I get mixed messages. Protestantism declares that justification is by faith alone. Catholicism declares that justification requires faith supplemented with various stipulations. **Yet both Protestants and Catholics seem to declare that what they really need are the shedding of divine blood.** Faith, works and divine blood... what part does each play in effectual justification for Catholics vs Protestantism?

Why is the doctrine that a Christian subscribes to such as Trinitarianism, Unitarianism, Methodists, Baptists et cetera so important when someone like Abraham was justified on faith alone? God told him to leave and he did and it was accorded him righteousness: *Genesis 15:6* >Abraham believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness. Paul also reinforced that salvation is by faith alone: *Romans 4:3* >Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” The two instances above actually seem to teach that believing in Jesus is what actually saves people and not whether or not they were Trinitarian or Unitarian since faith is universal to all Christian denominations. The Jewish saints of the OT who came after Moses did not seek a reason as to why God who is "one" uses the word "us" to refer to Himself; they did not care about doctrine yet they were saved, so why is it so important now?

One of the implications of the [New Perspective on Paul](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Perspective_on_Paul) (NPP), as I understand it, is that Paul's teachings regarding the "works of the law" (in [Galatians 2:16](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=galatians+2%3A16&version=ESV) , for example) are meant to refer only to "boundary marker" laws, that is, laws like circumcision, diet, and calendar, as opposed to all of God's law. This can have a significant impact on one's doctrine of justification, as it opens the door for other "works" (besides circumcision, etc.) to be part of the basis of one's salvation. One challenge to this aspect of the NPP that I've seen is based on other references to the "works of the law" in Paul's writings, where he uses the same phrase but appears to be referring to the entire law. For example, [Romans 3:20](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans+3%3A20&version=ESV) : > For by works of the law no human being will be justified in his sight, since through the law comes knowledge of sin. (ESV) Here, critics of the NPP say, Paul is clearly referring to the entire law, not just "boundary marker" laws, since elsewhere he recognizes many other sins besides failure to circumcise. But to me an even stronger passage appears to be [Galatians 3:10](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=galatians+3%3A10&version=ESV) : > For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” (ESV) Here, quoting [Leviticus 18:5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=leviticus+18%3A5&version=ESV) , Paul's use of "*all* things written in the Book of the Law," as opposed to *some*, is seen as plain evidence that "works of the law" to him means more than just circumcision, etc. Thus, the question: **How do proponents of the New Perspective on Paul respond to challenges to their view of Paul's "works of the law" that are based on Galatians 3:10 and similar passages?**

I understand that N.T. Wright, an Anglican Bishop, has been promoting this teaching in evangelical churches. [*Source*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._T._Wright) >According to Wright, "Paul in the twentieth century, then, has been used and abused much as in the first. Can we, as the century draws towards its close, listen a bit more closely to him? Can we somehow repent of the ways we have mishandled him and respect his own way of doing things a bit more?" Sounds eminently reasonable to me. However, after reading [this section](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._T._Wright#Views) re on his theological views, I found myself somewhat confused, and so I would appreciate a simplified summary of what he says about Justification, Righteousness, Covenant and works of the Law. [This article](https://www.gotquestions.org/New-Perspective-Paul.html) from the *GotQuestions* website presents arguments against the New Perspective on Paul, as does John Piper's 2007 book [The Future of Justification: A Response to N. T. Wright](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1581349645) . I understand that Wright has addressed the issue of Justification in his 2009 book [*Justification: God’s Plan and Paul's Vision*](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0830851399) , but I do not have access to it. A very brief summary of his reply can be read in a [2009 interview by Trevin Wax](https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/interview-with-nt-wright-responding-to-piper-on-justification/) , where he refers the reader to a fuller response in his book [Paul: In Fresh Perspective](https://www.amazon.com/dp/0800663578) .

As a result of the crucifixion of Jesus, all who truly accept Christ will receive salvation and have their sins washed away. But how is it just that the guilty person not be held accountable for the sin they committed?

