Christian freedoms

[St_Worm2]

Once again @public hermit, you cite an OT command that was never practiced in Israel. Nice dodge, BTW. I answered your off-topic question w/o horns, how about doing the same for me by answering the question that I asked you in reply, which was,

How do ~you~ treat things that are commanded in the Scriptures?

Thank you!

--David

 

[oikonomia]

Jesus is God’s word made flesh, so it is contradictory to contrast God’s word with the one who perfectly embodies God’s word.

That the Word became flesh is one step.
That this One became life giving Spirit to indwell us was another step.

Step one - And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us (and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only Begotten from the Father), full of grace and reality. (John 1:14)

Step two - the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit. (1 Cor. 15:45b)

It is important that Jesus Christ became the life giving Spirit because there was not a commandment of the law which could give life.
Since no commandment of the law could impart divine life into man righteousness could not be by keeping the law.

For if a law had been given which was able to give life, righteousness would have indeed been of law. (Gal. 3:21)

When Jesus directly quoted from what was written in God’s word in Matthew 4, he preceded it by saying “it is written…”, but when he was quoting from what the people had heard being said in Matthew 5, he preceded it by saying “you have heard that it was said…”,

When Jesus said "You have heard that it was said to the ancients, You shall not murder, and whoever murders shall be liable to the judgment" (Matt. 5:21) He certainly was referring to what was written in Exodus 20:13 and Deuteronomy 5:17.

The part about judgment was also referring to what was written in Deuteronomy 16:18 and 2 Chronicles 19:5-6.

 

[public hermit]

Once again @public hermit, you cite an OT command that was never practiced in Israel. Nice dodge, BTW. I answered your off-topic question w/o horns, how about doing the same for me by answering the question that I asked you in reply, which was,


Thank you!

--David

How do you know it wasn't practiced? Is that your standard? You only obey commands in scripture if it was practiced in Israel? I've already stated my standard (see above), which does answer your question.

 

[oikonomia]

The OP is about "Christian Freedom".
We do not often hear Christians talk about being enslaved to God and righteousness.
I would like to submit three points.

1.) There is Christian freedom from sinning.

2.) There is also Christian freedom from the Law.

3.) There is Christian enslavement to God and living out His righteousness.

But thanks be to God that though you were slaves of sin, you have obeyed from the heart the form of teaching into which you were delivered.
And having been freed from sin, you were enslaved to righteousness.

I speak in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves to uncleanness and lawlessness unto lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness unto sanctification.

For when you were slaves of sin, you were free with regard to righteousness.
What fruit then did you have at that time? Things of which you are now ashamed, for the end of those things is death.

But now, having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you have your fruit unto sanctification, and the end, eternal life. (Rom. 6:17-22)

 

[Soyeong]

That the Word became flesh is one step.
That this One became life giving Spirit to indwell us was another step.

Step one - And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us (and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only Begotten from the Father), full of grace and reality. (John 1:14)

Step two - the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit. (1 Cor. 15:45b)

It is important that Jesus Christ became the life giving Spirit because there was not a commandment of the law which could give life.
Since no commandment of the law could impart divine life into man righteousness could not be by keeping the law.

For if a law had been given which was able to give life, righteousness would have indeed been of law. (Gal. 3:21)

I draw a distinction between the way to become someone who has righteousness/eternal life and what we are becoming when we become someone who has righteousness/eternal life. The one and only way that there has ever been to become someone who has righteousness/eternal life is through faith. To become someone who is righteous means to become someone who practices righteousness and in accordance with Galatians 3:21, God's law is His instructions for how to practice righteousness, not the way to become righteous.

In Deuteronomy 30:15-20, obedience to God's law brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, so choose life! In Deuteronomy 32:46-47, God's law is our very life. In Proverbs 3:18, she is a Tree of Life for all who take hold of her. In Proverbs 6:23, for the commandment is a lamp and the teaching a light, and the reproofs of discipline are the way of life. In Matthew 19:17, Jesus said that obedience to God's commandments is the way to enter eternal life. In Luke 10:25-28, Jesus said that obedience to the greatest two commandments is the way to inherit eternal life. In Hebrews 5:9, Jesus has become a source of eternal salvation for those who obey him. In Revelation 22:14, those who obeyed God's commandments are given the right to eat from the Tree of Life. In Romans 2:6-7, eternal life is given to those who persist in doing good. In Romans 6:19-23, we are no longer to present ourselves as slaves to impurity, lawlessness, and sin, but are now to present ourselves as slaves to God and to righteousness leading to sanctification, and the goal of sanctification is eternal life in Christ, which is the gift of God, so living in obedience to God's law is the content of His gift of eternal life. So these and other verses make it abundantly clear that obedience to God's law is the way to enter eternal life, and Galatians 3:21 needs to be interpreted in a way that is in accordance with them and not a way that contradicts them, which is why the distinction that I drew is important.

 

[St_Worm2]

How do you know it wasn't practiced?

There is no record of it ever being carried out, Biblically or extra-Biblically/historically.

You only obey commands in scripture if it was practiced in Israel?

The command that you referred to above was specifically for the theocracy of ancient Israel, not for today, and the choice (back then) of whether or not to follow through with it was left to the discretion of the parents (of the rebellious child). edit: I should add that the while parents were the ones who needed to press charges (so to speak) against their rebellious son, if any parents had ever done so (none did), the law stipulated that the next step would have been to bring their son before the city elders (and they would make the final decision concerning their son's fate).

If you are a parent, then you surely understand why this particular command (to have the community that you live in put your child to death) was never put into practice, not even once.

God bless you!!

--David
p.s. - as for the Scriptures and your opinion of them, yes, you did say quite a bit about that in your first post, so I will address that post when I return (something that I have been meaning to do for a couple of days now, actually ).

 

[oikonomia]

I draw a distinction between the way to become someone who has righteousness/eternal life and what we are becoming when we become someone who has righteousness/eternal life.

After reading this sentence a few times, I really don't get what you want to convey.

The one and only way that there has ever been to become someone who has righteousness/eternal life is through faith.

And as we RECEIVED Christ Jesus the Lord we should CONTINUE to WALK in Him that same way - FAITH in each step.
As therefore you have received the Christ, Jesus the Lord, walk in Him, (Col. 2:6)

It is faith all the way from beginning to is coming when Faith is turned into Sight.

To become someone who is righteous means to become someone who practices righteousness and in accordance with Galatians 3:21, God's law is His instructions for how to practice righteousness, not the way to become righteous.

