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?

***This might usefully take us back to what the [first question in this series](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/107548/10672) pointed to – Paul’s explanation to Christians*** in Galatians 3:10-12. That last verse is connected to Leviticus 18:5. And perhaps 1 Peter 3:18 might show God’s plan of saving humanity from this curse of the law. But I don’t want to cramp your answers, just so long as they actually stick to the confines of this last series of questions – if you don’t mind! Is it reasonable to suggest that justification cannot be obtained through human efforts; that faith in the work of Christ avails for salvation, and that reliance to any degree on works excludes trust in the finished work of Christ? 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.

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

I am researching *substantiated references to statements from Presbyterian Denominations* ; I am not seeking 'biblical responses' or individual opinions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Many Presbyterian Denominations uphold the Westminster Confession and other 'statements of faith' which follow on from it. As a result, many promote the law as being the 'rule of life' for the Christian believer. But this does not appear to me to be what Paul the apostle is advocating in Galatians 5:22-25. > But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: ***against such there is no law***. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also ***walk in the Spirit***. [Galatians 5:22-25 KJV] Paul, here, states that Christian believers have 'crucified the flesh'. Clearly this is a spiritual matter not a physical one. *Their faith aligns them with Christ.* Thus, as Paul says in another place, God ... hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus, Ephesians 2:5,6. These things are not physical, but spiritual and a *matter of believing.* Thus, if their flesh is crucified (by faith in Christ) the law is no longer held before them. ***For the law has nothing to say to someone who is dead.*** The law has seen a just conclusion to sin, in that death. >For he that is dead is freed from sin. [Romans 6:7 KJV] Rather, in his epistle to the churches of Galatia, Paul points the Galatian believers to the working of the indwelling Spirit (not to an external rule of law). And he emphasises that the workings of the Holy Spirit produce in them : love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance. If such is within them, says Paul, there is no law that will condemn them. Against such, he says, there is no law. As he says in yet another place : >There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. [Romans 8:1,2 KJV] Or, if I remove the translated English ambiguity from the Greek text, and then translate the Greek word, *nomos*, with another one of the legitimate English word translations : >... the rule of the Spirit (of life in Christ Jesus) hath made me free from the rule of sin and death. What do Presbyterian Denominations say in regard to Galatians 5:22-25 to support their idea that the law is the 'rule of life' for the believer ? --------------------------------- EXTRACTS from the Westminster Confession, Chapter 19 : - The moral law doth **forever [sic] bind all**, as well justified persons [sic] as others , to the obedience thereof. - Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, **as a rule of life,** informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly ... - ... and **the threatenings of it** serve to show what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, Westminster Confession - Chapter 19 --------------------------------------------------------------- All scriptural quotes and references are to the KJV and the Received Text.

**I ask Reformed Protestants** because at a time of worship with Reformed Protestants two days ago, I heard the preacher twice say that “Christ perfectly kept the law on our behalf”. Once during his prayer, and again during his sermon, making the claim that when believers do sin, Jesus having perfectly kept the law means that we will be pardoned due to that. I have searched the phrase “the blood of Christ” (and what it does for believers), but **nowhere can I find any phrase about Jesus perfectly keeping the O.T. law to ensure forgiveness for their later sins**. I list 12 verses on the blood of Christ to illustrate the importance the Bible gives to it: Acts 20:28; Ephesians 1:7; Colossians 1:14 & 20; Hebrews 9:12 & 14 & 22, & 12:24; 1 Peter 1:19; 1 John 1:7; Revelation 1:5 & 7:14. (Not an exhaustive list.) But nowhere do I read anything about Jesus keeping the law perfectly so that we can have (daily?) sins after conversion ‘covered over’. So, ***can anyone give me any such scriptures***, please? I am concerned in case such an idea implies that the blood of Christ is not entirely sufficient.

Given various quotes and hymns from the mid 1700s onward, it seems some Reformed Protestants were showing how the Old Testament law only served to make it impossible to find the liberation that the gospel of Christ brings. From then, even till today, a popular claim in many Reformed Protestant circles is that the Law of Moses is the believers’ ‘rule of life’ – meaning the Ten Commandments which have the moral essence. One example of such a claim was a sermon preached on behalf of the Evangelical Association on 16th August, 1787 at a chapel in Artillery Lane. There it was stated from the pulpit that, *“The moral law is the foundation of all religion, both moral and divine.”* To substantiate it, the way Moses struck the rock so that water gushed out, was paralleled with Christians ‘smiting the law’ by keeping it, to get refreshing comforts from doing that. Another preacher of the time wrote at length about such claims. One instance was where he said, “A friend of mine once asked a certain divine in London what he thought of the law as the believer’s only rule of life. He replied, *"The believer must look with one eye to Christ, and with the other to the law."* (The author’s friend said to the divine that, then, every believer must be cross-eyed!) *Law and Grace Contrasted* William Huntington – Addresses, p.125, edited and abridged version published in 1999 **Was there something of a battle going on between two groups of Reformed Protestants on the matter of Mosaic law-keeping, and if so, why?**

