Not Under The Law, But Under Grace

[from scratch]

What are you saying from_scratch? That willful sinners are good? Willful sinners aren't good.

The opening line in the Gospels is, "Repent, for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand."

Repent means to forsake sinful ways and turn to God.

unfortunately I don't quite know what to say since the speech police will nab me and bring on the enforcers. I just don't want to deal with the cry babies.

 

[from scratch]

Your suggesting, from_scratch, that SDA isn't Christian?

Since your faith icon doesn't display the SDA faith indicator and you're defending them I also assume you don't believe that either. So in this sense I read deception and fraud.

 

[from scratch]

Feel free to post verse's.

Bout what? Freedom from the law?

Here's a great one -

Now we are delivered from the law.

another one -

For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

another great one -

3 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

3 Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

4 Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.

5 He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

7 Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

9 So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

11 But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

and I love this one for the argument and defense of the truth -

Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

I could go on and choose not to. There are so many great passages I think you refuse to consider. Maybe is it because you haven't read the Bible at least without special glasses that change the text.

 

[from scratch]

\\\\

Wow, that was confusing; are you mad at something or what?

Maybe when you clam down try to make sense.

excuses, excuses, excuses and more excuses

 

[simplefaith]

I was wondering how some on here understand Romans 6:14's "For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace."

The power of sin is the law(1Cor15:56)/righteousness of obeying the law/the legally binding law with the power to condemn. What happens if you remove something's power? It must weaken mustn't it?

For sin shall no longer be your master for you are not under law/righteousness of obeying the law, but under grace/righteousness of faith in Christ Rom6:14

 

[simplefaith]

Law as we all naturally understand law to mean has been abolished for the believer, for that law comes in two parts, what is written in the law and the penalty for transgression. Christ died to pay the believers penalty of transgression/their sin.
But, what is written in the law is holy, just and good(Rom7:12). Jesus did not die at Calvary to abolish what is holy, just and good, he died to end man's condemnation under what is holy, just and good!

Every christian I have ever known, knows in their mind God does not want them to steal, commit adultery, bear false witness, take God's name in vain etc. And, they would say in their heart (the flesh is another matter) they do not want to do those things.

I will write my laws in their minds
And place them on their hearts
THEN HE ADDS
Their sins and lawless deeds I will remember no more.
Hence, what is written in the law is retained, what is holy, just and good, but, the believer is not under law, they are not under its condemnation.

The core foundation upon which the NC stands sums it up very well indeed

 

[Soyeong]

The power of sin is the law(1Cor15:56)/righteousness of obeying the law/the legally binding law with the power to condemn. What happens if you remove something's power? It must weaken mustn't it?

For sin shall no longer be your master for you are not under law/righteousness of obeying the law, but under grace/righteousness of faith in Christ Rom6:14

In Romans 7, Paul said that the Law of God is holy, righteous, and good, that he wanted to do good, that he delighted obeying it, and that he served it with his mind, but contrasted that with the law of sin that was working within his members to cause him not to do the good that he wanted to do, which was waging war against the law of his mind, and that he served with his flesh. In Romans 7:7, Paul said that the Law of God is not sinful, but his how we know what sin is, and when our sin is revealed, then that leads us to repent and causes sin to decrease, however, the law of sin stirs up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death, so it is sinful and causes sin to increase. So verses that refer to a law that is sinful, that causes sin to increase, or that hinders us from obeying the Law of God should be interpreted as referring to the law of sin, such as Romans 5:20, Romans 6:14, Romans 7:5, Galatians 2:19, Galatians 5:16-18, and 1 Corinthians 15:56.

For example, in Roman 7:22, Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Law of God, so it would be absurd to interpret those verses as referring to the Law of God as if Paul delighted in doing those things. A law that is the strength of sin is a law that is sinful, but Romans 7:7 says that the Law of God is not sinful, but 1 Corinthians 15:56 can't be referring to the Law of God.

