I have been taught all my Christian life that the uniquely Pauline expression "the works of the law" found in the Epistle to the Romans and the Epistle to the Galatians refers to acts of righteousness, good works and keeping God's commandment. So when Paul denounces the works of the law as lacking justification value, it is taught that it is acts of righteousness, good works and obedience to God's commandments that he denounces. Even though I often wrestled with this identification when I read some passages of Scripture that seem to contradict it, I generally accepted it as the truth. I have however studied the expression and the context in which it is used by Paul and have found it to be referring to circumcision and contingent works and not to righteousness, good works or acts of obedience to God's moral law. I am now curious to find out the origin of the interpretation. I want to be sure I have not missed anything that was considered to arrive at it which makes my conclusion to differ. Has anyone done a study on this or come across any exposition giving the background to this interpretation?

Will we be subject to being part of a particular race in heaven like we were here in this earth or will it be different than here? Personally, I don't want to be part of a particular race. I don't want there to be ethnicities, nationality or creeds there. Heaven is a place of bliss and everything good and holy. Our heavenly bodies should not be subjected to these things.

Deuteronomy speaks several times of a curse attached to God’s law given to Moses, especially in the book of Deuteronomy (e.g. 11:26-30 & 27:4-26.) It is also mentioned elsewhere in the O.T. and Paul goes into this curse to help Christians avoid it (e.g. Galatians 3:10-12). In principle, the law of Moses could bring either a blessing or a curse. That was its very nature. But **this question is only interested in what ‘the curse of the law’ is.** Because this is so vast a topic, I have posted 2 separate follow-up questions, to prevent massive answers, or a debate arising, or lots of comments. The other 2 ask ***‘[Who lie under the curse?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/107549/who-lie-under-the-curse-of-the-law-of-moses-2nd-of-3-questions-on-this-topic)’*** and then, ***‘[What are the consequences of the curse?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/107550/what-are-the-consequences-of-the-curse-attached-to-the-law-of-moses-3rd-of-3-q)’*** This question is scoped for any Christians who believe perfect obedience to God’s laws are the goal all Christians should, and could, aspire to, to be justified; but as there may be very few such individuals on this site, to also seek answers from those who say such a thing is impossible, but that there are aspects of God’s law Christians must follow, albeit not with salvation in view, but to please and honour him.

Who did it apply to in the time of Moses, then in the time of Christ what did Paul say about Gentiles also being cursed in their rebellion (disobedience)? (e.g. Romans 1:18-23 & 2:14-15 & 3:9). Does this mean that the curse rested not only upon the Jews, who had the written law, but also on all men seeking acceptance with God through works of law-keeping? ***The 3rd question in this series asks about [what the consequences of the curse are](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/107550/10672).*** This question is scoped for any Christians who believe perfect obedience to God’s laws are the goal all Christians should, and could, aspire to, to be justified; but as there may be very few such individuals on this site, to also seek answers from those who say such a thing is impossible, but that there are aspects of God’s law Christians must follow, albeit not with salvation in view, but to please and honour him. LINK to 1st question in series: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/107548/what-is-the-curse-of-the-law-of-moses-1st-of-3-questions-on-this-topic/107619#107619

Isn't the point of the life of Jesus to get us to change our hearts and change our behaviors? Shouldn't then the main defining feature of denominations be essentially to what degree you are asked to love? To renounce this world? To the ethical standards you are held? So e.g. a certain denomination might be defined as people who say they believe in the message of Jesus, sing some songs, eat/drink some food, and go once a week. Another denomination might be defined by being of believers who don't eat meat, are pacifist, share all possessions in common, shave their head/beard, and refrain from 300 other nefarious practices, all while partaking in a high church style liturgy 3 times a day and spending at least 3 hours a day in deep centering prayer. In these example denominations, what really defines them is their behavior. Their behavior is downstream of the love, renunciation, peace, joy etc. present in their hearts. But you really don't need sophisticated beliefs to get your heart right. You need to change your desires and your behavior. So again, why are so many denominations defined by abstract, metaphysical matters of theology? Why aren't they defined solely by the behaviors and the desires they are aiming to cultivate or relinquish? Jesus was no theologian. Jesus was a man of action.

Christian doctrine—particularly in Protestant traditions—teaches that salvation is by grace alone through faith (e.g., Ephesians 2:8-9). However, Revelation 20:12 states that the dead are "judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books." How do Christians reconcile salvation by grace with a final judgment based on works? If our works don’t contribute to our salvation, what is their role in the judgment described in Revelation and similar passages?