Deuteronomy 13:1-4 [states](http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0513.htm) : >1. All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. > > 2. If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams--and he give thee a sign or a wonder, > > 3. and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spoke unto thee--saying: 'Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them'; > > 4. thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God putteth you to proof, to know whether ye do love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. My understanding is that Christians believe that Jesus abrogated the Mosaic law (e.g. keeping the Sabbath, dietary restrictions, etc.) and they no longer feel bound by them. How, then, do they understand the above passage, which states that one may not subtract commandments from the Law, and which seems to imply that a true prophet will not do so?

First off, I admit that I am not entirely sure if there is a term/title for a theological framework that suggest we must keep the Torah. Does one exist (similar to we have titles like "Reformed Theology" or "Dispensationalism")? With this, I see there are many tangential questions to the topic of Acts 15, but the questions at the end of my post here have not been addressed so I do not believe this to be a duplicate post. That said, Acts 15 appears to directly address the matter of whether Gentiles are required to keep the law of Moses, and the council’s decision seems to clearly oppose that idea. I have seen individuals suggest that this is *not* the topic/discussion within Acts 15, however, the chapter seems fairly straight forward. Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be how the chapter unfolds: 1. **The Dispute Leading to the Council** Certain individuals come to Antioch, teaching that Gentiles must be circumcised to be saved. This creates a significant dispute, leading Paul and Barnabas to travel to Jerusalem to address the issue. - **Acts 15:1-2** > “And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.” 2. **The Council Begins Discussion** Upon arrival in Jerusalem, the matter is raised again. Certain believers of the Pharisees (also?) insist that Gentiles must be circumcised and keep the law of Moses, prompting a formal discussion among the apostles and elders. - **Acts 15:5-6* > “But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.” 3. **Peter’s Speech and the Yoke** Peter addresses the council, reminding them that God has already shown His acceptance of the Gentiles by giving them the Holy Ghost, and argues against placing a yoke upon them that neither their ancestors nor they could bear. - **Acts 15:10-11** > “Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.” 4. **The Council’s Decision and the Letter** The apostles and elders decide to write to the Gentile believers, acknowledging that some had troubled them by teaching circumcision and Torah observance without the church’s authority. They instead advise Gentiles to avoid certain practices linked to pagan worship. - **Acts 15:24-29** > “Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment: > … For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well.” **My Question(s):** How do those who uphold Torah Observance reconcile their position with Acts 15? Specifically: - How is Peter’s argument in verses 10-11, which describes the law as an unbearable "yoke" and emphasizes salvation through grace, understood within the framework of Torah Observance? - How is the statement in the letter (verse 24) that teachings about circumcision and keeping the law of Moses were troubling and unauthorized by the apostles addressed? - How is verse 28, which lists only a few "necessary things," interpreted in light of the earlier claims that Gentiles must keep the law of Moses? Does this not contradict such a requirement? Bible verses are KJV. Thank you and God bless.

I asked this question on the hermeneutics SE but I was told it would be better to ask here. What I can say is I'm not looking for an answer explaining that salvation is through Christ only, because it is obvious and it was even my assumption for this question. What I'm wondering is more about what Jesus actually meant if we know He is the only way of salvation. In Matthew 23:13, we can read: >But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because **you shut the kingdom of heaven against men**; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in - **Matthew 23:13 (RSV-CE)** In Catholic, Polish Bible "Biblia Tysiąclecia", there's a commentary to this verse (translated to English): >By imposing excessive requirements around the Law, **they made it impossible for people to observe it, thereby closing the way to salvation**. They also bear the greatest blame for the people's unbelief in Jesus the Messiah. Is this commentary accurate? I'm asking because in my opinion, someone could conclude from this verse that the Law could've been observed in a feasible way that leads to salvation which we know is actually impossible because humans are not able to observe the Law entirely and perfectly (that's why Jesus, who can do that, had to redeem us on the cross). And also, would observing the Law in a hard way be considered a sin if it "shuts the kingdom of heaven" or not so much sin as it leads to commiting one? If it is, who is actually responsible for that sin? Were people aware of it? If not, why would God close the heaven for such people if they did it unintentionally? Or were they kind of deceived, so both deceived and deceiver commited sin? The only interpretation that comes to my mind is it refers to observing the Law before Christ's death, but still those people couldn't observe the Law perfectly and needed redemption on the cross. Maybe it is just about observing in the right way as much as possible, not observing perfectly and entirely?