In Romans 6:15, being under grace does not mean that we are permitted to sin, and in 1 John 3:4, sin is the transgression of the Law of God, so we are still under the Law of God. Moreover, everything in Romans 6 is speaking in favor of serving God and against serving sin.

 

[simplefaith]

In Romans 7, Paul said that the Law of God is holy, righteous, and good, that he wanted to do good, that he delighted obeying it, and that he served it with his mind, but contrasted that with the law of sin that was working within his members to cause him not to do the good that he wanted to do, which was waging war against the law of his mind, and that he served with his flesh. In Romans 7:7, Paul said that the Law of God is not sinful, but his how we know what sin is, and when our sin is revealed, then that leads us to repent and causes sin to decrease, however, the law of sin stirs up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death, so it is sinful and causes sin to increase. So verses that refer to a law that is sinful, that causes sin to increase, or that hinders us from obeying the Law of God should be interpreted as referring to the law of sin, such as Romans 5:20, Romans 6:14, Romans 7:5, Galatians 2:19, Galatians 5:16-18, and 1 Corinthians 15:56.

For example, in Roman 7:22, Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Law of God, so it would be absurd to interpret those verses as referring to the Law of God as if Paul delighted in doing those things. A law that is the strength of sin is a law that is sinful, but Romans 7:7 says that the Law of God is not sinful, but 1 Corinthians 15:56 can't be referring to the Law of God.

In Romans 6:15, being under grace does not mean that we are permitted to sin, and in 1 John 3:4, sin is the transgression of the Law of God, so we are still under the Law of God. Moreover, everything in Romans 6 is speaking in favor of serving God and against serving sin.

In rom ch7:7-11&14-25 one of the TC is being referred to! The law is not sinfull, the law is holy, righteous and good. In verse 5 Paul states sinfull passions are aroused in us by the law. In verse 7 Paul states through his knowledge of the commandment thou shalt not covet all manner of concupiscence was aroused in him, confirming verse 5. In order to understand Paul's spiritual message we need the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The natural mind will never understand. You wouldn't have to tell any born again christian they are not permitted to sin, God took care of that under the core foundation upon which the NC stands.

 

[Soyeong]

In rom ch7:7-11&14-25 one of the TC is being referred to! The law is not sinfull, the law is holy, righteous and good. In verse 5 Paul states sinfull passions are aroused in us by the law. In verse 7 Paul states through his knowledge of the commandment thou shalt not covet all manner of concupiscence was aroused in him, confirming verse 5. In order to understand Paul's spiritual message we need the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The natural mind will never understand. You wouldn't have to tell any born again christian they are not permitted to sin, God took care of that under the core foundation upon which the NC stands.

Indeed, Romans 7 speaks about both the Law of God and the law of sin. A law that arouses sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death is a law that is sinful, but Romans 7:7 says that the Law of God is not sinful, so Romans 7:5 and 7:7 can't both be referring to the same law. Likewise, Paul said in Romans 7:22 that he delighted in obeying the Law of God, so it would be absurd to interpret Romans 7:5 as referring to the Law of God as if Paul delighted in stirring up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death, but rather that is the role of the law of sin. For example, there is nothing intrinsic to the greatest two commandments that stirs up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death, but rather those commandments are the way to inherit eternal life (Luke 10:25-28). The law of sin was something that was working within Paul's members to cause him not to do the good of obeying the Law of God that he wanted to do, so it was responding to the Law of God, but the Law of God is good and it is not that which is good that was bringing death to him (Romans 7:12-13).

If we aren't under the Law of God, then we have the freedom to do what it reveals to be sin, but Paul specifically said that being under grace does not mean that we are permitted to sin, so we are still under the Law of God. Likewise, it is contradictory to think that Spirit leads us to obey law that we are not under.