Can someone give a summary of how to read Romans 1-4 in "[Beyond Justification: Liberating Paul's Gospel](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/205122128-beyond-justification) "? From a [podcast](https://wipfandstock.com/blog/2024/03/05/douglas-a-campbell-and-jon-depue-liberating-pauls-gospel-from-justification-theory/) , I got the idea that Paul actually starts with a Socratic argument, rather than plainly stating what he believes and how things work. I'm not sure if I properly understood it though. According to the authors of the book, Romans 1-4 is the basis for "Justification Theory", an Atonement Theory often in the form of Penal Substitution. But 90% of what Paul wrote, "the gospel" as laid out by Paul in the rest of his corpus, doesn't work like that, namely: your faith in Christ is a sign that you are elected and thus saved and equipped to do good works. Perhaps I got that part wrong too, feel free to correct me.

The idea of justification seems to come often in Paul, Romans 3:20: > Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in > his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin Jesus affirms something even more bluntly, John 5:24: > “Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who > sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over > from death to life. However, why does justification even matter, and how is it that the justified are not even coming into judgement, since, everything seems to end up in judgement anyways: Romans 2:6 > God “will repay each person according to what they have done.” Jesus (Matthew 7:21): > Not everyone who says to me 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of > heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.

I've been a Christian for about 5 years now and I'm in a non-denominational setting. However, I'm having a hard time agreeing with my pastors, who are telling me that if I believe in Jesus (a type of belief that shows fruit of the Spirit of course, which I do), I'll go to heaven. The core of the issue for me is Romans 14:23 - "**But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin**." I'm not as much concerned with the command in particular, but more the thought that this passage is saying whoever sins (at least in this way) is condemned (and remember, the context is very clearly talking about a Christian with a weak faith). All the Christians I know always quote Romans 8, which says there's no condemnation for those in Christ - they use it to assure themselves of going to heaven when they feel guilty. I hope you can see my dilemma here? The word 'condemned' here is the same word in Greek here as in Romans 8!! And the same word Jesus uses when talking about people being condemned if they don't believe! I see the same word for 'condemned' used to talk about final judgement again in 1 Corinthians 11:32, also talking specifically about believers. One commentary I saw said the word condemned doesn't necessarily mean condemned to hell, but I just haven't seen good evidence for that. Why would the biblical writers use a main word for how the Bible talks about final judgement in a context where it didn't mean that? That would just confuse and scare people unnecessarily! I'm confused because the Bible does genuinely say we're justified by faith. But, in light of these verses, it seems almost to mean we're justified by our moment-to-moment obedience to faith, with some evidence that God will get us to heaven eventually, even perhaps through periods of being condemned. That's the best I've got without finding some way around these verses about condemnation. I wish I could believe what my church believes - that if I just have faith in Jesus (that shows fruit of the Spirit), I'll go to heaven. But I just don't see solid evidence for that perspective in light of these verses. Do any of you have any perspective on this?

