The argument is assuming that Paul would have held to the Pharisaical addendum's to God's holy law, the examples of such we find in Scripture (Matt 5:21ff; 12:1ff; Lk 13:10ff). However, there can be no doubt, due to Paul's antagonism toward the error of syncretism and synergism, i.e., bringing those things which belonged to the Old Covenant which were types and shadows and fulfilled in Christ into the Church and making them requirements for salvation, that he would not have adhered to them. That alone I think is sufficient to dispel the argument.


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]