I thought of this when I was researching [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/3121/when-did-knowledge-of-christs-sacrifice-become-necessary-for-salvation) . [Leviticus 4](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%204&version=NIV) goes into great detail about the sacrifice that must be made in order for a sin to be forgiven. However, we see here that God actually provided a way for these sins to be forgiven. Specifically, Leviticus 16 shows that this sacrifice and the [Day of Atonement](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2016&version=NIV) did provide forgiveness of sins: >[Leviticus 16:30 (NIV)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2016:30&version=NIV)Emphasis added
>because on this day atonement will be made for you, to cleanse you. **Then, before the LORD, you will be clean from all your sins.** Now, Jews no longer provide sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins, however God has still provided a way for these sins to be forgiven. (See [Why don't Jews sacrifice animals anymore?](https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/8862/why-dont-jews-sacrifice-animals-anymore) for more information.) So, if God has previously given us a way to have forgiveness of our sins, why did he send Jesus to be our ultimate sacrifice? *Edit:*
I believe that there is some doctrinal basis for this. I'm not sure which specific doctrine would best be applied to this, but I am seeking a mainstream Protestant doctrine on the matter.

According to the Natural Law why is it wrong for infertile people to engage in nonreproductive sex acts? For example, what if a woman is too old to get pregnant, lacks necessary reproductive organs, is in an infertile period of her menstrual cycle, or is already pregnant? What would be wrong with such women engaging in unnatural sex acts with their husbands? How is this contrary to the reproductive end of sex?

It is reported that the Greek speaking Christians were using the Greek Septuagint as the inspired Old Testament Books during the time in question. The Septuagint includes the Apocrypha or as the Catholics call it, "the Deuterocanonical books that are inspired by God."

Why is the Byzantine Catholic Church also called the Ruthenian Greek Catholic Church? Fr. Hardon's *Catholic Dictionary* defines "Ruthenian Rite " as: >The liturgy used by the Ruthenian Catholics in Poland, the United States, and elsewhere. Said in the Slavonic language, it differs but slightly from the Byzantine Rite in the Orthodox Church. I've even seen such churches called Ukrainian.

When I read Rev 20:11-15 to answer [another question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/107604/10672) an idea occurs to me. Maybe there are two books at play in the Great White Throne Judgment, the book of life (criteria for salvation) and what appears to be the "books of works" (title not given), noting the phrase "another book" and the plural form of "books" in v. 12. Here's the CSB translation: > 11 Then I saw a great white throne and one seated on it. Earth and heaven fled from his presence, and no place was found for them. 12 I also saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and **books were opened**. **Another book was opened, which is the book of life**, and the dead were judged according to **their works by what was written in the books**. 13 Then the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them; each one was judged according to their works. 14 Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. Is it possible that the "book of life" is the criteria of inclusion for going to heaven while the "book of works" (for lack of a better name) is for giving rewards for the "treasures in heaven" (Matt 6:19-21) that one has accumulated while on earth, namely good works out of faith? That the "book of works" contain everything that God sees we do in secret (Matt 6:4) and the unrewarded suffering we do for Christ (Matt 5:10-12)? One is also reminded about Paul talking about how the works of God's servants (who labor in the field of harvest) will be tested by fire (1 Cor 3:10-15). Or is my speculation in the preceding paragraph unwarranted because I'm mixing un-relatable concept of "works" from 3 completely different *genres* (a gospel, an epistle, and an apocalypse)? Am I guilty of reading Matthean / Pauline concepts into Revelation or am I to be applauded for doing ["inductive Bible study"](https://biblestudy.tips/inductive-bible-study/) ? My question: **Compare and contrast Reformed and Catholics view on the role of both books mentioned in the Great White Throne Judgment, especially with regards to "merit" and "reward".** What I'm trying to ascertain: - **For Reformed**: what is the use of the *other* books since it appears that what matters is only whether the names are found in the "book of life"? - **For Catholics**: does the church use the *other* books in connection with the doctrine of good works, **EITHER** with regards to the treasury of merit **OR** with regards to justification by faith and works? **OR BOTH?** *Note*: - For the sake of answerability, I only ask to contrast the Reformed position and the Catholic position as a minimal scoping, although additional position(s) are welcome as a bonus. - To defend that this Q is not opinion-based, I require citations from published Reformed and Catholic theologians.

Yesterday I was debating the topic with my Progressive Christian friend who claimed that the Lord was a refugee. Was Jesus Christ, by definition, a refugee?

David Wilbur makes this claim: 'Christians only stopped participating in temple services because after 70 AD, there were no longer any temple services to participating in'. https://youtu.be/cEBJi9jWguw 16:11 Is there any proof/disproof that believers keept going to the temple after Paul was arrested (Acts 21:27-36)?

Genesis 5 clearly shows the number of years people lived from Adam to Noah. In the modern world, we know that 1 year equals to the number of days the earth revolves around the sun, but this knowledge was just claimed in the 17th century by Galileo while the book of Genesis should have been written much earlier. As another point of view, the calendar system that most parts of the world use today dated back to 45 BC through the introduction of Julian calendar. This may be the first time a wide group of society agreed on how long 1 year is. How did the author of Genesis define how long 1 year was? **EDIT:** While [Why did people live so long before the Flood](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2972/why-did-people-live-so-long-before-the-flood) concerned about the ages (specific to Genesis 5), my question wonders more on the way a year was defined in general, possibly valid across the Pentateuch, by giving Genesis 5 as one example. It does not ask why men lived with such long ages, which had answers such as: bodily well-being was enhanced; a greater degree of nourishment; water before the flood protected human ages; etc. These answers in that discussion did not address my question. Hence my question could have been, "How did Moses define 1 year in Pentateuch?" The problem with this phrase is that it could mistakenly viewed as a duplicate with other discussions, such as [who wrote the Pentateuch](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/1037/who-wrote-the-book-of-genesis/2510#2510) , or whether the Pentateuch was written by the same author. In contrast, my question emphasizes the definition of a "year" written across the Pentateuch. To avoid conflicting discussions, herewith I specify one example by pointing to Genesis 5. An example of satisfying explanation is from one comment below, that one didn't need a calendar to know the years, but used winter and summer.