 

[simplefaith]

Indeed, Romans 7 speaks about both the Law of God and the law of sin. A law that arouses sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death is a law that is sinful, but Romans 7:7 says that the Law of God is not sinful, so Romans 7:5 and 7:7 can't both be referring to the same law. Likewise, Paul said in Romans 7:22 that he delighted in obeying the Law of God, so it would be absurd to interpret Romans 7:5 as referring to the Law of God as if Paul delighted in stirring up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death, but rather that is the role of the law of sin. For example, there is nothing intrinsic to the greatest two commandments that stirs up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death, but rather those commandments are the way to inherit eternal life (Luke 10:25-28). The law of sin was something that was working within Paul's members to cause him not to do the good of obeying the Law of God that he wanted to do, so it was responding to the Law of God, but the Law of God is good and it is not that which is good that was bringing death to him (Romans 7:12-13).

If we aren't under the Law of God, then we have the freedom to do what it reveals to be sin, but Paul specifically said that being under grace does not mean that we are permitted to sin, so we are still under the Law of God. Likewise, it is contradictory to think that Spirit leads us to obey law that we are not under.

Rom7:5&7 cannot be referring to the same law?

For when we were in the realm of the flesh,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death verse5

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment(thou shalt not covet), wrought/aroused in me all manner of concupiscence/sinfull passions. For without the law sin was dead. verrse7

Im sorry, but it is very plainly written. Your reasoning must be faulty

 

[simplefaith]

Indeed, Romans 7 speaks about both the Law of God and the law of sin. A law that arouses sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death is a law that is sinful, but Romans 7:7 says that the Law of God is not sinful, so Romans 7:5 and 7:7 can't both be referring to the same law. Likewise, Paul said in Romans 7:22 that he delighted in obeying the Law of God, so it would be absurd to interpret Romans 7:5 as referring to the Law of God as if Paul delighted in stirring up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death, but rather that is the role of the law of sin. For example, there is nothing intrinsic to the greatest two commandments that stirs up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death, but rather those commandments are the way to inherit eternal life (Luke 10:25-28). The law of sin was something that was working within Paul's members to cause him not to do the good of obeying the Law of God that he wanted to do, so it was responding to the Law of God, but the Law of God is good and it is not that which is good that was bringing death to him (Romans 7:12-13).

If we aren't under the Law of God, then we have the freedom to do what it reveals to be sin, but Paul specifically said that being under grace does not mean that we are permitted to sin, so we are still under the Law of God. Likewise, it is contradictory to think that Spirit leads us to obey law that we are not under.

BTW

The problem I find with many who stress ‘’law’’ is they do not hold the law to the pristine level it is set at. I do, I hope you do also. Before we continue, I would like to check we are on the same page as it were here. If you could address the following I would appreciate it. They are all examples of what is required to obey the TC, Christ’s teaching and the second greatest commandment. You don’t have to say if you perfectly obey them all, just let me know if you believe if any of the following are transgressed a person would risk hell as they are not permitted to sin, to use your words, and bearing in mind you believe believers are under the law. They are worded as questions to someone else, I don’t see the need to rewrite them here in order to gain your response to the question asked:

Do you ever put anything before God in your life?

Do you ever build any graven images in your mind?

Do you always honour your parents without exception?

Have you ever looked at anyone with lust in your eye? (Jesus ratified the commandment)

Have you ever fibbed about anyone, or been untruthful about a person in anyway?

Have you dwelt on any impure thought?

Do you ever desire ANYTHING of your neighbours, whether material goods or a member of their household?

Do you fully obey the law relating to the inner man, the law only you and God need know you break?

If someone asked to lend from you would you gladly lend to them without ever expecting anything back?

If someone stole from you, would you offer them more than what they stole with nothing but love in your heart for them?

Do you not invite friends or family home for a meal, but rather the poor, blind, lame and beggars?

If you have ever fasted, have you even hinted to anyone you are fasting?

Do you truly in your heart love your enemies, those who may malign, harass or persecute you?

Do you leap for joy if you are persecuted?

Do you always truly love all those you come into contact with in thought, word or deed, constantly, including your enemies, those who may be unkind to you, persecute or harass you?

 

[Soyeong]

Rom7:5&7 cannot be referring to the same law?