You don't like to answer some questions. But I am going to ask you anyway.
I expect you will not answer but just continue with "business as usual".
But others can see you avoid answering. Maybe this time you will surprise me.

1.) Romans 7:6 says - But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that in which we were held, so that we serve in newness of spirit and not in oldness of letter.

Which is the teaching of the Bible?
a) The Christian has been discharged from the law.
b) The Christian has NOT been discharged from the law.

2.) Romans 7:4a says - So then, my brothers, you also have been made dead to the law through the body of Christ

Which is the teaching of the Bible?
a) The Christian has been made dead to the law through the body of Christ.
b) The Christian has NOT been made dead to the law through the body of Christ.

 

[public hermit]

There is no record of it ever being carried out, Biblically or extra-Biblically/historically.


The command that you referred to above was specifically for the theocracy of ancient Israel, not for today, and the choice (back then) of whether or not to follow through with it was left to the discretion of the parents (of the rebellious child).

If you are a parent, then you surely understand why this particular command (to have the community that you live in put your child to death) was never put into practice, not even once.

God bless you!!

--David
p.s. - as for the Scriptures and your opinion of them, yes, you did say quite a bit about that in your first post, so I will address that post when I return (something that I have been meaning to do for a couple of days now, actually ).

There is no record of it being carried out? So. There is no record of it not being carried out. You and I have no idea if it was or wasn't. It seems you have a standard by which you determine what command should be observed and what shouldn't that either you are unable or unwilling to articulate. All the laws pertained to the theocracy because Israel was a theocracy. Any division that says these laws were moral and these laws were ceremonial and these pertained to governing is ad hoc and would have meant nothing to an ancient Israelite. The law was the law because it was all assumed to be rooted in the divine will.

You admit it's a terrible law. How do you know that? What's your standard? I submit that Jesus Christ is the standard. You and I both know having your child stoned to death is so far removed from what we know in Jesus Christ it's not even a question. So no, the scriptures are not the standard of our freedom or lack thereof. The risen, living Christ is the standard. If that seems too vague, then love of God and neighbor is, but that priority of love is based on the authority of Christ, as we see in the Sermon on the Mount.

 

[Soyeong]

After reading this sentence a few times, I really don't get what you want to convey.

For example, there is a distinction between the way to become courageous and who someone is becoming when they become courageous. The way to become courageous is through faith and when someone is becoming courageous they are becoming someone who practices courageousness. The same is true for righteousness and other character traits. God's law is His instructions for how to practice righteousness, not for how to become righteous.

You don't like to answer some questions. But I am going to ask you anyway.
I expect you will not answer but just continue with "business as usual".
But others can see you avoid answering. Maybe this time you will surprise me.

Stop being absurd. If you think that there is a questioned that I have missed answering, then by all means please directly bring it to my attention rather than being passive aggressive about it.

1.) Romans 7:6 says - But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that in which we were held, so that we serve in newness of spirit and not in oldness of letter.

Which is the teaching of the Bible?
a) The Christian has been discharged from the law.
b) The Christian has NOT been discharged from the law.

2.) Romans 7:4a says - So then, my brothers, you also have been made dead to the law through the body of Christ

Which is the teaching of the Bible?
a) The Christian has been made dead to the law through the body of Christ.
b) The Christian has NOT been made dead to the law through the body of Christ.

Paul spoke about multiple different categories of law other than the Law of God, such as works of the law and the law of sin, so there is the law that the Christians has been free from and the law that Christians have not been set free from. For example, in Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a law of faith with a law of works, in Romans 3:31 and Galatians 3:10-11, he contrasted a law that our faith upholds with a law that is not of faith, and 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 7:22-23, Paul said that he delighted in obeying the Law of God and served it with his mind, but contrasted that with the law of sin that held him captive. It would be absurd to interpret Romans 7:4-6 as referring to the Law of God as if we need to die to God's instructions for how to be unified with Christ in order to be unified with him, as if we need to die to God's instructions for how to bear fruit for Him in order to bear fruit for Him, as if Paul delighted in stirring up sinful passion in order to bear fruit unto death, and as if Paul delighted in being held captive, but rather it is the law of sin that Paul described as holding him captive.

In addition, in Romans 6:19-23, we are no longer to present ourselves as slaves to impurity, lawlessness, and sin, but are now to present ourselves as slaves to God and to righteousness leading to sanctification and the goal of sanctification is eternal life in Christ, which is the gift of God, so the content of God's gift of eternal life is living in obedience to the Law of God, which is why those who are unified in Christ are obligated to walk in the same way he walked (1 John 2:6). So you are interpreting Romans 7:4-6 as saying that we need to die to be be delivered from God's gift of eternal life.

Furthermore, in Romans 7:1-3, at no point was the woman set free from needing to obey any part of the Law of God, and if she were to get married to another man after the death of her first husband, then she would still be required to refrain from committing adultery, so there is nothing in these verses that leads to interpreting Romans 7:4 as saying that in the same way we have also been set free from the Law of God.

 

[St_Worm2]

Is it the Bible that dictates what Christians should do or wherein their freedom lies?

Hello Public Hermit, the simple answer to your question above is (obviously), "yes". However, I should add that it is also/typically a ~qualified~ "yes", because this "yes" necessarily includes taking the Bible as a whole/in context, Biblically, historically, linguistically, etc.

For example, the famous atheist, Madalyn Murray O'Hair, said that one of the reasons that she became an atheist was because, "even the Bible says, 'there is no God'", which is true, it does say that, but does anyone (including Madalyn ) actually believe that that's what it 'means'?

The Bible says an eye for an eye. Jesus, via the Bible says turn the other cheek.

Yes, the Bible says both of those things, but at first blush, especially when the Lord's words are taken out-of-context (and thereby given a different meaning than He intended, like they were in post #2 of this thread), they appear to present us with a problem to solve (because one command seems to contradict the other one, which means that, if true, God contradicts Himself).

Here's is another, similar example to consider. The Lord Jesus (in both the OT and the New) commands us to,

Exodus 20​

12 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the LORD your God gives you.” ​

However, He also told us this,

Luke 14​

26 “If anyone comes to Me and does not ~hate~ his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.” ​

Whoops, now it appears that we have two different (apparent) contradictions to try to make sense of

I suppose we could stop right here and write the Bible off as being contradictory, and therefore useless to us as our regula fidei, OR, we could go back and take another look to see what God is ACTUALLY trying to tell us in those two pair of (seemingly) contradictory verses instead (but what fun would that be ).