Forensic justification is defined as strictly legal declaration as justified, rather than reckoning or acknowledging someone as righteous to justify him. In other words, a person is declared righteous despite being a sinner, and remain an ungodly sinner, but God overlooks justice for him and let him go. Is it acceptable if we characterize this as a false justification or forged justification - contrary to fact? As if a forged document of righteousness is given by God? And what is the origin of this theological jargon called *forensic justification*, who came up with it? The false justification characterization fits well with Luther's own description. Luther’s “Sermon on Our Blessed Hope ”: >We see grain sowed in the ground. Reason now asks: What happens to the grain in winter that has been sowed in the ground? Is it not a **dead, moldy, decayed thing, covered with frost and snow**? But in its own time it grows from that dead, moldy, decayed grain into a beautiful green stalk, which flourishes like a forest and produces a full, fat ear on which there are 20, 30, 40 kernels, and thereby finds life where only death existed earlier. Thus God has done with heaven, earth, sun and moon, and does every year with the grain in the field. He calls to that which is nothing that it should become something and does this **contrary to all reason**. Can He not also do something which serves to glorify the children of God, even though it is **contrary to all reason?** In another quote: >Conceived in sorrow and corruption, the child sins in his mother’s womb. As he grows older, the innate element of corruption develops. Man has said to sin: ‘Thou art my father’—and every act he performs is an offense against God; and to the worms: ‘You are my brothers’—and he crawls like them in mire and corruption. He is a bad tree and cannot produce good fruit; a **dunghill**, and can only exhale foul odors. He is so thoroughly corrupted that it is absolutely impossible for him to produce good actions. Sin is his nature; he cannot help committing it. Man may do his best to be good, still his every action is unavoidably bad; he commits a sin as often as he draws his breath. (Werke, (Wittenberg Edition), Vol. III, p. 518.) It is surprising that such a traditional fundamental Lutheran theology is not known by most common reformed believers, including Evangelicals; so I'd encourage the Lutherans not to rush in closing the question, but allow everyone to learn despite the disagreements. Neither Luther nor his followers are embarrassed in admitting their theology, and if one rejects them, they should be honestly realize that they reject the traditional reformed theology, rather than being defensive and attempting to censor the studies and debates on these topics. Had it been for N. T. Wright, we wouldn't have known about this, because the Lutheran scholars have responded to Wright's NPP interpretations of Rom 4:5, by defending the traditional view, and only then the laymen like us discovered these beliefs through them. >First, as **many commentators note**, God is here said to do what he forbids judges to do. In a striking parallel to Rom 4:5 the Greek text of Isa 5:23 pronounces a woe on οἱ δικαιοῦντες τὸν ἀσεβῆ (“those who justify the ungodly). In Prov 17:15 “he who justifies the wicked and he who condemns the righteous are both alike an abomination to the LORD.” In Exod 23:7 the Lord himself swears that he will not justify the ungodly. Daniel Wallace writes addressing to Wright's controversy. >Among his many points, Sprinkle notes that in the OT God did not justify wicked people, citing, inter alia, Exod 23.7 and Isa 5.23. In my class on the exegesis of Romans, which I have taught at Dallas Seminary for the past seven years, I have argued that these two texts are key to Paul’s thinking and that the Jews of his day would have realized this. Exodus 23.7 clearly involves legal language. It is this language which lies behind Paul’s points in Rom 3.23–24 and 4.4–5. In v. 7 we see δικαιόω used with ἀσεβής: ‘you shall not justify the ungodly for a bribe’ (οὐ δικαιώσεις τὸν ἀσεβῆ ἕνεκεν δώρων). This can only mean ‘you shall not declare innocent the ungodly for a bribe.’ Three things are significant here: (1) δικαιόω means, in this legal context, ‘declare righteous/innocent’; it does not mean ‘make righteous.’ (2) **The person who might be declared innocent is in fact guilty** (ἀσεβῆ), **precisely the situation we have in Rom 3:23–24.** (3) The word for bribe is δῶρον, a cognate of δωρεάν found in Rom 3:24. It would of course not do for Paul to say that God declares sinners righteous ‘for a bribe,’ so an appropriate substitute is needed—one that is a cognate of δῶρον, but does not use ἕνεκεν or imply anything except that God acts freely when he justifies sinners. δωρεάν is the accusative singular of δωρεά; as such, it is adverbial (always so in the NT) and means ‘freely.’ It is not insignificant that we again see in the LXX of Isa 5.23 the collocation of δικαιόω with ἀσεβής and δῶρον. And again, we see that δικαιόω must almost surely mean ‘declare innocent’ since the pronouncement is made on the ungodly who do not deserve it. Dr. Craig quotes Henri Blocher and D. G. Dunn, >“That God’s righteousness towards the peoples he has created includes wrath and judgment as well as faithfulness and salvation is clearly implicit in the sequences Romans 1:16-18 and 3:3-6.” Those who deny that dikaiōsynē is a forensic term, Dunn says, pay insufficient attention to Romans 4:4-5, “where the forensic background is clear in the allusion to the legal **impropriety** of a judge ‘justifying the ungodly’. . . , and where again the thought is entirely of attributing a righteous status to one who is unrighteous.” Dunn’s point is that Paul’s referring to God as “him who justifies the ungodly” (Romans 4:5) recalls the Old Testament description of the unjust judge who justifies the wicked (Proverbs 17:15), which is an abomination in the Lord’s sight. French theologian Henri Blocher remarks on “the staggering audacity of Paul’s combination of words: God who justifies the ungodly (Rom 4:5) The Cambridge Dictionary defines "impropriety " as: behavior that is dishonest, socially unacceptable, or unsuitable for a particular situation: *financial/legal impropriety allegations of sexual impropriety*.