For when we were in the realm of the flesh,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death verse5

What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment(thou shalt not covet), wrought/aroused in me all manner of concupiscence/sinfull passions. For without the law sin was dead. verrse7

Im sorry, but it is very plainly written. Your reasoning must be faulty

Paul is essentially speak about why reverse psychology works. The purpose of the command to refrain from coveting is lead people away from coveting, not to lead people towards it, however, there is something within us that reacts to being told to do something that causes us to want to do the opposite, which causes coveting to increase. In Romans 7:8, it is speaking about the law of sin taking the opportunity through the Law of God to cause coveting to increase, so it is not the Law of God that cases sin to increase, but the law of sin acting taking the opportunity through the Law of God.

How can a law that stirs up sinful passions in order to be fruit unto death be a law that is not sinful be a law that is holy, righteous, and good? These are opposite directions, either serving sin, which leads to death, or serving God, which leads to righteousness. How can Paul delight in stirring up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death?

BTW

The problem I find with many who stress ‘’law’’ is they do not hold the law to the pristine level it is set at. I do, I hope you do also. Before we continue, I would like to check we are on the same page as it were here. If you could address the following I would appreciate it. They are all examples of what is required to obey the TC, Christ’s teaching and the second greatest commandment. You don’t have to say if you perfectly obey them all, just let me know if you believe if any of the following are transgressed a person would risk hell as they are not permitted to sin, to use your words, and bearing in mind you believe believers are under the law. They are worded as questions to someone else, I don’t see the need to rewrite them here in order to gain your response to the question asked:

Do you ever put anything before God in your life?

Do you ever build any graven images in your mind?

Do you always honour your parents without exception?

Have you ever looked at anyone with lust in your eye? (Jesus ratified the commandment)

Have you ever fibbed about anyone, or been untruthful about a person in anyway?

Have you dwelt on any impure thought?

Do you ever desire ANYTHING of your neighbours, whether material goods or a member of their household?

Do you fully obey the law relating to the inner man, the law only you and God need know you break?

If someone asked to lend from you would you gladly lend to them without ever expecting anything back?

If someone stole from you, would you offer them more than what they stole with nothing but love in your heart for them?

Do you not invite friends or family home for a meal, but rather the poor, blind, lame and beggars?

If you have ever fasted, have you even hinted to anyone you are fasting?

Do you truly in your heart love your enemies, those who may malign, harass or persecute you?

Do you leap for joy if you are persecuted?

Do you always truly love all those you come into contact with in thought, word or deed, constantly, including your enemies, those who may be unkind to you, persecute or harass you?

While I do not claim to have had perfect obedience to God's law, God's law came with instructions for what to do when His children sinned, so it never required us to have perfect obedience. Repentance does not change the fact that we have not had prefect obedience, so if we needed to have perfect obedience for some strange reasons, there repentance wouldn't do us any good, so the fact that repentance has value demonstrates that we are not required to have perfect obedience. Even if someone managed to have perfect obedience to God's law, then they still would not earn their righteousness as a wage (Romans 4:1-5), so that was never the goal of why we should obey God's law. In Deuteronomy 30:11-20, it says that God's law is not too difficult for us to obey and that obedience to it brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, so choose life! So it was presented as a possibility and as a choice, not as the need for perfect obedience. The only reason why someone would need perfect obedience would be if they are going to give themselves to pay for the sins of the world, the rest of us can thankfully have our sins forgiven and can still be saved even when we have not had perfect obedience.

Furthermore, it is the fact that followers of God should follow what He has commanded in accordance with the example that Christ set for us to follow is independent of my level of obedience. Even if I were the biggest hypocrite in the world who was actively trying to sin as much as I could, then that would just mean that I would need to repent, not that I am wrong about the fact that followers of God should follow what He has commanded in accordance with the example that Christ set for us to follow.

 

[simplefaith]

however, there is something within us that reacts to being told to do something that causes us to want to do the opposite, which causes coveting to increase. In Romans 7:8, it is speaking about the law of sin taking the opportunity through the Law of God to cause coveting to increase, so it is not the Law of God that cases sin to increase, but the law of sin acting taking the opportunity through the Law of God.

