Sunday: Dead to the Law
Read Romans 7:1-6. What illustration does Paul use here in order to show his readers their relationship to the law, and what point is he making with that illustration?
Paul’s illustration in Romans 7:1-6 is somewhat involved, but a careful analysis of the passage will help us to follow his reasoning.
Image © Review and Herald Publishing Assn. Goodsalt.com
In the overall context of the letter, Paul was dealing with the system of worship established at Sinai; that is often what he means by the word law. The Jews had difficulty grasping the fact that this system, given to them of God, should end with the coming of the Messiah. This is what Paul was dealing with – Jewish believers still not ready to abandon what had been such an important part of their lives.
In essence, Paul’s illustration is as follows: a woman is married to a man. The law binds her to him as long as he lives. During his lifetime she cannot consort with other men. But when he dies, she is free from the law that bound her to him (Rom. 7:3).
How does Paul apply the illustration of the law of marriage to the system of Judaism? Rom. 7:4-5.
As the death of her husband delivers the woman from the law of her husband, so the death of the old life in the flesh, through Jesus Christ, delivers the Jews from the law they had been expected to keep until the Messiah fulfilled its types.
Now the Jews were free to “remarry.” They were invited to marry the risen Messiah and thus bring forth fruit to God. This illustration was one more device Paul used to convince the Jews that they were now free to abandon the ancient system.
Again, given all else that Paul and the Bible say about obedience to the Ten Commandments, it doesn’t make sense to assert here that Paul was telling these Jewish believers that the Ten Commandments were no longer binding. Those who use these texts to try to make that point – that the moral law was done away with – really don’t want to make that point, anyway; what they really want to say is that only the seventh-day Sabbath is gone, not the rest of the law. To interpret Romans 7:4-5 as teaching that the fourth commandment has been abolished or superseded or replaced with Sunday is to give them a meaning that the words were never intended to have.
(48)
When I was reading today's lesson "dead to the law", I was compelled to read ancient Jewish laws or Jewish history. There I read about the Jewish way of life also referred to as the halahkah. These were laws that governed religious and non religious way of life or living. In total there were 611-613 laws. Am yet to read and find out what these laws stipulated but my conclusion is that these were the laws that the lesson is talking about. When Jesus died on the cross these laws died too, they were no longer bound to these laws. They were now to live a Christ like life hence these laws no longer suffice.
Similarly when we choose Jesus as our lord and saviour, through his death we are no longer bound to sin anymore. We are freed from the sinful nature and we are compelled to live a Christ like life.
Christ has made it clear that not one jot or tittle of the Law can be changed until ALL in the Law AND in the prophets has been fulfilled. Not everything written in the OT has been fulfilled. In the last book of the OT God through His prophet tells us to Remember the laws of Moses WITH the judgments, statutes etc. So if such be the case what is God telling us through Paul's writings in Romans 7? Now IF we are to really understand we cannot disconnect Romans 7 from Romans 6 then the answer is found IN Waggoners book "Waggoner on Romans."
Married to the Wrong man!
Seeking a Divorce. There comes a time in our experience when we wish to be free from sin. It is when we see something of the beauty of holiness. With some people the desire is only occasional; with others it is more constant. Whether they recognize the fact or not, it is Christ appealing to them to forsake sin, and to be joined to him, to live with him. And so they endeavor to effect a separation. But sin will not consent. In spite of all that we can do, it still clings to us. We are "one flesh," and it is a union for life since it is a union of our life to sin. There is no divorce in that marriage.
Freedom in Death. There is no hope of effecting a separation from sin by any ordinary means. No matter how much we may desire to be united to Christ, it can not be done while we are joined to sin; for the law will not sanction such a union, and Christ will not enter into any union that is not lawful.
If we could only get sin to die, we should be free, but it will not die. There is only one way for us to be freed from the hateful union, and that is for us to die. If we wish freedom so much that we are willing [for self] to be crucified, then it may be done. In death the separation is effected; for it is by the body of Christ that "we" become dead. We are crucified with him. The body of sin is also crucified. But while the body of sin is destroyed, we have a resurrection in Christ. The same thing that frees us from the first husband, unites us to the second. p. 7.119
In essence the problem is as long as the "old man of sin" is still alive we are still married to "him." Christ will NOT commit adultery therefore until we "take up our cross daily," self being crucified everyday we CANNOT be married to Christ! The "law" Paul is referring to is the law he sees in him that is contrary to the Law of God. Read verses 21-24!