More on that a bit later perhaps, but for now, back to your post.

It seems Jesus is the standard for Christian freedom (or not), not the Bible. If he asserts authority over a scriptural claim, and overrides it with his own, then they are not equal in authority.

As you've already been shown in this thread, the Lord Jesus did NOT do that/did NOT "assert authority over a Scriptural claim", rather, He corrected the Pharisees' and scribes' false oral tradition (about their poor oral interpretation of the written Torah) saying, "you have heard that it was said" (rather than "it is written", which is what the Lord says when the written Torah/the Scriptures are what He is pointing to instead).

All of this was clearly explained in post #4 and post #9 of this thread, but this false dichotomy continues to rear its ugly head in this thread nevertheless

It seems to me, the question is: Who has authority, the living Christ or the scriptures about the living Christ? Put that way, it's clear that Christ is our reference point for Christian freedom (or not). The scriptures aid us, but the scriptures are held to a higher standard.

Another false dichotomy (and as I just pointed out, they just keep roll'n in this thread). That said, the Bible (OT/NT) is the breathed, living word of the living God .. e.g. 2 Timothy 3:16-17, which, just like Him, is the same yesterday, today and forever.

Hebrews 4​

12 The word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. ​

The Bible is considered to be authoritative/binding upon our hearts because it is the "breathed" word of the One who has authority over us all.

If, on the other hand, the Scriptures are nothing more than man's best musings about the Divine (rather than what they truly are, the breathed/inspired word of God Himself), then we should stop considering what they have to say as authoritative forthwith and let the Bible collect dust.

Fortunately, what you believe about the Bible is not true!!

Finally, the post of yours that I quoted above is little more than a collection of false dichotomies built upon false premises (starting with your second sentence), which I'm sure you know My final question for this post, then, is why? Why are you choosing to communicate in this manner? I know that you believe different things about the Bible than most of the rest of us in this thread do, but why not simply discuss our differences in a civil manner instead?

I have questions for you about a few other things that you've said in this thread, but I'll address those later.

God bless you!!

--David

 

[St_Worm2]

I don't assume that every bit of scripture needs to be in some kind of harmony. I'm fine with the fact that Jesus abrogates a claim of scripture. In fact, it makes sense.

Hello again Public Hermit, for the time being, forget about what I just wrote to you above, this is what we need to discuss.

I won't be back until the end of the business day today, but I'm hoping that we can talk then (Dv).

God bless you!!

--David

 

[public hermit]

My final question for this post, then, is why? Why are you choosing to communicate in this manner?

David, I haven't been communicating in a manner that is not civil. I kindly asked you to not respond to me as if I accepted fundamentalist presuppositions. I even said, I appreciated you, which I do!

As you've already been shown in this thread, the Lord Jesus did NOT do that/did NOT "assert authority over a Scriptural claim", rather, He corrected the Pharisees' and scribes' false oral tradition

You haven't shown anything. You have given your reading, which is exactly why I asked that you refrain from assuming I should agree if you just say it. I don't agree. I don't think we can agree because you assume the scriptures must be in harmony. Why? You're an inerrantist or something very close by. I'm not.

What you need to show is why inerrantism is the best way to approach the scriptures. Fair warning, I'm not going to agree, and I know this because today isn't the first time I've considered this.

Hello again Public Hermit, for the time being, forget about what I just wrote to you above, this is what we need to discuss.

Exactly. Here's the short of my position. The scriptures are the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ if and only if they are understood in conjunction with the witness of the Holy Spirit. So the scriptures are not a sufficient witness in and of themselves. If they were, everyone who read them would come to faith, which is obviously not the case. But when they function in conjunction with the Holy Spirit, they bear witness to Christ and engender faith. The object of faith is not the scriptures, themselves, but the risen, living Christ.

Once the scriptures have served that function and faith has been engendered, then the scriptures can also function as a guide to faith and practice, i.e., how one lives out the faith that has been engendered. However, the risen, living Christ is the interpretive key to the scriptures. The Holy Spirit continues to bear witness as do the scriptures, but the scriptures are interpreted in the light of Christ.

Here's how I understand your position, in general. The idea is that the scriptures must be without error in order to be considered trustworthy. Hence, what Jesus teaches or does cannot in any way contradict the scriptures. I see that as misplaced faith. Our faith is not in a perfect book but a perfect Christ. What ends up happening is people do all kinds of exegetical back flips trying to make everything agree. But, of course, the supposed agreement is an assumption that is forced onto texts, which is not necessary and verges on idolatry (although, it is practical idolatry and not explicit idolatry).

I partly blame the way Christians equivocate over the phrase "Word/word of God."
Word of God = Christ
word of God = the scriptures

Those two are not the same thing and do not have the same function or authority. One is a witness to Christ, and the other is Christ. To treat the witness to Christ as if it had the same authority as Christ would be like bowing down and worshiping angels.

 

[St_Worm2]

Jesus is the standard ... If he asserts authority over a scriptural claim, and overrides it with his own, then they are not equal in authority. It seems to me, the question is: Who has authority, the living Christ or the scriptures about the living Christ? The scriptures aid us, but the scriptures are held to a higher standard.

I don't assume that every bit of scripture needs to be in some kind of harmony. I'm fine with the fact that Jesus abrogates a claim of scripture. In fact, it makes sense.

Hello once again Public Hermit, my real life keeps getting in the way my virtual life (on the forums), so I apologize for the delay in replying to you.

I was about to reply to what you wrote (above & elsewhere), but I think that I need to be a little clearer about what it is that you actually believe first. So, here are a few more questions to help me with that (I'm hoping that you won't mind ).

1. When you say that the "living Christ" is the "authority" or "standard" for us to look to instead of the Scriptures, what are you referring to exactly? Do you mean what is oft times called the "red-letter" words in the Bible, something else along 'with' His personally spoken ("red-letter") words, or something else altogether (and if it is one of the latter two options, what is the "something else")?​

​

2. If Jesus is truly the standard/the authority (as you believe), then why did He tell us that the Bible is (saying again and again and again, to His disciples and now to us too, "it is written", as proof that what He was teaching was the truth)?​

​

Also, since the Bible is what the Lord Jesus pointed to (and pointed us to) as His "standard" or "regula fidei", what possible reason could we have for wanting to do otherwise?​

Though I believe that I have another question or two that I'd like you to answer for me, I think that I'll stop with the two above for now and wait to hear what your reply is.