When someone believes on Jesus Christ how does Jesus sinless perfect righteousness is transferred to the believer and the believer's sin transferred to Jesus? Like what is the theory or doctrine that explains this in detail. And how is Jesus who was one man also God but one man imputes his righteousness for more than one sinner? For example if you have debt of $100 and I have $100 and I take your debt and you take my $100??

>Then stood up Phinehas and executed judgment ... and that was counted to him for **righteousness unto all generations for evermore**. [Psalm 106:30,31 KJV.] > >Phinehas hath turned my wrath away ... wherefore .. I give unto him a covenant of peace and he shall have it **and his seed** after him, the covenant of an **everlasting priesthood**. [Numbers 25:11-13, KJV ] The covenant here expressed regards righteousness and is promised to the seed of Phinehas (not as of many seeds - see Galatians 3:16 - but of one) everlastingly. Now, Elizabeth was of the daughters of Aaron. And Mary, the mother of Jesus, was Elizabeth's close relative (Luke 1:5 and 36) not by marriage but by blood (Luke 1:35-40). Therefore Mary was of the tribe of Levi by birth. Only by marriage was she of the tribe of Judah, not by birth or blood. Nor could **any man** descended (naturally, by any means) from Jeconiah onwards ascend the throne for : >Thus saith the LORD, Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for **no man of his seed** shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah. [Jeremiah 22:30, KJV.] The curse on Jeconiah was impossible to overcome, by any natural means or by any devious manipulation of the royal rights. It was finished. Humanity was prevented from ascending the throne, for ever. But then a 'woman compassed a man' and a man married that woman. And that changed everything. Yet that humanity formed within Mary did have a connection ... to Phinehas and to a promise of an everlasting Priesthood. The significance of this seems to have escaped Protestants, as far as I can tell, despite the fact that it is immensely important regarding the matter of justification by faith, the accounting of the righteousness of God to the faith of them that believe in Jesus Christ. My supposition is that Protestants, rejecting the worship of Mary, have nevertheless neglected to consider her contribution and have overlooked the importance of her genealogy 1 in regard to the promises made to Phinehas and inherited by Jesus, through Mary. (Just as promises were made to David, the king, and were inherited by Jesus, through - adoption by - Joseph.) **Is this so, that this has been neglected ?** Or is it the case that some Protestants have noticed the significance of these two highly important passages in Psalm 106 and Numbers 25 and have recognized the significance of what is inherited through Phinehas and Mary, as we see so much inherited through David and Joseph ? And, if so, where is this recognition documented ? ----------------------------- 1 Just for background interest I add the following : With considerable similarity to the tripled repeat of fourteen generations - the royal line - from Abraham to Christ through Judah (see Matthew 1:1-15) it can be shown that there is a tripled repeat of twelve generations (the significant number of covenant) from Aaron to Christ through Phinehas and Mary. [The genealogy in Luke is sometimes claimed to be Mary's genealogy but it is clearly not so by its content. Luke's list is not the *royal line* (the throne often not passing by direct heritage) but is the *natural line* of begetting.] Data in Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles gives the following : Twelve generations from Aaron to the days of David: Aaron, Eleazar, Phinehas, Abishua, Bukki, Uzzi, Zerahiah, Meraioth, Amariah, Ahitub, Zadok, Ahimaaz Twelve generations from David to the Babylonian captivity: Ahimaaz, Azariah, Johanna, Azariah, Amariah, Ahitub, Zadok, Shallum, Hilkiah, Azariah, Seraiah, Ezra Twelve generations from Captivity until Christ: Ezra, Jeshua, Joiakim, Eliashib, Joiada, Jonathan, Jaddua, [G8 G9 G10] Mary, Jesus called Christ. G8 is either Levi or Eleazar G9 is either Melchi or Matthan G10 is Joachim G8, G9 and G10 are not recorded in scripture but recorded in Doctrina Jacobi and by Tiberias and by John of Damascus. Any further information on this genealogy would be welcome either publicly or privately.