And yet we find Christ saying: "IF you love Me keep My Commandments!" Christ came to magnify the Law and make it honorable. Paul says " Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.!"
Now my question to you Sam are you suggesting we no longer HAVE a "sinful nature?" My everyday experience tells me I am still warring against mine!
Hi Sam,
I think the 10 Commandments are expressed in 14 of these laws.
Sam, I appreciate your note that "[Christians] were now to live a Christ like life hence these laws no longer suffice. ... and we are compelled to live a Christ like life."
The life of Christ presents us with a much higher standard than any written law ever could. Hence Christ could give a new commandment, "As I have loved you, so you must love one another." (John 13:34) This eternal Law of self-renouncing love, a true reflection of God's character, could be expressed to humanity only trough Christ's demonstration in His life. And now that we have it, we see that the letter of the law, as expressed in the Ten Commandments, is but a dim reflection. Indeed, it does not "suffice" for true followers of Christ.
Christ kept every single one of the 10 commandments his life was a living example of the 10 commandments.
He said I have kept my father's commandments and if you really love me you will do the same. The Apostles knew that it was still binding, they were not talking about the 10 commandments , those they knew was still alive and well and will be until the end of time. All the Apostles still kept all the commandments all the way after the death and resurrection of Christ, now wouldn't they be foolish to tell people not to keep the 10 commandments law when they themselves still do? And people are so hypocritical they said oh the 10 commandments are done away with , when the truth of the matter is they really want to say only one is done away with , and that's the sabbath, because to this day every one still keeps 9 so if it's really done away like people say then don't keep any at all .
Here this should help us see more fully what Paul is referring to:
“One Flesh.” The law of marriage is that the two parties to it “shall be one flesh.” How is it in this case? The first husband is the flesh, the body of sin. Well, we were truly one flesh with that. We were by nature perfectly united to sin. It was our life. It controlled us. Whatever sin devised, that we did. We might have done it unwillingly at times, but we did it nevertheless. Sin reigned in our mortal bodies, so that we obeyed it in the lusts thereof. Whatever sin wished, was law to us. We were one flesh.
Thank you Daniel for sharing this from the Creation SDA Website. http://www.faithofjesus.to/rom_7-3.html
God's grace is so wonderful..
Redemption plan is a kind of miracle...so we can't understand it completely!!
For more than 1200 years, the Roman Church taught (and, so far as I know, still does teach) that the Church (meaning the Roman hierarchy) REPLACED the religion of the Hebrews.
Protestants stepped away from that doctrine in two ways: Protestants rejected the sacrifice of the mass (please Google “the sacrifice of the mass” if you aren’t acquainted with the theology of the mass). And protestants used a method of Bible interpretation (the historicist method) based on the premise that the church (meaning believers in Jesus) IS modern Israel (not merely its replacement).
As with many other things, however, 16th century protestants clung to many of the traditions of the Roman Church, including the idea that Christianity was an entirely new religion in the first century AD.
19th century adventists attempted to make a distinction between the moral law and the ceremonial law and that TRADITION is alive and well in the 21st century.
I prefer to explain Christianity in terms of Jesus attempting to sweep away centuries of rabbinic traditions in favor of the instructions contained in scripture. This way of explaining what Christianity is allows for Paul’s admonishing Christians to “keep the feast” (Passover). It also solves a number of other “problems”.
I say, Let’s agree that any denomination can have behavior criteria for voting membership or holding specific offices in that organization while, at the same time, making it very clear that salvation is by grace alone--i.e. there are no behavior criteria for salvation. Christian living is the RESULT of being saved--not the basis of salvation.
Roger you stated "19th century adventists attempted to make a distinction between the moral law and the ceremonial law and that TRADITION is alive and well in the 21st century." I am not sure whether it was an attempt or that's what the bible teaches. The bible records that God spoke the Moral law to to the entire assembly of the children of Israel at mount Sinai. This means they heard Him speaking. He wrote that law with his own hand in two tables of stone and handed it to Moses. He commanded him to put it inside of the Ark of the Covenant.