That is much better, sin takes occasion of what is holy, just and good to arouse sinfull passions in us through the law, IF(IF) we live under righteousness of obeying the law as Saul did. Or if we live under the law, same thing.

Paul states:



But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code/law Rom7:6

So, according to Paul, we either follow after the Holy Spirit or the written code. Many make the wrong choice, for only the Holy Spirit can lead us into spiritual truth, without him, we only have our rational minds to rely on

You say believers are under the law, Paul states they are not. You are viewing this subject through the rational mind of man. Remove being under the law and you have a licence to sin. Actually, if we understand Paul’s spiritual message the very opposite is true:

For sin shall no longer be your master for you are not under law but under grace(Rom6:14)

My advice would be, if you truly want to obey the second greatest commandment, the next time you tell people they are under the law/they must obey God’s laws/the believer does not have the right to sin etc, you tell them alongside that you yourself constantly fail to obey the law at the pristine level it is set at.

You see, I know of many people who listen to what others state concerning obeying the law, and they have assumed the people making these comments must themselves be living up to what they are preaching to others. They then become crushed and feel worthless because they know they cannot attain to what others demand of them. They end seeking help from Christian counsellors. One such counsellor told me they have been given a form of spiritual abuse. As I say, if we truly want to love our neighbour, we will want to make sure we avoid such a thing happening.

Applicable law is written in the minds and placed on the hearts of believers under the core foundation upon which the NC stands. Meaning, in a person’s mind they know how God wants them to live and in their heart they want to live that way. So, if a believer is not under the law, this cannot be used as an excuse to sin as much as they like. That is impossible. Back to rom7:6. The rational mind cannot understand a spiritual message

 

[Soyeong]

That is much better, sin takes occasion of what is holy, just and good to arouse sinfull passions in us through the law, IF(IF) we live under righteousness of obeying the law as Saul did. Or if we live under the law, same thing.

Paul states:



But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code/law Rom7:6

So, according to Paul, we either follow after the Holy Spirit or the written code. Many make the wrong choice, for only the Holy Spirit can lead us into spiritual truth, without him, we only have our rational minds to rely on

You say believers are under the law, Paul states they are not. You are viewing this subject through the rational mind of man. Remove being under the law and you have a licence to sin. Actually, if we understand Paul’s spiritual message the very opposite is true:

For sin shall no longer be your master for you are not under law but under grace(Rom6:14)

My advice would be, if you truly want to obey the second greatest commandment, the next time you tell people they are under the law/they must obey God’s laws/the believer does not have the right to sin etc, you tell them alongside that you yourself constantly fail to obey the law at the pristine level it is set at.

You see, I know of many people who listen to what others state concerning obeying the law, and they have assumed the people making these comments must themselves be living up to what they are preaching to others. They then become crushed and feel worthless because they know they cannot attain to what others demand of them. They end seeking help from Christian counsellors. One such counsellor told me they have been given a form of spiritual abuse. As I say, if we truly want to love our neighbour, we will want to make sure we avoid such a thing happening.

Applicable law is written in the minds and placed on the hearts of believers under the core foundation upon which the NC stands. Meaning, in a person’s mind they know how God wants them to live and in their heart they want to live that way. So, if a believer is not under the law, this cannot be used as an excuse to sin as much as they like. That is impossible. Back to rom7:6. The rational mind cannot understand a spiritual message

Paul spoke about multiple categories of law other than the Law of God, such as the law of sin and works of the law, so it is important to discern which law he was referring to out of all the categories of law that he spoke about. For example, in Romans 7:25-8:2, Paul contrasted the Law of God with the law of sin and contrasted the Law of the Spirit with the law of sin and death. In Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a law of works with a law of faith and in Romans 3:31 and Galatians 3:10-12, he contrasted a law that our faith upholds with works of the law that are not of faith.

