I agree full heartedly that this should never be used to justify sin. However it should be seen as a demonstration of the power and strength of the grace of God.
[bless and do not curse]
Oh...I would like to address the issue of Paul preaching not to sin and yet still sinning. I believe you may be referring to Romans 2:17-23
[bless and do not curse]
17 Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, 18 And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed out of the law; 19 And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness,
20 An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law. 21 Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? 22 Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? 23 Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?
[bless and do not curse]
What Paul was saying is that those who teach that you should not sin actually do the same things they say not to do.
[bless and do not curse]
Paul Himself said he was guilty of this:
[bless and do not curse]
Romans 7:19-23
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.
[bless and do not curse]
This in no way justifies sin. But it does show the grace of God.[bless and do not curse]
[bless and do not curse]
This is why our boast should not be in the law but in grace.[bless and do not curse]
[bless and do not curse]
I do understand your thoughts on this though but we really don't need to withhold the truth of grace just because we fear people may try to use it as an excuse for sin.
Romans 2:1-11 NKJV
Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you
condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. But we know that
the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. And
do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself
wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who “will render to each one according to his deeds”: eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—
indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God.
First off, Paul was not being a hypocrite. However, for the sake of the argument, let's say he was.
In Romans 2, he speaks of God's judgement against the ungodly, who judge men, yet do the same evil deeds. God's judgement, is wrath, aka hellfire, as he mentioned when he said that such people were condemned by their deeds. So, if that's the case, we would have to say, if Paul were judging others yet doing the same thing, he was condemning himself.
Secondly, there is something known as present historical tense, and Pual uses tt language in Romans 7. He was not in sin while writing Romans 7. The tense which I'm describing is a literary tool used to convey a first person account of events seemingly in the present. Obviously Paul could not be going through all those motions he mentions while writing.
That's comparable to a guy writing about bicycle writing in the present historical tense, " I'm riding my bike up a hill, and now I find myself gazing at the sunset" while actually doing those things.[bless and do not curse]
I say this because he described his narrative as a spiritually dead man, who then ask the question, in Romans 7:24
"O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?"
However, again for the sake of the argument, let's say Paul was both sinning and authoring Romans at the same time, what else does Paul mention in Romans 7?
Romans 7:9-11 NKJV
I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me.
Are we to expect that Paul physically died?
Not at all, but rather he speaks of spiritual death, a state of condemnation.
Even more convincing he says,
Romans 7:14 NKJV
For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin.
Now, he uses the terms spiritual and carnal contrasting the two. We know that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ, who walk not according to the flesh, ie sinful living, but according to the spirit, which is obedience.
Going further, in Romans 8 Paul says,
Romans 8:13 NKJV
For if you live according to the flesh you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live.
He is telling Christians, they will die spiritually due to the carnal practice of sin.
Again, I don't care as much as to debate whether or not Pual actually was living a carnal life, but rather does a carnal living, put people back under the bondage of sin, and will that cause spiritual death?
The answer is clear, yes.