The other law was given to Moses who wrote it himself and gave it to the priest and commanded them to keep it on the side of the Ark of the Covenant.
This description means the two aren't the same.
Anele Dube, My parents were voting members of the SdA organization before I was born (1944). I requested voting membership in 1959. My wife requested voting membership in 1979. My parents are deceased but my wife’s name and mine are still “on the books”.
Many adventists subscribe to specific doctrines because those doctrines were taught by adventists in the nineteenth century--analogous to methodists who subscribe to specific doctrines because those doctrines were taught by methodists in the eighteenth century. My wife and I aren’t traditionalists. Our religion is personal--not institutional. Even when I was in my teens, I didn’t adopt any doctrine until it made sense to me.
I agree that there is a “difference” between the ceremonial and the moral law but it seems to me that explaining that difference in this context is likely to be understood (by almost anyone who isn’t an adventist) to mean that people were saved long ago by “keeping” both the moral law and the ceremonial law and that people are saved now by keeping the moral law--keeping the ceremonial law is no longer essential to salvation.
My objection is because I believe we are saved by grace alone through faith alone (God’s grace is the source and means of salvation--faith is the vehicle or conduit of salvation and even faith is God’s gift to us). I’ve attended several SdA “evangelistic” series over the last 60+ years and most of the “evangelists” placed so much emphasis on behavior criteria for denominational membership that it was no surprise to me that people thought he was teaching that we are saved (justified, sanctified or glorified) by our behavior. (There were two exceptions: H.M.S. Richards Sr. whom I heard in person several times and the conference officer who baptized my wife--but who who didn’t have the title of “evangelist”.)
On the first Passover, the firstborn who were “passed over” were saved, not by the lambs that were killed or by killing the lambs (what the people did) or by the blood of the lambs or by sprinkling the blood on the doorposts or by eating the lambs--they were saved by the lamb of God who was represented by the Passover lambs. Only my understanding of course.
Dying to the law does not mean the person has been freed from the specific commandments of God. It means we are free from the guilt that comes as a penalty for disobedience, because Christ our substitute bore that penalty. It also frees us from the law's inability to make us right with God.
I quite agree that the law of God has not been abrogated. Keeping Passover is as much enjoined upon believers today as when Paul encouraged believers to “keep the feast”. It is my understanding that nobody was ever saved by keeping Passover or by keeping the weekly sabbath or by obedience to any other of God’s instructions. We still “should” obey but even the reason for obedience hasn’t changed. The reason is to honor our creator--and that has always been the reason.
Before I met my wife, I invited a lady to attend sabbath services with me. During the Sabbath School and the worship service, nothing was said that seemed to me to be antithetical to protestant principles. But then we went downstairs for the fellowship meal and my guest was seated next to a member of the congregation who attempted to engage in conversation. My guest asked the member whether all adventists were vegetarians. I don’t remember whether the member's reply included the fact that not all adventists are vegetarians but the part of the answer I do remember was the statement, “We know that only vegetarians will go to heaven when Jesus returns.”
Is that a doctrine of the Seventh-day Adventist organization? Whether the answer to the first question is yes or no, is it possible to make a statement like that without giving the impression that you think salvation (glorification) is based on what we do?
For the record, I have done and said things that are “worse” than that member's answer to my guest but my sense is that adventists will continue to give the impression that we are saved by our obedience until the denomination adopts a policy that pastors should not recommend voting membership for a baptismal candidate until the pastor is quite certain that the candidate is absolutely/positively protestant.
I believe the correlation to the death of a husband was used for a reason here.
Christ is our husbandman.
We are the bride.
If Christ were to die then we would be free to live a life of sin for no other hope would exist.
Christ died.
We were free from the law of faith and without hope.
Praise God that this story did not end here for 3 days later Christ rose again. With our groom alive again we have the ability to enter back into the law of faith. That law leads us to hope that we would otherwise not have.
The hope of ever-lasting life in His Kingdom to come. Praise God our groom is alive.
Help me to understand. How does Paul in Romans 7:4,5. use the picture of the Law about marriage to help Jewish believers understand they could let go of the old worship plan?
The Jewish Nation were married to the Law for Salvation. They sought through faithfulness in keeping it they would be saved. Only by the death of the old spouse(Righteousness by works). She would now be FREE to marry another(Righteousness by Faith). The Salvation that could only come through Faith in Jesus Christ the New Husband.