So while I agree that we aren't under the law, Paul described the law that we aren't under as being a law where sin had dominion over us, which is not describing the Law of God, which is a law where holiness, righteousness, and goodness have dominion over us, but rather it is the law of sin where sin had dominion over us. Likewise, in Romans 7:22-23, Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Law of God, but contrasted it with the law of sin that held him captive, and Romans 7:6 speak about being freed from a law that held us captive, so it is speaking about the law of sin, not not about being freed from the Law of God that he delighted in obeying. In Romans 8:4-7, Paul contrasted those who walk in the Spirit with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to the Law of God. It is contradictory to think that we should follow the lead of the Spirit, but not the leading of God. The position that the Spirit leads us to live under God's law is contradictory to the position that we are not under the Law of God.

I regularly speak against the misconception of the goal of God's law that we need perfect obedience to it. In Matthew 4:15-23, Jesus began his ministry with the Gospel message to repent for the Kingdom of God is at hand, which was a light to the Gentiles, and God's law was how his audience knew what sin is (Romans 3:20), so you are essentially saying that spreading the Gospel message is a form of spiritual abuse, which is absurd. God's word should not be interpreted as speaking against being under the God's word.

 

[simplefaith]

So while I agree that we aren't under the law, Paul described the law that we aren't under as being a law where sin had dominion over us, which is not describing the Law of God.....

So while I agree that we aren't under the law, Paul described the law that we aren't under as being a law where sin had dominion over us, which is not describing the Law of God,

Which law is Paul always primarily referring to when he relentlessly states you are not under law/you can have no righteousness of obeying the law? What is often termed the legalistic law of rite, ritual and ceremony could faultlessly be obeyed by people who did not even know God in Jesus day(the pharisees) Indeed, even the worst of sinners could faultlessly obey that law(Phil3:6) But the worst of sinners could not obey the TC(Rom7:7-11)



So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law/you are not under the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5 For when we were in the realm of the flesh,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. 6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. Rom7:4-6



So which law is Paul referring to in the above? Well in the next five verses he gives a personal example from his own life as to why he had to die to the law as he put it. The example he gave was one of the TC.

It was always the moral law/what is holy, just and good where sin had dominion over people.

Back to rom6:14

For sin shall no longer be your master for you are not under law but under grace.



Which law did sin have dominion over people? Not the legalistic law, rather the moral law. Think about your own life, where do you fail? It is always the moral side of the law

 

[simplefaith]

so you are essentially saying that spreading the Gospel message is a form of spiritual abuse, which is absurd. God's word should not be interpreted as speaking against being under the God's word.

No, spreading a message insisting of others what we do not insist of ourselves is a form of spiritual abuse. I am giving you the gospel message. It is no longer a law written in ink for the believer, but one written in their mind and placed on their heart. That is the new covenant

 

[Soyeong]

Which law is Paul always primarily referring to when he relentlessly states you are not under law/you can have no righteousness of obeying the law? What is often termed the legalistic law of rite, ritual and ceremony could faultlessly be obeyed by people who did not even know God in Jesus day(the pharisees) Indeed, even the worst of sinners could faultlessly obey that law(Phil3:6) But the worst of sinners could not obey the TC(Rom7:7-11)



So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law/you are not under the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 5 For when we were in the realm of the flesh,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death. 6 But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code. Rom7:4-6



So which law is Paul referring to in the above? Well in the next five verses he gives a personal example from his own life as to why he had to die to the law as he put it. The example he gave was one of the TC.

It was always the moral law/what is holy, just and good where sin had dominion over people.

Back to rom6:14

For sin shall no longer be your master for you are not under law but under grace.



Which law did sin have dominion over people? Not the legalistic law, rather the moral law. Think about your own life, where do you fail? It is always the moral side of the law

A law where righteousness has dominion over us can't also be a law where unrighteousness had dominion over us, but rather that is leading in opposite directions.

The only way to become righteous is through faith that we ought to be doers of righteous works apart from being required to have first done a certain amount of righteous works as if righteousness could be earned as a wage. Becoming righteous means becoming a doer of righteous works, so it would be contradictory to become righteous apart from becoming a doer of righteous works just as it would contradictory for God to be righteous if He were not a doer of righteous works.