The Bible says our righteousness is a filthy rag(works) it also says we are the righteous of God in Christ Jesus. As a Catholic at a state of grace is it right to still call myself a sinner when I have been justified by grace taking upon me Jesus Christ righteous?

I read that claim in an article written by A.M. Toplady (reproduced in a 2020 Christian magazine.) Toplady (1740-1778) did not go on to give his reasons for that claim, apart from adding, "An Antinomian looks to be justified by his works." Toplady is best known for hymns, such as *Rock of Ages* and verse 2 shows his view on the matter of works: "Not the labour of my hands can fulfil thy law's demands. Could my zeal no respite know, could my tears forever flow, all for sin could not atone. Thou must save, and thou alone." His article, however, was dealing with text from the Bible letter of James, written before the end of the first century. Therefore, ***I'm asking this question to those who know about ancient Gnosticism circa the end of the first century, and who also know about Antinomianism.*** Please bear in mind that I'm *not* looking for any opinions about Gnosticism and/or Antinomianism, whether they are good, bad or indifferent religious beliefs. **I'm simply wanting to know why Toplady could have made the claim, "Gnostics were the Antinomians of their day."** What basis might he have had for that?

Roman Catholics Christians reject the concept of faith alone (ie that we are justified solely by our faith in Jesus Christ) and that we are justified by both our faiths and our works, but how do they interpret Ephesians 2:8-9 which clearly teaches faith alone? > For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: > it is the gift of God: > > Not of works, lest any man should boast.

A comment by a Catholic in a discussion with a Protestant about faith vs. good works startled me: > Catholics would consider going to Confession to be a work. It's a specific act you need to do. We don't have any qualms about saying Christians need to do all kinds of works, except the works of the Law. Of course confessing mortal sins are necessary for a Catholic to go back to the state of grace so they can **subsequently** do "good works" that are meritorious. **That's not what at issue here.** Secondly, although liturgy literally means "public work", I'm excluding that meaning here since "work" here seems to refer to what the Church is doing on behalf or for the benefit of the people. I'm thus not asking about the "work" done by the priests to assist a faithful's going to confession but asking **whether it is considered "good work" for the penitent**. So, within the debate with Protestants on salvation, am I wrong in saying that going to the Sacrament of Confession is technically *not* "good works" even if it's necessary to restore the state of grace in order to do "good works" for our salvation? For this question I'm defining "good work" in the sense described by this *Catholic Answers* article [Are Good Works Necessary for Salvation?](https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/are-good-works-necessary-for-salvation) In my understanding of Catholicism, good works are works of love flowing out of faith and powered by grace; works that are meritorious, which God counts toward the final justification of a believer in the state of grace. **So my question is**: According to Catholicism, is going to confession considered "good work" that increases one's righteousness, when considered from the angle that the sacrament merely **enable** us to perform works of love, the LATTER being the meritorious acts contributing to the increase of righteousness (for final justification)?

