, works of the Spirit, works compelled by the love He puts in our hearts (Rom 5:5), love that fulfills the law by its nature. And that relationship is the essence of faith. Faith makes God our God again. Then He begins to do a work in us.

“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people.
No longer will they teach their neighbor,
or say to one another, ‘Know the Lord,’
because they will all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest,”
declares the Lord.” Jer 31:33-34

“…not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ—the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith.” Phil 3:9

“Now this is eternal life: that they know you,the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.” John 17:3

Paul is speaking of a real, personal, righteousness given, by virtue of fellowship with God, not a merely declared righteousness. Faith was never meant to place a wedge between righteousness and, well…righteousness, but to be the authentic means to finally obtaining true righteousness.

 

[Teofrastus]

...

This also belongs to the law:

​

Moses built an altar and called it The Lord is my Banner. He said, “Because hands were lifted up against the throne of the Lord, the Lord will be at war against the Amalekites from generation to generation.” (Exodus 17:15-16).​

So we shall forever persecute and destroy whichever people we designate as Amalekites. This has certainly earned a following in history, leading to the extermination of masses of people. For example, one pastor in Rwanda, 1994, preached that Tutsis were Amalekites. He said that if the Hutus don't exterminate the Tutsis, the Hutus will be rejected by God, like Saul had been (1 Samuel 15:3). Around 800,000 Tutsis were massacred (cf. Jenkins, Laying Down the Sword).

So Paul is truthful when he says that the law is the ministry of death (2 Cor. 3:7) and condemnation (2 Cor. 3:9), and that it curses us (Gal. 3:10) and brings God's wrath (Rom. 4:15). John says: "If we confess our sins, [God] is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). So we become righteous not by following the law but by being forgiven. It is not possible to reconcile these two different ways of justification. Jesus said: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (Matt. 28:18). There is only one way to the Father, and this is Jesus Christ, not the law: "No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6).

 

[fhansen]

This also belongs to the law:

​

Moses built an altar and called it The Lord is my Banner. He said, “Because hands were lifted up against the throne of the Lord, the Lord will be at war against the Amalekites from generation to generation.” (Exodus 17:15-16).​

So we shall forever persecute and destroy whichever people we designate as Amalekites. This has certainly earned a following in history, leading to the extermination of masses of people. For example, one pastor in Rwanda, 1994, preached that Tutsis were Amalekites. He said that if the Hutus don't exterminate the Tutsis, the Hutus will be rejected by God, like Saul had been (1 Samuel 15:3). Around 800,000 Tutsis were massacred (cf. Jenkins, Laying Down the Sword).

So Paul is truthful when he says that the law is the ministry of death (2 Cor. 3:7) and condemnation (2 Cor. 3:9), and that it curses us (Gal. 3:10) and brings God's wrath (Rom. 4:15). John says: "If we confess our sins, [God] is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness" (1 John 1:9). So we become righteous not by following the law but by being forgiven. It is not possible to reconcile these two different ways of justification. Jesus said: "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me" (Matt. 28:18). There is only one way to the Father, and this is Jesus Christ, not the law: "No one comes to the Father except through me" (John 14:6).

Paul was battling legalism, the idea that removing a little piece of flesh from the body or abstaining from certain foods or observing the moral law in a merely external way can make one holy. And he knew now that such was nonsense. When Jesus told the Pharisees that they were clean on the outside while filthy on the inside-and to clean the inside first, in Matt 23-He was echoing what was said by Him in Matt 5, that unless our hearts are pure first of all it makes no difference how we behave. But when we're led by the Spirit, when we love as He does, then our righteousness already surpasses that of the Pharisees and teachers of the law.

So Paul was unimpressed by ceremonial and dietary laws but also by works of the the moral law, and yet while referencing the law that is holy, spiritual, and good in Rom 7, and the law that is fulfilled by love in Rom 13, he references the moral law only, and specifically the ten commandments, as Jesus did when instructing the rich young man on how to gain eternal life in Matt 19. And this is why the early church continued to uphold the ten commandments even while knowing that they're fulfillable only by virtue of communion with God, only by grace.

And John also said:
"If we claim to have fellowship with him and yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live out the truth. But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin." 1 John 1:6-7
and,
"Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous. The one who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil’s work. No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God’s seed remains in them; they cannot go on sinning, because they have been born of God. " 1 John 3:7-9

The very early church believed-and several Scriptural passages support this- that any serious return to the flesh, to sin, murder, adultery, etc, meant a person was irredeemable-no repentance was possible. They were booted from the fold. Christianity was a turning away from sin and the ways of the world and to God and they had given up much to become Christian, including their lives in many instances. However, an early bishop of Rome addressed this matter at some point, maintaining that, based on our knowledge of God's mercy, forgiveness, and love and desire that none should perish, repentance and reconciliation were always possible, with sincere contrition and desire to return to God's family. The penance to be done would be quite severe-and lengthy- but the understanding that this renewed reconciliation could take place was now taught-and would become the common teaching of the church world-wide even though it was met with much resistance at first. Either way, sin was taken very seriously back then.