Thanks I appreciate the help

God bless you!!

--David

 

[oikonomia]

For example, there is a distinction between the way to become courageous and who someone is becoming when they become courageous. The way to become courageous is through faith and when someone is becoming courageous they are becoming someone who practices courageousness. The same is true for righteousness and other character traits. God's law is His instructions for how to practice righteousness, not for how to become righteous.

This doesn't make that much sense to me.
Thanks anyway.

Stop being absurd. If you think that there is a questioned that I have missed answering, then by all means please directly bring it to my attention rather than being passive aggressive about it.

I have been away since 8/5 till now.
If I see no specific reply to my two last questions
1.) I will not be surprised.
2.) No excuse or rationalization will impress me.

They were quite simple and fair yes or no questions.

The answer to the question about Romans 7:6 is is that the Bible teaching is that
the Christian has been "discharged from the law" unless the New Testament is lying here or wrong.

Romans 7:6 -But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that in which we were held, so that we serve in newness of spirit and not in oldness of letter.

There are no Ifs, ands, or buts, about it.
And I am realizing that it is unfortunately a waste of time for me to attempt reasonable discourse with you about it.

The answer to the question about being made dead to the law is that the Christian has "been made dead to the law through the body of Christ" unless this verse is a lying or incorrect -

Romans 7:4a says - So then, my brothers, you also have been made dead to the law through the body of Christ


Some of us know the difference between strongly standing for the teaching of the BIble and being just plain stubborn.
I think you are being just plain stubborn.
You're intricate appeals to context and you apologetics for what I would call modern day Judiazing are being just plain stubborn.

I have no heart anymore to give you a big benefit of a doubt and patiently hear you out.

In the past I carefully looked up your passages and considered them fairly.
It appears futile to play whack-a-mole further with you. I can't dignify this game anymore.

An old proverb says "A person convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still."

If you can't bring yourself to give men me two simple YES answers before laboring to DULL the impact of Romans 7:6 and 7:4
you've basically told me what I need to know about your teaching.

 

[Soyeong]

This doesn't make that much sense to me.
Thanks anyway.

What doesn't make sense to you?

It is possible that someone could have spent their life up to the present moment taking courageous actions, but in the present moment not be courageous, so what makes someone courageous in the present moment is not the result of anything that they have done previously, but the present belief that they ought to be courageous. It is our current beliefs that cause us to have the character traits that we currently have and one it means to have a character trait is to be someone who chooses to take actions that express that trait in accordance with their beliefs.

I have been away since 8/5 till now.
If I see no specific reply to my two last questions
1.) I will not be surprised.
2.) No excuse or rationalization will impress me.

They were quite simple and fair yes or no questions.

If I have missed answering a question, then please bring bring it to my attention, but I am unaware of any questions that you've asked that I have not addressed, so it is bizarre to me that you are acting like you will not be surprised if I do not reply to your questions. While I affirm the truth of Romans 7:4 and 7:6 and you asked simple yes or no, one of the words in your questions had multiple meanings, and the answer is yes for some of those meanings and no for others, so I am unable to give an answer without clarification. For example, if "law" is referring to "traffic laws", then it would be false that we have died to and been released from them, but there is a law that we have died to and been released from, which is not the Law of God.

The answer to the question about Romans 7:6 is is that the Bible teaching is that
the Christian has been "discharged from the law" unless the New Testament is lying here or wrong.

Romans 7:6 -But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that in which we were held, so that we serve in newness of spirit and not in oldness of letter.

There are no Ifs, ands, or buts, about it.
And I am realizing that it is unfortunately a waste of time for me to attempt reasonable discourse with you about it.

The answer to the question about being made dead to the law is that the Christian has "been made dead to the law through the body of Christ" unless this verse is a lying or incorrect -

Romans 7:4a says - So then, my brothers, you also have been made dead to the law through the body of Christ


Some of us know the difference between strongly standing for the teaching of the BIble and being just plain stubborn.
I think you are being just plain stubborn.
You're intricate appeals to context and you apologetics for what I would call modern day Judiazing are being just plain stubborn.

I have no heart anymore to give you a big benefit of a doubt and patiently hear you out.

In the past I carefully looked up your passages and considered them fairly.
It appears futile to play whack-a-mole further with you. I can't dignify this game anymore.

An old proverb says "A person convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still."

I'm sorry that you feel that it is a waste of time for me to attempt reasonable discourse with you about Romans 7:4 and 7:6, it seems perfectly reasonable to me to discuss which law those verses are referring to. Me refusing to interpret Romans 7:4 and 7:6 is a way that is contrary to the context and that is against obeying God is standing firm for the teaching of the Bible, while if anything, you refusing to interact with what I said to explain why you think that I am wrong is being stubborn. I do appreciate your willingness to look up the verses that I cited in the past.

If you can't bring yourself to give men me two simple YES answers before laboring to DULL the impact of Romans 7:6 and 7:4
you've basically told me what I need to know about your teaching.

Yes, we have been released from the law of sin, no, we have not been released from the Law of God.

Yes, we have been made dead to the law of sin, no, we have not been made dead to the Law of God.

We need to be released and die to the law of sin in order to be free to obey the Law of God, not be released from and die to the Law of God in order to be free to obey the law of sin. Paul was not an enemy of the God of Israel, so he should not be interpreted as teaching us to rebel against Him to serve other gods.

 

[oikonomia]

Yes, we have been released from the law of sin, no, we have not been released from the Law of God.

It is not going to work on me.
You cannot use freeing from the law of sin to negate the law from which we are discharged in Romans 7:4 is the Law of God as Moses received it and wrote it.

Fancy dancing to point to freedom from the law of sin can not be used by you to twist "discharged from the law" in Rom. 7:2.[edited]
The law that Paul says the Christian is discharged from in Romans 7:2 [edited] is NOT in that verse "the law of sin and of death" of Romans 8:1.
You won't pull that on me - using Romans 8:1 to prove that the discharging in 7:2 [edited] does not refer to the law of God as Moses delivered it.

The little hand waving lecture on "law" having different connotations or meanings will not work on me.

Yes, we have been made dead to the law of sin, no, we have not been made dead to the Law of God.

We need to be released and die to the law of sin in order to be free to obey the Law of God, not be released from and die to the Law of God in order to be free to obey the law of sin. Paul was not an enemy of the God of Israel, so he should not be interpreted as teaching us to rebel against Him to serve other gods.