In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that he and Israel might know Him, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the goal of the law is to know God and Jesus through practicing His character traits, which is eternal life (John 17:3). In Philippians 3, Paul had been going through the motions of obeying God's law, but without being focusing on knowing Christ, so he had been missing the whole goal of the law and that is what he counted as rubbish.

Romans 7:4-6 should not be understood in a way that is contrary to Romans 7:1-3 and Romans 6. Christ is God's word made flesh, so the way to be unified in him is by following his example of embodying God's word, which is why those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6), so it doesn't make sense to think that we need to die to God's word in order to be unified with God's word made flesh, but rather we need to die to a law that was hindering us from obeying God's word, namely the law of sin. Likewise, it doesn't make sense to think that we need to die to God's instructions for how to bear fruit for Him in order to be free to bear fruit for Him, but rather we need to die to the law of sin that was hindering us form doing that. We need to die to the law of sin in order to be free to obey the Law of God, not the other way around.

The fact that Paul spoke about one of the Ten Commandments in Romans 7:8 does not mean that Romans 7:5 is referring to one of the Ten Commandments, but rather was contrasting the Law of God with the law of sin.

 

[simplefaith]

A law where righteousness has dominion over us can't also be a law where unrighteousness had dominion over us, but rather that is leading in opposite directions.

The only way to become righteous is through faith that we ought to be doers of righteous works apart from being required to have first done a certain amount of righteous works as if righteousness could be earned as a wage. Becoming righteous means becoming a doer of righteous works, so it would be contradictory to become righteous apart from becoming a doer of righteous works just as it would contradictory for God to be righteous if He were not a doer of righteous works.

In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that he and Israel might know Him, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the goal of the law is to know God and Jesus through practicing His character traits, which is eternal life (John 17:3). In Philippians 3, Paul had been going through the motions of obeying God's law, but without being focusing on knowing Christ, so he had been missing the whole goal of the law and that is what he counted as rubbish.

Romans 7:4-6 should not be understood in a way that is contrary to Romans 7:1-3 and Romans 6. Christ is God's word made flesh, so the way to be unified in him is by following his example of embodying God's word, which is why those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6), so it doesn't make sense to think that we need to die to God's word in order to be unified with God's word made flesh, but rather we need to die to a law that was hindering us from obeying God's word, namely the law of sin. Likewise, it doesn't make sense to think that we need to die to God's instructions for how to bear fruit for Him in order to be free to bear fruit for Him, but rather we need to die to the law of sin that was hindering us form doing that. We need to die to the law of sin in order to be free to obey the Law of God, not the other way around.

The fact that Paul spoke about one of the Ten Commandments in Romans 7:8 does not mean that Romans 7:5 is referring to one of the Ten Commandments, but rather was contrasting the Law of God with the law of sin.

Im afraid you are all over the place here. I have already shown you, in rom 7:8 it is very plainly written sin took occasion of one of the TC to arouse all manner of sinfull passions in Saul the pharisee, perfectly echoing verse5. Instead of trying to repudiate the obvious fact rom 7:4-6 does primarily refer to the TC by quoting other scripture, it is wiser to bring the bible into cohesion. In truth, you cannot understand a message that states sin shall no longer be your master for you are not under law/righteousness of obeying the law but under grace/righteousness of faith in Christ.
Please rememeber the example Paul gave as to why he had to die to the law/righteousness of obeying the law. He could not obey the law relating to the inner person, the law no one but he and God need know he broke/one of the TC. I wonder how many people today who insist you must obey the TC, consider they are breaking those commands if they fail to obey the law relating to the inner man, the law no one but they and God need know they break.

 

[simplefaith]

A law where righteousness has dominion over us can't also be a law where unrighteousness had dominion over us, but rather that is leading in opposite directions.