Paul's illustration here is as long as we are still "married" to the old man of sin it is unlawful for us to be married to Christ! He, Christ, will not commit adultery, therefore we must take up our cross daily, being crucified with Him daily! It is THAN we can be married to Christ!
You have raised a very interesting argument Roger.
It is a misconception to teach that we are saved by keeping the law. It is and never was the design of the law to save people. Maybe we are preempting what the entire letter of Romans 7 will explain. But from the previous letters including the letter to the Galatians taking it from the former Pharisee's mouth, the law was designed for two special functions. (1) To show man his sinfulness and (2) to show man the sinfulness of sin which in turn will lead man to where grace is. In itself the law does not have any saving properties.
Sin Personified. It will be noticed that in this entire chapter sin is represented as a person. It is the first husband to which we are united. But the union has become distasteful, because, having seen Christ and having been drawn to him by his love, we have seen that we were joined to a monster. The marriage bond has become a galling yoke, and our whole thought is how to get away from the monster to which we are united and which is dragging us down to a certain death. The picture presented in this chapter is one of the most vivid in the whole Bible.
The Deadly Enemy. “For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.” It is not the law that is the enemy, but the enemy is sin. Sin does the killing, for “the sting of death is sin.” Sin has the poison of death in it. Sin deceived us so that for a time we thought that it was our friend, and we embraced it and delighted in the union. But when the law enlightened us, we found that sin’s embrace was the embrace of death. E.J. Waggoner, “Waggoner on Romans” Believing God’s Tremendous Promise, Chapter 7, p. 122
Daniel, thank you for your clear reminder of the focal content of Paul's writing in Rm 6 and 7 (perhaps even 5 and 8)! He is laser focused on our humanity and its unfortunate "oneness" with sin which he describes in the allegory of Rm 7:2. He identifies THIS "law" (or a principle, like gravity) that exercises "dominion" (Rm 6:14) over us, clearly in Rm 7:21 as a "law" that he "finds", or discovers, "that EVIL is PRESENT WITH ME..."!! We need to ask ourselves if Paul is describing the same "law" that God is referencing in Gen 3:22. Then we need to determine whether it is that same "law" that produces the outcomes that both God (Gen 6:5; 8:21) and Paul (Rm 7:8, 17-18, 23) mentions in Scripture.
I believe it is grotesquely unfortunate that every time our community discusses Rm 6 and 7, inevitably the discussion becomes a religious one about Moral versus Ceremonial laws; Adventist versus apostate Protestantism/Roman Catholicism's relationships to those laws.
Our Creator wants ALL humans (Rm 3:9-12) to come to an awareness of the seriousness of the ONE "law" that NOW dominates our personalities and creates a mess in our personal lives, homes, schools, businesses, governments AND churches (Rm 5:12; 6:19). Instead, while God desires to have a serious conversation with humanity about what ails us, like the Samaritan woman that Jesus sought to have a PERSONAL conversation with (Jn 4:16-18), we would rather have the religious one (Jn 4:19-20,25)--but thank God for His relentless Grace (Eph 2:8; Jn 4:23)!
Why do members in Sabbath school bring up Paul's personal testimony/experience, as mentioned in Romans 7, when the discussion of victory in Jesus or sinlessness/perfection is discussed?
How can the Lord free us from one law the 4th commandment, and not the rest of His law? So those who teach and believe this are spiritually confused. So, the law was abolished is just code language for "forget the Sabbath day." Pray for spiritual clarity for a deceived world.t
"Bringing forth fruit for God" made me think of a second marriage when a couple have children .... new members of the family. So when we are born again into Christ the fruit we bear are new converts brought to God's Kingdom. Who wants to stand 'childless' before God one day?!
No better bereavement test for Paul than Roman 7:1-7.There is no easier passage to analyze than Rom 7 to prove Paul was an extreme apostate -- claiming the Eternal God Yahweh who revealed Himself at Sinai died at the cross and never revived. Because Paul clearly depicts Him as a dead husband replaces by Jesus after resurrection.
Simply put,in Rom 7:1-7, Paul explains the Law of Moses is dissolved because it only have Dominion over us while the husband who gave it lives,but now that He died, we are loosed from the husband-God who gave the Law.