The same tactic used on Romans 7:6 will not work on me either. This is why I sadly have to say this is a waste of time.

No, a little hand waving about being freed from "the law of sin" (ie. Rom. 8:1) will not persuade me that Paul is not referring to the law of God as Moses received it in Romans 7:6.

I see you. I see what your tactic is.
It work work.

Yes, through the Spirit we can be freed from the law of sin and of death (Romans 8:1)
And Yes, the Christian is ALSO discharged from the law of Moses Romans 7:2. [edited]
And Yes, the Christian is ALSO made dead to the law of Moses in Romans 7:4. [edited]

Handwaving about nuances over the word "law" in the Bible will not be used to reject in unbelief Romans 7:2,4 and 7:6.

And the discharg[ing] and the being made dead are not for disobedience to God but rather for obedience to the now INDWELLING
God as Christ the life giving Spirit.

This post was written for the sake of some who have observed the argument.

 

[oikonomia]

Because I made some reference mistakes which needed editing above, I will clarify three verses.

1.) Romans 7:2 - For the married woman is bound by the law to her husband while he is living; but if the husband dies, she is discharged from the law regarding the husband.

In Paul's analogy, this "law regarding the husband" MUST correspond to his phrase "oldness of letter" (v.6) meaning the Law of God delivered to Moses in letters.

"But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that in which we were held, so that we serve in newness of spirit and not in oldness of letter." (Rom. 7:6)

The law from which the Christian is DISHCHARGED through Christ's death is that law of letters under which the old man was HELD.

2.) Romans 7:4 - So then, my brothers, you also have been made dead to the law through the body of Christ so that you might be joined to another, to Him who has been raised from the dead, that we might bear fruit to God.

"So then" connects the death in verse 4 to the death in verse 2. And that is a DEATH to the law in oldness of letter which held us - the law of Moses.

So then, my brothers, you also have been made dead to the law
The same law from which the wife has been DISCHRGED is that law to which she has been made DEAD to.

From what law has the believer in Christ been DISCHARGED and MADE DEAD to ? It is the law of letters, ie. that delivered to Moses.

It is proper to realize "LAW" has different connotations in Romans 7,8.
And is true that in Romans 8:2 that law from which we are freed is the law of sin and death not the law of Moses.

There is now then no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.
For the law of the Spirit of life has freed me in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and of death.

I run out of time this morning now.
But lastly, the reason that there is the DISCHARGING from the law of God as written and DEATH to that law of God as written is for
the purpose to "BEAR FRUIT TO GOD."

So then, my brothers, you also have been made dead to the law through the body of Christ so that you might be joined to another, to Him who has been raised from the dead, that we might bear fruit to God. (Rom. 7:4)

This discharging from the law of Moses which was written and held the old man is the bearing of fruit to God, ie. obeying God.
This obeying is not serving in "oldness of letter" but serving "in newness of spirit."

"But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that in which we were held, so that we serve in newness of spirit and not in oldness of letter." (Rom. 7:6)

 

[Soyeong]

It is not going to work on me.
You cannot use freeing from the law of sin to negate the law from which we are discharged in Romans 7:4 is the Law of God as Moses received it and wrote it.

Fancy dancing to point to freedom from the law of sin can not be used by you to twist "discharged from the law" in Rom. 7:2.[edited]
The law that Paul says the Christian is discharged from in Romans 7:2 [edited] is NOT in that verse "the law of sin and of death" of Romans 8:1.
You won't pull that on me - using Romans 8:1 to prove that the discharging in 7:2 [edited] does not refer to the law of God as Moses delivered it.

The little hand waving lecture on "law" having different connotations or meanings will not work on me.

In Romans 7:21-25, Paul contrasted the Law of God that he delighted in obeying and served with his mind with the law of sin that held him captive and that he served with his flesh, and this is summarizing what he had been speaking about previously, so it should at least be worth determining which law is being spoken about without needing to wontonly throw out accusation of fancy dancing and twisting and such.

In Romans 7:2-3, she is released from the law of marriage through the death of her husband, which would have caused to her to commit adultery if she had lived with another man while her husband was still alive. At no point was she released from needing to obey any of God's other laws, and if she were to get married to another man after the death of her first husband, then she would still be required by God's law to refrain from committing adultery, so there is nothing that leads to the conclusion in Romans 7:4 that therefore in the same way we have been released from all of God's laws. I did not claim that Romans 7:2 was referring to the law of sin and death.

The same tactic used on Romans 7:6 will not work on me either. This is why I sadly have to say this is a waste of time.

No, a little hand waving about being freed from "the law of sin" (ie. Rom. 8:1) will not persuade me that Paul is not referring to the law of God as Moses received it in Romans 7:6.

I see you. I see what your tactic is.
It work work.

Yes, through the Spirit we can be freed from the law of sin and of death (Romans 8:1)
And Yes, the Christian is ALSO discharged from the law of Moses Romans 7:2. [edited]
And Yes, the Christian is ALSO made dead to the law of Moses in Romans 7:4. [edited]

Handwaving about nuances over the word "law" in the Bible will not be used to reject in unbelief Romans 7:2,4 and 7:6.

And the discharg[ing] and the being made dead are not for disobedience to God but rather for obedience to the now INDWELLING
God as Christ the life giving Spirit.

This post was written for the sake of some who have observed the argument.

In Romans. 7:22-23, Paul said that delighted in obeying the Law of God, but contrasted that with the law of sin that held him captive. In Romans 7:6, it says that we have been released from a law that held us captive, so why won't you consider the possibility that it is referring to the law of sin and why does it make more sense to interpret him as speaking about being released from a law that he delighted in obeying?

Because I made some reference mistakes which needed editing above, I will clarify three verses.

1.) Romans 7:2 - For the married woman is bound by the law to her husband while he is living; but if the husband dies, she is discharged from the law regarding the husband.

In Paul's analogy, this "law regarding the husband" MUST correspond to his phrase "oldness of letter" (v.6) meaning the Law of God delivered to Moses in letters.

"But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that in which we were held, so that we serve in newness of spirit and not in oldness of letter." (Rom. 7:6)

The law from which the Christian is DISHCHARGED through Christ's death is that law of letters under which the old man was HELD.