And Paul took sin (lawlessness) seriously as well. And that is why he was now excited, in Rom 7:25, about the difference Christ makes, because He brings us the power to overcome sin. So Paul could say:

"For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!" Rom 5:17

"But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life." Rom 6:22

"For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the flesh but according to the Spirit."

"Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live. For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God." Rom 8:3-4, 12-14

Paul is speaking of a new righteousness given. Justification involves more than forgiveness of sin but also washing, cleansing, and making us new creations, fit for heaven. Our part is to remain with the choice we first made, for and with God, born out by fruit produced. He is the basis of our justice/righteousness, and not ourselves. The law is not our enemy even though it can only bring conviction of sin and therefore condemnation for it. But that also makes it our tutor so that we'll know that we must look beyond the law and our attempts to fulfill it in order to be authentically righteous. And God created no one to be a sinner, after all. We just need Him in order to accomplish it. "Apart from Me you can do nothing" (John 15:5). But "...with God all things are possible" (Matt 19:26), including having the righteousness we were created to have, "...the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith." (Phil 3:9). Man was made for communion with God. That's why Jesus came, to reconcile ourselves with Him. And that union is the primary difference between the old and new covenants.

 

[Teofrastus]

Paul was battling legalism [not the law] [...] We just need Him in order to accomplish it [i.e., the fulfilment of the law] [...]

You have adopted the minimalistic view, which implies, among other things, that faith in Christ makes up what is lacking in one's 'righteousness' so far. Although one can find evidence for this view in the NT, the epistles are overwhelmingly for the more radical view, namely that the law belongs to the old covenant and that "Jesus has become a surety of a better covenant" (Hebrews 7:22). The law belongs to a bygone era:

In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. (Hebrews 8:13)​

For this reason, the author of Hebrews explains that we must now cease from the works of the law, because the law was only milk for babies. We must try and discern for ourselves what is right and wrong:

For everyone who partakes only of milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a babe. But solid food belongs to those who are of full age, that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil. (Hebrews 5:13-14)​

Thanks to the Lord, we are capable of a judgment of our own:

"...I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them," then He adds, "Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more." (Hebrews 10:16-17)​

Therefore we must enter a rest from works of the law:

There remains therefore a rest for the people of God. For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His. Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest, lest anyone fall according to the same example of disobedience. (Hebrews 4:8-11)​

The law is definitely out of date:

For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect; on the other hand, there is the bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God. (Hebrews 7:18-19)​

I concede that the view in Hebrews isn't entirely unproblematic. After all, it is easy to fool oneself. People will think that the Lord has put his law into their heart, while, in reality, they only pursue their own egoistic interests. But, suppose that you have stopped before a red light and an ambulance needs to get by. You can only let it through by driving against red. What do you do? Only an amoral baby would refuse to break the law. The author of Hebrews makes much sense.

 

[fhansen]

You're saying that the magisterium is more clear than scripture is. Think what you are saying there for a moment.

Why should that pose any problem? The Bereans and the Ethiopian Eunuch both required guidance from those who understood the meaning of Scripture. And every time a preacher preaches, they're doing that very thing, expounding on the meaning of Scripture

 

[fhansen]

In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. (Hebrews 8:13)

The old is obsolete because it could not accomplish what the new could, true righteousness, the righteousness that we were made for, the "righteous that comes from God on the basis of faith." (Phil 3:9), the righteousness that is described by God's putting His law in our minds and writing them on our hearts. The righteousness that is best defined by love, the greatest commandments telling us what true justice or righteousness is for man.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Why should that pose any problem? The Bereans and the Ethiopian Eunuch both required guidance from those who understood the meaning of Scripture. And every time a preacher preaches, they're doing that very thing, expounding on the meaning of Scripture

That's a huge problem. Nothing wrong with expounding, and with considering various points of view, and even with someone who knows more than I do explaining something. But clarity will always be lacking in hearing from another human, and where it doesn't lack, there is the potential for error. Like I said, it isn't scripture that lacks clarity —it is us.

 

[Teofrastus]

The old is obsolete because it could not accomplish what the new could, true righteousness, the righteousness that we were made for, the "righteous that comes from God on the basis of faith." (Phil 3:9), the righteousness that is described by God's putting His law in our minds and writing them on our hearts. The righteousness that is best defined by love, the greatest commandments telling us what true justice or righteousness is for man.

And yet, James says:

"If you obey all the Laws but one, you are as guilty as the one who has broken them all" (James 2:10).​

​

"If you say the Law is wrong, and do not obey it, you are saying you are better than the Law" (James 4:11).​

Huston, we have a problem!

 

[fhansen]

And yet, James says:

"If you obey all the Laws but one, you are as guilty as the one who has broken them all" (James 2:10).​

​

"If you say the Law is wrong, and do not obey it, you are saying you are better than the Law" (James 4:11).​

Huston, we have a problem.