A *Gospel Coalition* short essay ([Justification and the New Perspective on Paul](https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/essay/justification-new-perspective-paul/)) by Robert J. Cara, author of the 2017 book [Cracking the Foundation of the New Perspective on Paul: Covenantal Nomism versus Reformed Covenantal Theology](https://www.amazon.com/Cracking-Foundation-New-Perspective-Paul/dp/1781919798) , offers **3 broad critiques of NPP** from the perspective of traditional Protestant view of justification, i.e. against NPP which, **according to Cara** (which maybe a misrepresentation !), asserts that: 1. a believer's works are included as part of final justification 2. imputation of Christ's work to the believer is denied Robert Cara's three critiques are: 1. That NPP selectively excludes Jewish documents that testified that works-righteousness DID exist, thus negating the premise that St. Paul was *not* arguing against a legalistic works-righteousness view. 1. That although Paul's "works of the law" as primarily Jewish boundary markers (Sabbath, circumcision and food law) is what's primarily in view in Galatians, there is Biblical evidence for **a more basic** works-righteousness soteriology that Paul was opposing. This negates NPP assertion that to Paul there was no two soteriology (one OT and one NT) since according to NPP both are the same, i.e. OT/NT saints were finally justified based on faith in God/Christ and works. 1. NPP does not include Eph 2:8-10, 2 Tim 1:8-10 and Titus 3:4-7 as part of their analysis of Paul's view of justification, thus excluding key texts that even NPP agrees how those 3 texts support the traditional Protestant grace soteriology. This shows that opposition against works-righteousness was "in the cultural air" of early Christians, something that NPP claims was non-existent in early Judaism. **How do Protestants who support NPP respond to these 3 critiques?** - A cross-tradition Christian website *Conciliar Post* 2022 article *In Defense of the New Perspective on Paul* by Tim Arrington ([part 1](https://conciliarpost.com/theology-spirituality/salvation/in-defense-of-the-new-perspective-on-paul-part-1/) , [part 2](https://conciliarpost.com/theology-spirituality/salvation/in-defense-of-the-new-perspective-on-paul-part-2/) , and [part 3](https://conciliarpost.com/theology-spirituality/salvation/in-defense-of-the-new-perspective-on-paul-part-3/)) contains a good refutation but not supported by scholarly references from current generation NPP scholars such as N.T. Wright or Nijay Gupta, since E.P. Sanders and James Dunn have retired. - Dr. Matthew Halsted's June 2022 interview [*Playing with Theological Explosives*](https://matthewhalsted.com/2022/06/08/1802/) with Matthew J. Thomas, who wrote the 2018 Mohr Siebeck monograph later published (with improvement) by IVP Academic in the 2020 book [Paul's "Works of the Law" in the Perspective of Second Century Reception](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0830855262/) , contains a response to Cara's essay and Cara's review of his book.

On Protestant theology, Sola Fide is understood as: > Sola fide—the doctrine of justification by faith alone apart from works—is simply recognizing what is taught over and over in Scripture—that at some point in time God declares ungodly sinners righteous by imputing Christ’s righteousness to them But I hear many Protestants, such as John MacArthur, who claim that Catholicism doesn't teach the true Gospel: >As long as the Roman Catholic Church continues to assert its own authority and bind its people to “another gospel,” it is the spiritual duty of all true Christians to oppose Roman Catholic doctrine with biblical truth and to call all Catholics to true salvation. But how can this be? I think that every (faithful and informed) Catholic you meet on this site and in real life will say that they have faith in the resurrection of Christ and his teaching. So on the view of Sola Fide, can’t Catholics still be expected to go to heaven since they express faith? Or am I missing something here?

In light of the conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation, a number of countries, including those with significant catholic and Protestant populations (as well as Christians in their respective parliaments) have allowed for the transfer of military aid to Ukraine.* Is there any basis for, or against, aiding others in conflict, whether the combatants are Christian or not? I ask this as I've previously come across the concept of "Just War", but have been struggling to find anything related to the in-direct support of war. *I may use the example of recent conflict, but I'm aware that there are also numerous historical examples of countries with notable Christian populations and Heads of State that supported conflict, but were not directly involved in the conflict by sending soldiers.

I know the obvious trope is that the LDS believe in "salvation by works", but I am looking for definitive church teaching on the nature of mans justification. Preferably, I'd like it to include the different levels of heaven in relation to justification.

While reading J. V. Fesko's *The Theology of the Westminster Standards*, I found an interesting tidbit in the context of his discussion of justification in Reformed theology: > Medieval theologians such as [Lombard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Lombard) argued that Old Testament men were justified through circumcision and women were justified by their faith and good works. Reformed theology, of course, rejects this idea, holding that justification is by faith alone (not circumcision nor good works). But the idea that men were justified on a different basis than women is still intriguing, so I'd like to better understand the view. **What is the basis for arguing that men and women in the OT were justified through different means?** More specifically, here are a few aspects of the question: - What is the biblical and logical basis for such a view? - Why would there be two means of justification, one for men and one for women? - Why would men not also be justified on the basis of "faith and good works"? - Would faith thus not be required for men to be justified? I'd like to restrict the question to the views of Lombard and other scholastics – here I'm not looking for post-Reformation versions of this view.