Let's look at how else Paul used "the letter"

2 Corinthians 3:6 who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant involves God putting His law in our minds and writing it on our hearts, in Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey God's law, and in Deuteronomy 30:15-20, obedience to God's law brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, so choose life! There are many other verses that same similar things, so "the letter" needs to be interpreted in a manner that is in accordance with those other verses instead of a way that is contrary to them. If obeying "the letter" referred to obeying the Mosaic Law as you insist it must, then that would mean that God is leading us to death instead of life and shouldn't be trusted, and that all of the verses that say otherwise are false.

2.) Romans 7:4 - So then, my brothers, you also have been made dead to the law through the body of Christ so that you might be joined to another, to Him who has been raised from the dead, that we might bear fruit to God.

"So then" connects the death in verse 4 to the death in verse 2. And that is a DEATH to the law in oldness of letter which held us - the law of Moses.

So then, my brothers, you also have been made dead to the law
The same law from which the wife has been DISCHRGED is that law to which she has been made DEAD to.

From what law has the believer in Christ been DISCHARGED and MADE DEAD to ? It is the law of letters, ie. that delivered to Moses.

It is proper to realize "LAW" has different connotations in Romans 7,8.
And is true that in Romans 8:2 that law from which we are freed is the law of sin and death not the law of Moses.

There is now then no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.
For the law of the Spirit of life has freed me in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and of death.

I run out of time this morning now.
But lastly, the reason that there is the DISCHARGING from the law of God as written and DEATH to that law of God as written is for
the purpose to "BEAR FRUIT TO GOD."

So then, my brothers, you also have been made dead to the law through the body of Christ so that you might be joined to another, to Him who has been raised from the dead, that we might bear fruit to God. (Rom. 7:4)

This discharging from the law of Moses which was written and held the old man is the bearing of fruit to God, ie. obeying God.
This obeying is not serving in "oldness of letter" but serving "in newness of spirit."

"But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that in which we were held, so that we serve in newness of spirit and not in oldness of letter." (Rom. 7:6)

Paul said that the Law of God is good and that he wanted to do good, but that the law of sin was working within him to cause him not to do the good that he wanted to do, so we need to be free from the law of sin so that we can be free to do the good of obeying the Law of God and it wouldn't make sense to interpret Paul as speaking about being freed from doing the good that he wanted to do or in order to be free to sin. The reason why there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ is because Christ gave himself to free us from sin, not so that we could be free to sin. We need to be free from sin so that we can be free to obey God's instructions for how to bear fruit for him, not freed from God's instructions for how to bear fruit for Him so that we can be free to stir up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death. The old man is the one that lived in sin, not the one who lived in obedience to God. Again, in Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey God's law, and in Romans 8:4-7, those who walk in the Spirit are contrasted with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to His law. We have not been set free from the Law of God in order to become His enemies.

 

[oikonomia]

In Romans 7:21-25, Paul contrasted the Law of God that he delighted in obeying and served with his mind with the law of sin that held him captive and that he served with his flesh, and this is summarizing what he had been speaking about previously, so it should at least be worth determining which law is being spoken about without needing to wontonly throw out accusation of fancy dancing and twisting and such.

Yes. To use phrases like "fancy dancing" is not nice, not pleasant to have to read.
Having admitted that unpleasantness I would add - It is also insulting to me, to have someone blatently ignore clear exposition
so lightly. You are sensative when demeaning comes your way with such unpleasant accusations.
I think you do not realize though, how YOU come across as similarly rude in another way with some of your brush offs which can be quite inadaquate.

In fact a number of times what you wrote insulted my intellegience to be frank.
I like to keep the peace and will apologize for the demeaning phrase "fancy dancing."
But if I do take the long time to examine your reply and I notice something simply TOO superfiscial, I will probably
say such an argument comes across to me very much like my saying something not flattering about your response. ie. "fancy dancing"

In Romans 7:2-3, she is released from the law of marriage through the death of her husband, which would have caused to her to commit adultery if she had lived with another man while her husband was still alive.

That's right. I am waiting for you to tell me something I that I don't know. Though much more could be said about this for sure.

At no point was she released from needing to obey any of God's other laws,

Hold it. Yes, the she there was under obligation to keep the Law of Moses. And under that obligation her UTTER FAILURE God INTENDED to manifest TO her. There's no argument that the LAW was given to EXPOSE the NATURE of SIN. In fact SIN in the flesh is the power to activate the BREAKING of the law of God, bearing fruit unto death.

Romans 7:5 - For when we were in the flesh, the passions for sins, which acted through the law, operated in our members to bear fruit to death.

Now if you end up brushing this aside, understand that that comes across to ME like an insult to my intelligence.
Please read it again. For when we were in the flesh, the passions for sins, WHICH ACTED THROUGH THE LAW, operated in our members to bear fruit to death.

The delimma is of hopelessness not hopefulness. She is under a terrible marriage situation.
It was NOT a happy marriage. This is the revelation now revealed to the Apostle Paul. And we should submit to it.

and if she were to get married to another man after the death of her first husband, then she would still be required by God's law to refrain from committing adultery,

You are not, I think, understanding Paul's analogy. This sentence CONTRADICTS what we were just told -
For the married woman is bound by the law to her husband while he is living; but if the husband dies, she is discharged from the law regarding the husband. (v.2)

While Paul says if the man husband dies she is DISCHARGED from the law of her husband,
you are saying something true in one sense but totally CONTRADICTORY to how Paul is laying out the analogy.

the married woman is bound by the law to her husband while he is living;
In Paul's teaching analogy it is while her husband is LIVING . . . she is bound.
In his teaching analogy when he DIES she is DISCHARGED
but if the husband dies, she is discharged from the law regarding the husband. (v.2)

So you're explanation -

and if she were to get married to another man after the death of her first husband, then she would still be required by God's law to refrain from committing adultery,

Is true in one sense but irrelavant to the Apostle's teaching and the God inspired wisdom of how God's apostle is analogizing.
Your pointing out that NO ONE married or unmarried, with living or dead spouse should commit adultery, is being used
to DIRECTLY CONTRADICT Paul's God inspired teaching.

but if the husband dies, she is discharged from the law regarding the husband. (v.2)

Now the careful New Testament reader has to come to a decision.
Should he believe that in Paul's teaching - but if the husband dies, she is discharged from the law regarding the husband ?
OR should he believe Soyeng's explanation that she is STILL BOUND to the law of her husband even though he is dead?

