Romans 6:14-15 does say that sin can't have dominion over us since we're not under law but grace. However, this doesn't seem to mean that the law and sin are the same thing. In fact, wouldn't that contradict Romans 7:7-8? Here, we're told 1) that the law isn't sin, 2) that the law said, "You shall not covet," and 3) that sin took opportunity by such commands, rather than being such commands.
Would you agree that "the law" in Romans 7 is the law of Moses?
In Romans 7:25, Paul contrasted the Law of God that he served with his mind with the law of sin that he served with his flesh, and the Law of Moses is referred to as the Law of God (Nehemiah 8:1-8, Ezra 7:6-12, Luke 2:22-23), so "the law" in Romans 7 sometimes refers to the Law of Moses and sometimes refers to the law of sin depending on the context. The law of sin is not so much a list of commands as it is a principle or an evil inclination that was working without Paul to cause him not to do the good that he wanted to do.
In Romans 7:7, Paul said that God's law is not sinful, but is how we know what sin is, and when our sin is revealed, then it leads us to repent and causes sin to decrease, however, in Romans 7:5, 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 it is working at cross purposes to the Law of God. So verses that refer to a law that is sinful, that causes sin to increase, or that hinders us from obey the Law of God should be interpreted as referring to the law of sin rather than the Law of God, such Romans 5:20, Romans 6:14, Galatians 2:19, Galatians 5:16-18, and 1 Corinthians 15:56.
In regard to Romans 6:14, as law where sin had dominion over us is a law that is sinful, but Romans 7:7 says that the Law of God is not sinful, so these two verses can't both e speaking about the same law. It is the law of sin acting upon the commands of God, so the law of sin is not the commands of God.
Circumcision was required in the law of Moses (Leviticus 12:1-3). In Acts of the Apostles 15:5, some claimed that everyone needed to be circumcised and keep the law of Moses. Was their decision that the claim in Acts of the Apostles 15:5 is false?
Either there are correct and incorrect purposes for becoming circumcised, and Paul only spoke against the incorrect purposes, or according to Galatians 5:2, Paul caused Christ to be of no value when he had him circumcised (Acts 16:3) and Christ is of no value to roughly 80% of the men in the US. While God commanded circumcision for the purpose of being a sign of the Abrahamic covenant, He did not command circumcision for the purpose of becoming saved, so the problem with the group who came down from Judea in Acts 15:1 was that they were wanting to require circumcision for an incorrect purpose. They were opposed in Acts 15:5 by a group of believers from among the Pharisees, who wanted Gentiles to become circumcised and obey the Law of Moses, but not for an incorrect purpose. Essentially, it was a debate between salvation by works or salvation by grace, which is why Acts 15:11 ruled that we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will. So the Jerusalem Council made a few arguments in favor of the group in Acts 15:5 and ruled against the group in Acts 15:1, while no one there took the position that Gentiles should not become circumcised and obey the Law of Moses.
I think I agree. When you're under a tutor, the things you learned under the tutor can help you later. Our tutor brought us to Christ. Since we're not under the tutor any longer, would this mean that we don't need to keep the commands of the law of Moses (though it informs us) and that instead, we must keep the commands of Christ (Romans 3:27; Galatians 6:1-2; James 1:25)?
Again, Christ spent his ministry teaching his followers how to obey the Law of Moses by word and example, so following his commands is not distinct from following the Law of Moses. The Son is the exact expression of God's nature (Hebrews 1:3), which he expressed through his actions by living in sinless obedience to the Law of Moses, so he is the physical manifestation of the nature of God expressed through the Law of Moses, or in other words, the word of God made flesh, and the Law of Christ can't can something other than the law of which Christ is the living embodiment. In 1 Corinthians 9:21, Paul said in a parallel statement that he was not outside the Law of God, but under the Law of Christ, so he equated the Law of Christ with the Law of God, which is also the Law of Moses. God is not in disagreement with Himself about which laws we should follow, so the Law of Christ is the same as the Law of the Spirit and the Law of the Father, which was given to Moses.
In Romans 3:27, Paul contrasted a law of works with the law of faith, so works of the law are the law of works, while in 3:31, he said that our faith upholds the Law of God, so it is the law of faith, which is also the Law of Moses. In Psalms 19:7, the Law of Moses is perfect, in Psalms 119:45, it is the law of liberty, and in Psalms 119:1, it blesses those who obey it, so James 1:25 was not saying anything about the Law of Moses that was not already said in the Psalms.
But would she still need to obey her now-deceased husband? If not, then wouldn't this mean she's no longer under the law of her (first) husband but now under the law of Christ (Romans 3:27;
Galatians 6:1-2; James 1:25)?
The Mosaic Covenant is often described as being a marriage between God and Israel, such as with God describing himself as her husband (Jeremiah 31:31), or with Israel's unfaithfulness being described as adultery, which eventually got so bad that God wrote the Northern Kingdom a certificate of divorce (Jeremiah 3:8), yet God continued to call for her to return to Him throughout the rest of the chapter. This raises a significant problem for those who know the law, which is why Paul said in Romans 7:1 that he was speaking to those who know the law, namely in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, it forbids a woman from returning to her first husband after she had been divorced and been with another man, so the only way that the Northern Kingdom could become remarried to God without committing adultery would be through the death of her first husband, so it was a great mystery how God would accomplish this. This is the point Paul was making in Romans 7:4 in that we have died to the law of sin through the body of Christ so that we might be free to belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order to bear fruit for God. So God/Christ is both the first and the second husband and the Mosaic and New Covenant are all about God's marriage, divorce, and remarriage to Israel, which is consistent with the prophesies in Deuteronomy 30 of Israel returning from exile and returning to obedience to the Law of Moses and the prophesies in Ezekiel and Jeremiah of Israel returning from exile and God making a New Covenant where He would send His Spirit to lead us in obedience to the Law of Moses (Ezekiel 36:26-28) and where he would put the Law of Moses in our minds and write it on our hearts (Jeremiah 31:33).
We're certainly not under the law of sin. However, isn't "the law" of Romans 7:6, the law we're freed from, the same as "the law" in the next verse, Romans 7:7?
In Romans 7:7, Paul said that the Law of God is not sinful, but is how we know what sin is, however Romans 7:5, is speaking about a law that stirs up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death, so these two verses can't both be referring to the same law, but rather Paul is transitioning to speaking about the Law of God in Romans 7:7, so the law that we are freed from isn't the Law of God, but rather in Romans 7:23, Paul said that the law of sin held him captive, so that is the law that we are freed from.