In the Reformed view of predestination and human will, could we say that human will consists of two inseparable parts — a detached will, as the capacity to deliberate or step back from objects, and an oriented will, as the capacity to unite with or choose an object apparently good? If so, would it be accurate to say that any exercise of the will that *chooses* something other than God represents a false or incomplete use of that will, since only God constitutes the true end that fulfills and rightly orients it as true freedom? In this view, God would be not merely one object of choice, but the very source and end of a properly ordered will. All other created goods—wealth, pleasure, ideologies—represent only *apparent* fulfillments. That would mean that, apart from union with God, human willing collapses into a kind of existential fragmentation: always active, but never truly free. This would imply that: 1. Human beings retain a capacity to will and choice (and thus remain morally responsible) *even in their fallen state*, but this will is fundamentally misoriented since *any* object is going to be a sinful one. 2. Only God's grace restores the true orientation of the will, reordering it toward its proper end in Him (= freedom). 3. Thus, God is not the author of our sin (since our willing as a capacity of abstraction from any object, though corrupted, remains our own), but He alone is the author of our salvation (since only He can rightly reorient the will). Would this framework be consistent with Calvinist theology? Or does it risk introducing assumptions that conflict with doctrines such as total depravity or monergistic regeneration?

Wikipedia says the following: > The patriarchs and matriarchs were either real individuals or believable composites of people who **lived in the "patriarchal age", the 2nd millennium BCE**. But, in the 1970s, new arguments concerning Israel's past and the biblical texts **challenged these views;** What is the most current favoured date?

For Catholics we've got a lot of cool call and response stuff built into our liturgies that can easily translate to everyday life. So if someone in a truck shouts at me "Dominus Vobiscum", I know to say "Et cum spiritu tuo”. I was wandering around down in the southern US a few day ago and someone in a truck yelled at me "Jesus Loves You". I thought that was wonderful and it really cheered me up. I waved and said "thanks". Is there a cool thing that Protestants say (like "ping" - "pong" on IRC or that cool sign Harley guys do)? I know Bill Cosby thought it was cool that Protestants say "Amen", but I don't think that's an "Amen" moment. I want to say "Thanks for remembering me, Jesus loves you too!", I don't want to say "I know, ain't I cool". Also, and this may be pertinent information to the question at hand, I really did look like a hobo at the time. I was walking from a Motel 6 to a Wafflehouse wearing 3 shirts, a jacket, a scraggly beard a stocking cap and carrying a mug and I'd just been camping for the weekend, the fact that I left my sleeping bag and over-stuffed backpack in the hotel room didn't seem to improve my appearance.

The truths Jesus spoke are recorded in the Gospels, and referred to by the Apostles as they continued the new church Jesus began. These unambiguous facts require no special interpretation. 1. Father… that they know you, the only true God. John 17:3 - Jesus eliminates himself from being God - 'only' means no other apart from the Father. 2. The Father has life in himself, so he has granted the son also to have life in himself. John 5:26 - Jesus, allegedly as God, can never not have life in himself. 3. I go to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God John 20:17 - Jesus has a God, rendering him a lessor god at the very least. 4. the Father is greater than I John 14:28 - The construct of co-equality is rendered contradictory 5. no one knows the son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the son Matt 11:27 - The holy spirit is excluded in this special relationship. **Question. Why are these crucial declarations of Jesus ignored by contradictory doctrines about a tri-personal God?** The popular practice of using various misappropriated proof-texts attempting to validate a trinity is of no consequence as they do not 'cancel out' Jesus' truths. Specially interpreted proof-texts used to suggest Jesus IS God are in contradiction with Jesus' words.

Can someone apprise me of a website or a book that solely contains novenas formally approved by the Catholic Church and containing some mark or designation as to that effect? There are novenas galore on the Internet, but I have yet to find one that comes with stamps of approval from either the local ordinary or the pope. Hence, this question. Thank you.

I'm starting a more thorough journey into understanding Anabaptism and neo-Anabaptism (largely through Hauerwas), but I've not used any "generalist" resources yet and so it's not entirely clear where writers are drawing their ideas from at times. So, my two questions: i) Do Anabaptist thinkers draw heavily upon the church fathers? ii) If so, who is the most notable thinker from the tradition(s)? iii) Is there a resource which attempts to show connections and/or tensions between Anabaptists and the church fathers? Thanks!