It’s a righteousness that the law and the prophets testify to (Rom 3:21), but a righteous that’s not based on the law (Phil 3:9). Because it’s a righteous that comes directly from the Law-giver, from whom true righteousness flows. God is man's righteousness which is why man has none unless united with Him. But God created no man to be a sinner. So communion with God, a relationship that man was made for and is lost, sick, dead, disordered, without, is the basis of the Christian faith, of the new covenant, whereas the basis of the old covenant was the law. And the basis of the new is not merely a profession of a mantra resulting in a legal declaration of righteousness but instead is a coming into union with God and alignment with His will which, itself, is the essence and basis of man's righteousness-and which is why faith pleases Him so much because faith is the basis of that vital relationship. With justification, we're transitioned into a state of real righteousness.

If the old covenant is based on man's attempt to please God by demonstrating his righteousness based on the law, to "look right" by his own merits or efforts, the new covenant is about man finally returning from his exile from God first of all and saying, "I have no righteousness after all; I need you in order to be who I was created to be." Now we're His and at that point He can begin a work in us.

“I will put my law in their minds
and write it on their hearts.
I will be their God,
and they will be my people." Jer 31:33

God's righteousness is love which is why love fulfills the law (Rom 13:10), without regard to the law. It's the reason why a person can obey the law without hearing it (Rom 2:13). It's the basis of the law (Matt 22:36-40) and so is above the law. Justification is the seed of God's own life planted in us. And we're to continue to be transformed into His image as we follow Him, doing His will, grace leading to more grace, justice leading to more justice yet. But we can stray instead, we can fall back away from communion with God; we can fail to remain in Him. So our part is to do just that, to, now that we know Him by the love He's shown us, continue to believe in, hope in, and, most importantly, to love Him. And this love, this communion will produce good fruit by its nature. Otherwise we're just clanging gongs, otherwise we're nothing (1 Cor 13), otherwise we're branches grafted in and but now only fit to be cut back off and burned (John 15, Rom 11).

Sin (unrighteousness) is still a killer-and will separate us from God. But Christ provides the answer. With Him we become slaves to righteousness instead of to sin (Rom 6). With Him we become children of God who have the Spirit who can overcome sin in us (Rom 8:12-14). With Him we begin to love as He does (Rom 5:5), and love excludes sin by its nature.

Never mind Houston-false alarm. There was no problem. Never was one, in fact.

 

[Teofrastus]

[...] Never mind Houston-false alarm. There was no problem. Never was one, in fact.

There is no such continuity. Mark Buchanan says that Hebrews

draws a vivid contrast between past and present, Moses and Jesus, the Old Testament and the New. In every way, Jesus [...] is superior to whoever and whatever has come before him. The past is a mere shadow of Christ's present reality and of his glory. (Can We Trust the God of Genocide?, Christianity Today (July/August 2013), 20–24 (23))​

We must deal with this problem. Gregory A. Boyd says:

If all Scripture is divinely inspired, [Evangelicals] think, it must all carry the same level of divine authority. In this view, which some refer to as "the flat view of the Bible," Jesus's revelation of God is placed on the same level as all other biblical depictions of God, creating a montage mental conception of God. That is, part of the God these Christians envision is Christlike, but other parts are vengeful and jealous and capable of doing horrible things like commanding genocide and causing parents to cannibalize their children. [...] But I'm now convinced that this approach is fundamentally and tragically misguided. (Cross Vision: How the Crucifixion of Jesus Makes Sense of Old Testament Violence, ch. 2)​

 

[fhansen]

There is no such continuity. Mark Buchanan says that Hebrews

draws a vivid contrast between past and present, Moses and Jesus, the Old Testament and the New. In every way, Jesus [...] is superior to whoever and whatever has come before him. The past is a mere shadow of Christ's present reality and of his glory. (Can We Trust the God of Genocide?, Christianity Today (July/August 2013), 20–24 (23))​

We must deal with this problem. Gregory A. Boyd says:

If all Scripture is divinely inspired, [Evangelicals] think, it must all carry the same level of divine authority. In this view, which some refer to as "the flat view of the Bible," Jesus's revelation of God is placed on the same level as all other biblical depictions of God, creating a montage mental conception of God. That is, part of the God these Christians envision is Christlike, but other parts are vengeful and jealous and capable of doing horrible things like commanding genocide and causing parents to cannibalize their children. [...] But I'm now convinced that this approach is fundamentally and tragically misguided. (Cross Vision: How the Crucifixion of Jesus Makes Sense of Old Testament Violence, ch. 2)​

I don’t see how any of that addresses my post, or changes anything. Yes, there’s a vivid contrast between Moses and Jesus, between the old and new covenants, and I outlined that contrast which is also consistent with the teachings of the ancient churches. There never was a problem with the way justification was taught prior to the Reformation; that was my intended meaning.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don’t see how any of that addresses my post, or changes anything. Yes, there’s a vivid contrast between Moses and Jesus, between the old and new covenants, and I outlined that contrast which is also consistent with the teachings of the ancient churches. There never was a problem with the way justification was taught prior to the Reformation; that was my intended meaning.

Do you mean to say then, that the Reformation didn't introduce anything new concerning Justification?