For those that believe in transubstantiation, that the bread and wine of the Eucharist literally become the flesh and blood of Christ, why were there no schisms concerning this within the Early Church IF this is what they believed and taught? The Noahide Covenant and the Mosaic Law not only both expressly forbid the consumption of blood - with the penalty of being cut off from Israel - but it is one of the few commands deemed essential for Gentile converts to follow as well, despite not being under the Mosaic Law. It is thus not simply a matter of ceremonial cleanliness at stake; but an ex-communicable offense. The early church itself was composed of Jewish converts who carried with them their previous beliefs. This led to controversies like demanding that Gentiles get circumcised and to those who claimed within the church that there was no resurrection (like the Sadducees) as well as to controversies over what food they were permitted to eat amongst Gentiles. Such concerns are clearly reflective of Jewish religious life back when. Now, if the disciples and apostles had gone around preaching that the Eucharist literally was flesh and BLOOD - do you not think that this would have caused not a little controversy amongst the Jewish Christians? Would not Paul have to defend why he was not cut off from Israel - let alone how Gentiles are grafted onto Israel - if they routinely committed an excommunicatable offense? And even if fellow Christians could be convinced of the matter - it surely would have been a point of objection from those Jewish authorities that sought to persecute the Church; like Paul prior to his conversion. Yet the biblical testimony is absolutely silent on such a controversy. Nor, again, do the Church Fathers record such a controversy; even in their lengthy volumes recording actual or fictional conversations with Jews. The closest we get are apologies against those who assert that Christians were cannibals - a valid claim IF the Eucharist is literal flesh and blood.

Having read an article in the British November 2024 *Evangelical Times* newspaper on this question, I was heartily in agreement with it till halfway through, thus giving rise to my question. Very briefly, the writer clearly showed from scripture that we are all doomed to fall under God’s judgment unless our union with Adam changes to union with Christ (Romans 5:14). But then I was troubled to read an interpretation of that chapter ***claiming we are “saved through the obedience of Christ.”*** The writer subscribes to the *Westminster Confession of Faith* that this was Christ perfectly keeping the Law on our behalf. (XIX.5 & 6) Yet the writer then admitted that: > [Many Christians] “still find the pull of legalism to be powerful… Is > my Christian living up to standard? Am I doing well enough to remain > on track for heaven?” *Evangelical Times*, article [‘Joined to the wrong man’](https://www.evangelical-times.org/joined-to-the-wrong-man/) p.10, Vol. 58 No.11 He says such questions are inapplicable as it is who we are united to that determines eternal destinies – and that is true – but my question is, What ***enables*** anyone to be transferred from being united to Adam to Christ? (I am not asking *whether* we are joined to Adam - this question is for those in the Reformed Protestant category, for whom that is a given.) I thought Romans chapter 5 spoke of our “being justified ***by his blood***… reconciled ***by the death of his Son***… saved ***by his life***” (vs. 9-10). When it speaks of obedience, it is Christ having been ***“obedient unto death, even the death of the cross”***, surely? **Is there anywhere in the entire Bible that states we have union with Christ through his obedience to the Law?** Yet if people believe that, is it no wonder they get pulled into legalistic doubts?

Revelation 14:12 (KJV) > 12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they **that keep the commandments of God**, and the faith of Jesus. I've seen [Sabbatarians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbatarianism) bring up this verse of Revelation as evidence that true Christians should keep the commandments of God, including the Sabbath commandment ([Exodus 20:8-11](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=exodus+20%3A8-11&version=KJV)) . In fact, in a [related question](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/q/40100/38524) posted on Hermeneutics.SE, the most upvoted answers tend to agree that Revelation 14:12 **at least** includes the 10 commandments (but possibly more). If that's true, then the Sabbatarian has a solid point here. How do non-Sabbatarians interpret Revelation 14:12?