I'm sorry. I am going to side with the Apostle Paul. And as seemingly valid your point seems, I reject it -
" then she would still be required by God's law to refrain from committing adultery, "

It is a misuse and misunderstanding of the revelation given to the New Covenant apostle.
You are SO enamored by the Mosaic Law that you cannot hear what Paul is teaching.
This was the problem of the Judaizers in the first century and why they hounded the genuine Christian apostles.

so there is nothing that leads to the conclusion in Romans 7:4 that therefore in the same way we have been released from all of God's laws. I did not claim that Romans 7:2 was referring to the law of sin and death.

You are wrong about there being no leading up to the conclusion of Romans 7:4.
" SO THEN " demonstrates quite clearly the logical progression from the previous verse 2.
Stop fighting against it!

Verse 2b - but if the husband dies, she is discharged from the law regarding the husband.
Verse 3b - but if the husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress, though she is joined to another man.
Verse 4 - So then, my brothers, you also have been made dead to the law through the body of Christ so that you might be joined to another, to Him who has been raised from the dead, that we might bear fruit to God.

And you have the audacity to sit there with a straight face and try to teach me that there is no logical connection leading
to the conclusion of verse 4 ?

You are actually attempting to teach that Paul's "SO THEN" is wrong and illegitimate.
SO THEN, my brothers, you also have been made dead to the law through the body of Christ [my emphasis]

Have you no fear of God? Do you see how you are teaching people that God's apostle is wrong?

In Romans. 7:22-23, Paul said that delighted in obeying the Law of God, but contrasted that with the law of sin that held him captive.

That is true. I know this aleady.
Pointing this out does NOTHING to excuse your flatly contradicting the Bible about the conclusion of 7:4 following 7:2.
Your insight into 7:22-23 is welcomed. But what you say about 7:22-23 DOES NOT rescue your grevious error of
trying to BREAK the validity of the connection of verse 4 to verse 2.

This is bribing your conscience.
This is silencing your conscience on unbelief of Romans 7:2-4 by instead pointing to your belief in verses 22-23.
I will not join you in this bribing of the conscience.

In Romans 7:6, it says that we have been released from a law that held us captive, so why won't you consider the possibility that it is referring to the law of sin and why does it make more sense to interpret him as speaking about being released from a law that he delighted in obeying?

That particular verse 6 the phrase "oldness of letter" informs us that HERE the law from which there is DISCHARGE from is the WRITTEN law - the commandments delivered at Mt. Sinai.

But now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that in which we were held, so that we serve in newness of spirit and not in oldness of letter. (v. 6)

In the immediately following sentence Paul takes away any ground for assuming that this being DISCHARGED means the Law of God
is not divine, or not [edited] from God, or not [edited] to be held in high esteem. The LAW is not sin. The LAW exposes and illuminates us to the existence of the sin nature.

What then shall we say? Is the law sin? Absolutely not! But I did not know sin except through the law; for neither did I know coveting, except the law had said, “You shall not covet.” v. 7)

To be sure, latter Paul DOES teach the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has FREED us from that law of the sinning nature in fallen man (ie, the old bound wife).

There is now then no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus.
For the law of the Spirit of life has freed me in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and of death. (Rom. 8:1,2)

You see, the utter failure to keep the divine and holy law of God leads to both condemnation before a righteous God AND WRETCHED
SELF-CONDEMNATION - "But I see a different law in my members, warring against the law of my mind and making me a captive to the law of sin which is in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from the body of this death?" (Rom. 7:23,24)

YES - there is Christ freeing the sinner from the law of sin in his members.
YES - there is Christ dying to DISCHARGE the sinner from the Law of God's written demands.

Your question is "Why don't you see the freedom in verse 6 as freedom from the law of sin?"
My reply to you is that verse 6 is about one kind of freedom - from the oldness of the letter of the commandments,
and Romans 8:1,2 is about another kind of related freedom - from the law of sin in the fallen body making us feel WRETCHED.

Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me FROM THE BODY OF THIS DEATH?
Thanks be to God, through Jesus Christ our Lord! (7:24)

Let's look at how else Paul used "the letter"

2 Corinthians 3:6 who has made us sufficient to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

This is exactly the WRONG verse to go to to deny that Romans 7:6 is referring to discharging from the law of God given through Moses.

Second Corinthians 3:6 is confirmation that the new testament ministers are NOT ministering the written Law of God from Mt, Sinai.
They are ministering the living Person of the Spirit of divine life - Christ the resurrected Savior, the new husband, the one to whom
man may NOW [edited] be JOINED to - organically. That is that HE may live again this time IN those joined to Him.

And for length's sake, I stop here with Romans 8:3,4 - For that which the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending His own Son in the likeness of the flesh of sin and concerning sin, condemned sin in the flesh, That the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the spirit.

This living perfect righteous One is JOINED to the saved in the innermost human spirit as "one spirit" for an organic blending of living.
But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit. (1 Cor. 6:17)

It is living by setting the mind and whole being on Him, the indwelling Righteousness.
This bears fruit to God.This allows the righteous requirement of the law to be fullfilled in us who WALK by the mingled spirit.

This is the GRACE that we must not nullify. This is Christ living in us through our faith in what HE can do.

 

[oikonomia]

In Jeremiah 31:33, the New Covenant involves God putting His law in our minds and writing it on our hearts,

The prophecy is about God putting HIMSELF as a living Person INTO men.
Man's mind and heart are living things. And God is in Christ to impart HIMSELF "organically" into man's being.

in Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey God's law,

For clarification of the prophecy you should consult the VOLUMINOUS explanation of the whole New Testament.
Yes, the prophet does say "cause you to walk in My statutes, and My ordinances you shall keep and do."

In clearer light of the New Testament it means the Son of God LIVING in you will be the indwelling One mingled with you.
He alone is absolute for the will of the Father.

"I will also give you a new heart," that is Jesus, the living Person - your new heart.
"and a new spirit I will put within you;" that too is the Lord Jesus who is the Spirit - the life giving Spirit that He became in resurrection. (1 Cor. 15;45)

and I will take away the heart of stone out of your flesh, and I will give you a heart of flesh.
The Triune God will dispense the living Person of the Son into man's inner being.

And I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and My ordinances you shall keep and do.
This correponds to Romans 8:4 - That the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the spirit.

"The Spirit has a role in leading us to obey God's law" you write.
The Spirit enables us to walk by another Person who has been dispensed into us.
This is the grace that is with the regenerated person's human spirit.