The only way to become righteous is through faith that we ought to be doers of righteous works apart from being required to have first done a certain amount of righteous works as if righteousness could be earned as a wage. Becoming righteous means becoming a doer of righteous works, so it would be contradictory to become righteous apart from becoming a doer of righteous works just as it would contradictory for God to be righteous if He were not a doer of righteous works.

In Exodus 33:13, Moses wanted God to be gracious to him by teaching him to walk in His way that he and Israel might know Him, and in Matthew 7:23, Jesus said that he would tell those who are workers of lawlessness to depart from him because he never knew them, so the goal of the law is to know God and Jesus through practicing His character traits, which is eternal life (John 17:3). In Philippians 3, Paul had been going through the motions of obeying God's law, but without being focusing on knowing Christ, so he had been missing the whole goal of the law and that is what he counted as rubbish.

Romans 7:4-6 should not be understood in a way that is contrary to Romans 7:1-3 and Romans 6. Christ is God's word made flesh, so the way to be unified in him is by following his example of embodying God's word, which is why those who are in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6), so it doesn't make sense to think that we need to die to God's word in order to be unified with God's word made flesh, but rather we need to die to a law that was hindering us from obeying God's word, namely the law of sin. Likewise, it doesn't make sense to think that we need to die to God's instructions for how to bear fruit for Him in order to be free to bear fruit for Him, but rather we need to die to the law of sin that was hindering us form doing that. We need to die to the law of sin in order to be free to obey the Law of God, not the other way around.

The fact that Paul spoke about one of the Ten Commandments in Romans 7:8 does not mean that Romans 7:5 is referring to one of the Ten Commandments, but rather was contrasting the Law of God with the law of sin.

Im going to give you a personal example here, as you have previously inferred to believe as I do is in effect a licence to sin. When I was ten I used to read my bible during the sermon in church(they were long and I was young) And I would read of the TC, and I was baffled as to why the tenth one was one of them. I could understand the importance of the other nine, but not that one. I figured God just put it there to make the number up to ten. But in those days, I only considered coveting to relate to desiring the material goods of another, such as their nice car or house. Although I knew we should not do that, it hardly seemed important compared to the other nine.
However, when I had reached puberty, and I heard people state ''we must obey the TC'' my thoughts immediatley turned inwards to my impure thoughts and I felt much guilt. It was as if I instinctively knew in my heart and mind such thoughts transgressed the TC. And yet, at that time through reading those commands written in ink, I still only related the tenth commandment to desiring the material goods of another.
Which proves, the law within will always convict to a far greater degree than any law written in ink. As I said. I wonder how many people today who insist you must obey the TC understand what obedience to those commands entails. Paul knew, I instinctively knew in my heart and mind, so should everyone else. You cannot hide from what is in your most inward parts

 

[Bob S]

Indeed, Romans 7 speaks about both the Law of God and the law of sin. A law that arouses sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death is a law that is sinful, but Romans 7:7 says that the Law of God is not sinful, so Romans 7:5 and 7:7 can't both be referring to the same law. Likewise, Paul said in Romans 7:22 that he delighted in obeying the Law of God, so it would be absurd to interpret Romans 7:5 as referring to the Law of God as if Paul delighted in stirring up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death, but rather that is the role of the law of sin. For example, there is nothing intrinsic to the greatest two commandments that stirs up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death, but rather those commandments are the way to inherit eternal life (Luke 10:25-28). The law of sin was something that was working within Paul's members to cause him not to do the good of obeying the Law of God that he wanted to do, so it was responding to the Law of God, but the Law of God is good and it is not that which is good that was bringing death to him (Romans 7:12-13).

If we aren't under the Law of God, then we have the freedom to do what it reveals to be sin, but Paul specifically said that being under grace does not mean that we are permitted to sin, so we are still under the Law of God. Likewise, it is contradictory to think that Spirit leads us to obey law that we are not under.

We are under the Law? You indicate "we" meaning everyone. The fact is that only those who proclaimed to be Israelites were under the Law.

The question is when did God require Gentiles to conform to the Law?