The following comes from a book by Jason Meyer, *The End of the Law: Mosaic Covenant in Pauline Theology*, pages 2 & 3 (B&H 2010). It was about historical digging into those O.T. and N.T. themes. The quote that seems to have come down to today is: > Run, John, run, the Law commands, But gives us neither feet nor > hands. Far better news the Gospel brings, It bids us fly and gives > us wings. An earlier version of this is in Charles Spurgeon’s writings, *The Salt-Cellars: Being a Collection of Proverbs, Together with Homely Notes Thereon*, page 200 (London, Passmore & Alabaster, 1889) It goes: > Run, John and work, the Law commands, yet finds me neither feet nor > hands. But sweeter news the Gospel brings; it bids me fly and lends me > wings!” Spurgeon attributes this to an **English revivalist and hymn writer, John Berridge (1716 – 1793)**. The third quote, however, is: > A rigid matter was the Law, demanding brick, denying straw. But when > with Gospel tongue it sings, it bids me fly and gives me wings. This is ascribed to **17th-18th Century Scottish preacher, Ralph Erskine (1685 – 1752)**. I note its reference to the Israelites in Egypt being commanded to increase their brick-production, but this time they had to find their own straw to do so. **My question is two-fold: (1)** to ask if anybody with knowledge of religious quotes from that era to clarify what would have been the original quote, and who originated that quote. Even if that cannot be done, **I further ask (2)** what would the quote actually mean to Protestant Christians from the end of the 17th century to the end of the 18th?

> **Matthew 5:17-18 (KJV) ** > **17** Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. **18** For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. As I understand it, the Law of Moses is fulfilled in Christ. We don't make sacrifices anymore, and many other of the finer points in the Pentateuch are no longer preached. Yet, I still see people reference these books for doctrine (for example the 10 Commandments). How much of the Law of Moses still applies?

We hear that we are no longer under the law. It even says so in Galatians: >[Galatians 3:23-25](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galations%203:23-25&version=NIV)
> Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian. It seems [1 Corinthians 10:23](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%2010:23&version=NIV) also supports this. But yet, Jesus said that he did not come to abolish the law: >[Matthew 5:17-18](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:17-18&version=NIV)
>“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished." **What did Jesus mean that he did not come to abolish the law, but fulfill it**, especially since it seems from later in the Bible that he *did* abolish the law.

Deuteronomy 29:29 KJV >The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children **for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.** Isaiah 59:21 > “As for me, this is my covenant with them,” says the Lord. “My Spirit, who is on you, will not depart from you, and my words that I have put in your mouth will always be on your lips, **on the lips of your children and on the lips of their descendants—from this time on and forever**,” says the Lord. Do these verses prove that Old Testament law is still to be followed since it is to be followed forever?

In the Lord's Prayer, Jesus famously says: Matthew 6:12 NMB > And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. This seems to be a *law* thing, as it means "unless you forgive, you will not be forgiven". How is it then, that Lutherans (or other Evangelical/Protestant Churches) understand this in a *Gospel* sense, where this becomes a promise telling us "forgive because you too have been forgiven", as Luther says in the Small Catechism .

Deuteronomy 13:1-4 [states](http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0513.htm) : >1. All this word which I command you, that shall ye observe to do; thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. > > 2. If there arise in the midst of thee a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams--and he give thee a sign or a wonder, > > 3. and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spoke unto thee--saying: 'Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them'; > > 4. thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or unto that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God putteth you to proof, to know whether ye do love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. The above passage seems to state that one may not subtract commandments from the Law of Moses which the Jewish people were commanded to obey, and seems to imply that a true prophet will not do so. Do Christians believe that Jews must still obey the Mosaic Law, and if not, how is that consistent with the above passage?

I am looking for the quotes of early Church Fathers describing the ability of the law. **Did they believe the law was never meant & able to justify or give life?** In other words, it did not justify anyone before the coming of the promise (Christ). I am sure about the views of Augustine and Jerome that they didn't believe the law could ever give life, but I need some more quotes. I didn't see that view being shown clearly from John Chrysostom's Homily on Galatians 3:21. It would be great if you can share the views of early fathers with unambiguous quotes, and if possible, do share the Greek text as well. I suspect Jerome and Augustine along with Marcion might have been the first known leaders who taught that the law was never able to justify, rather than its temporal end due to the coming of Christ. Christ being the end of the law-righteousness. (Rom 10:4). John Chrysostom quote from the Homilies of Chrysostom: > [\[Commentary - Galatians 3:21\]][1] Ver. 21. "For if there had been a law given which could make alive verily righteousness would have been of the Law." > >His meaning is as follows; If we had our hope of life in the Law, and our salvation depended on it, the objection might be valid. But if it save you, by means of Faith, though it brings you under the curse, you suffer nothing from it, gain no harm, in that Faith comes and sets all right. Had the promise been by the Law, you had reasonably feared lest, separating from the Law, you should separate from righteousness, but if it was given in order to shut up all, that is, to convince all and expose their individual sins, far from excluding you from the promises, it now aids you in obtaining them. This is shown by the words,