I am crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live in faith, the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness is through law, then Christ has died for nothing. (Gal. 2:20,21)

How does Paul NOT nullify the powerful grace of God? He lives Christ rather than attempts to be a Law keeper.
The enabling grace is adaquate and powerful IF he will not nullify this One.
This One as grace is with the spirits of the saints.

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit, brothers. Amen. (Gal. 6:18)
Compare:
The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you. (2 Tim. 4:22)

Paul as our pioneer and example would NOT be found in his own righteousness which was out of the law keeping,
but in the righteousness of FAITH that Christ in him could do everything pleasing to the Father.

And be found in Him, not having my own righteousness which is out of the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is out of God and based on faith, (Philippians 3:9)

And at the conclusion of this letter as with Galatians, he points us as his final point to Christ as GRACE with man's regenerated spirit.
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. (Phil. 4:23)

and in Deuteronomy 30:15-20, obedience to God's law brings life and a blessing while disobedience brings death and a curse, so choose life!

We need to come up to date with what the SAME God tells us in the new covenant era. Mainly that NO commandment could give divine
life to man.

Is then the law against the promises of God? Absolutely not! For if a law had been given which was able to give life, righteousness would have indeed been of law. (Gal. 3:21)

Do not rebel. Do not murmer. Submit to God's revelation that there was no commandment that could give Himself to man as divine life.
For if a law had been given which was able to give life, righteousness would have indeed been of law. (Gal. 3:21)

This we have to take even if it perplexes us.
It is like the Apostle John having the boldness to say no man has EVER seen God. And that we must forget the apparent
seeings of God in the Old Testament. They have all been nullified by Jesus Christ DECLARING the reality of God to the world.

No one has ever seen God; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him. (John 1:18)

AMEN! No one has ever seen God. But Jesus has declared God.
AMEN! No commandment was given that could give life.

We should submit humbly to the New Testament revelation and not murmer against it clinging to certain Old Testament sayings.

There are many other verses that same similar things, so "the letter" needs to be interpreted in a manner that is in accordance with those other verses instead of a way that is contrary to them. If obeying "the letter" referred to obeying the Mosaic Law as you insist it must, then that would mean that God is leading us to death instead of life and shouldn't be trusted, and that all of the verses that say otherwise are false.

It means that the LAW was a neccessary child conductor LEADING man to a greater reality - FAITH and GRACE.

So then the law has become our child-conductor unto Christ that we might be justified out of faith.
But since faith has come, we are no longer under a child-conductor. (Gal. 3:24,25)

The oracles of God say here that we are no longer under a child-conductor of the Law.

You are saying "No, we are STILL under the law. We are still under this child-conductor."
You are saying "The law was leading us to the law was leading us to the law was leading us to the law. That's all Jesus is for."

Galatians 3:10 does not say all who BREAK the law are under a curse. But it says all who are under the law PERIOD are under a curse.

For as many as are of the works of law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all the things written in the book of the law to do them.” (3:10)

Again, look at it. "as many as are of works of law . . . "
That is under works of law doing well or doing poorly.

The New Testmament is clear. While being under the GUARDIAN of the law, men were as slaves.

But he is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father.
So also we, when we were children, were kept in slavery under the elements of the world; (vs. 2,3)

So then you are no longer a slave but a son; and if a son, an heir also through God. (v. 7)

. . .
The reason why there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ is because Christ gave himself to free us from sin, not so that we could be free to sin.

At no time since the you and I have been conversing have I EVER said Christ freed us to commit sins.
The "no condemnation" is related to Paul's conclusion in the previous chapter that he felt WRETCHED because of the body of sin.

Of course Christ's death is our justification from the eternal condemnation of God.
Now He gave Himself also to redeem us from the curse of the law.

Christ has redeemed us out of the curse of the law, having become a curse on our behalf; because it is written, “Cursed is everyone hanging on a tree”;

He BOUGHT man out from under the curse of the law by REDEMPTION.
He DELIVERS man from the overpowering of the sin nature by His stronger power.

To REDEEM us from the law He had to pay the price that law demanded on our behalf.
To FREE us from sin He has to be the indwelling MORE STRONG law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus.

We need to be free from sin so that we can be free to obey God's instructions for how to bear fruit for him, not freed from God's instructions for how to bear fruit for Him so that we can be free to stir up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death. The old man is the one that lived in sin, not the one who lived in obedience to God.

At no time have I at least EVER argued that any FREEDOM in Christ is for further sinning.
Freedom is that Christ may live in us being as we are grafted into a healthy true vine which flows His life into
man that we may bear fruit to God.

You mention LAW ten times for any NT passages teaching about GRACE.

I don't think you grasp the conflict and contrast in the Bible between LAW and GRACE.
This contrast cannot be erased whether you like it or not.

For of His fullness we have all received, and grace upon grace.
For the law was given through Moses; grace and reality came through Jesus Christ. (John 1:16,17)

The CONTRAST is there and you cannot sweep it away.
LIving Christ is VERSES law keeping in the NT no matter how much you refer back to Deutoronomy.

Again, in Ezekiel 36:26-27, the Spirit has the role of leading us to obey God's law, and in Romans 8:4-7, those who walk in the Spirit are contrasted with those who have minds set on the flesh who are enemies of God who refuse to submit to His law. We have not been set free from the Law of God in order to become His enemies.

Of course to live Christ is to fulfill the just requiremment of the law. Thanks to Christ the indwelling Spirit of life for that.
What you don't want to admit that "living in the flesh" and "setting the mind on the flesh" INCLUDES striving in the old nature to
be a Law keeper.

No, setting the mind on the flesh is not only commiting fornication, stealing, lying, etc.
Setting the mind on the flesh is ALSO striving in the old nature to keep the law of God.

To do so is to be at enmity with God now.
The law keepers in the flesh were at enmity with God and His apostle and the churches in Galatia.
They were called "the synagogue of Satan" because of this rebellious rejection of Christ as grace.

Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan, those who call themselves Jews and are not, but lie — behold, I will cause them to come and fall prostrate before your feet and to know that I have loved you. (Rev. 3:9)

"But what splendid lovers and keepers of God's law through Moses they were." you may protest.

Jesus said they for their fierce opposition to the church, a synogogue of Satan. They caused the churching people much enmity and tribulation.

I know your tribulation and poverty (but you are rich) and the slander from those who call themselves Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan. (Rev. 2:9)

Did you get that? Not a synagogue of great law keepers adhering faithfully to Deuteronomy.
But a group of religionists at enmity with Christ and His church , opposing them, opposing the age of grace.