We are now free from the Law accomplished by Christ's death.
After Christ died and rose from the dead,we are free to marry another- another husband who has no law of Moses extended to us any longer.
Paul elsewhere speaks of Jesus as the husband of the Church. Then when read with Rom 7, this means that we do not commit adultery marrying Jesus only because the old husband who gave the Law is dead.
The advantage of our new husband is that He no longer has any law to follow. So says Paul. Shocking isn't it ?
I've read many different interpretations of Paul's struggle in Romans 7, but never this one.
As you see it, if the eternal Law was done away with, why did Christ have to die?
Today's Sabbath School Lesson, that is Friday's we find this in the area of "Discussion Questions."
I quote:
1. “In 7:25 the Apostle writes: ‘With the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.’ This is the clearest passage of all, and from it we learn that one and the same (believing) person serves at the same time the Law of God and the Law of sin. He is at the same time justified and yet a sinner (simul iustus est et peccat); for he does not say: ‘My mind serves the Law of God’; nor does he say: ‘My flesh serves the Law of sin”; but he says: ‘I myself.’ That is, the whole man, one and the same person, is in this twofold servitude. For this reason he thanks God that he serves the Law of God and he pleads for mercy for serving the Law of sin. But no one can say of a carnal (unconverted) person that he serves the Law of God. The Apostle means to say: You see, it is just so as I said before: The saints (believers) are at the same time sinners while they are righteous. They are righteous, because they believe in Christ, whose righteousness covers them and is imputed to them. But they are sinners, inasmuch as they do not fulfill the Law, and still have sinful lusts. They are like sick people who are being treated by a physician. They are really sick, but hope and are beginning to get, or be made, well. They are about to regain their health. Such patients would suffer the greatest harm by arrogantly claiming to be well, for they would suffer a relapse that is worse (than their first illness).” - Martin Luther, Commentary on Romans, pp. 114, 115. Can we agree with what Luther wrote here or not? In class give reasons for your answers.
End of quote:
Now I could give you my opinion and I have found when asked biblical questions it is always best to SHOW what I believe directly from Scripture instead of giving my opinion. One can "argue" opinions all day long but when quoting directly from Scripture than their "arguments" are with what is written instead of "me." Anyway my "opinion" what Luther wrote is it is dead wrong and it seems to be part of the "new righteousness by faith" message seen and heard throughout our church. Now here is why I know it is dead wrong. Quoting again from Waggoner on Romans:
A Divided Man. “So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.” That is, of course, while in the condition described in the preceding verses. In purpose he serves the law of God, but in actual practice he serves the law of sin. As described in another place, “The flesh listeth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary the one to the other; so that ye can not do the things that ye would.” Gal. 5:17. It is not a state of actual service to God, because we read in our next chapter that “they that are in the flesh can not please God.” It is a state from which one may well pray to be delivered, so that he can serve the Lord not merely with the mind, but with his whole being. “The very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.” 1 Thess. 5:23, 24. E.J. Waggoner, “Waggoner on Romans” Believing God’s Tremendous Promise, Chapter 7, p.125
Luther and Waggoner are not the last word on the struggle between sin and grace that goes on in our lives. They, like Paul were perplexed by the fact that they still sinned in spite of having accepted the grace of Christ and had difficulty in explaining it. I have accepted the grace of Jesus and there is no way that I can make a claim of having reached perfection. I know someone who claimed that he was pretty close to perfection and that the only thing left to overcome was his taste for ice-cream. It did not make sense to him that overcoming sin was not about what you did or did not do (or how long he could go without ice-cream). I think he missed the big picture. In the grand scheme of things there are bigger issues than enjoying an ice-cream.
The problem that we all have with this grace and sin problem is that we act like accountants, thinking that we have to count our victories and enumerate our defeats, when Christ is simply saying that if you love me, I will look after the accounting. That is not licence to do anything we like. When we read, Paul, and Luther, and Waggoner and Ellen White, and anyone else that has written on the matter we are reading that saved people are growing Christians. We do not suddenly change and act perfectly, but rather will find more opportunities to share the love of Jesus with those around us. We will sin - that is a given. Every Christian I have known sins, but we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus, who knows the relationship we have with him and who pleads our case before the Father.
I identify with Paul when he talks of the struggle in our lives in Romans 7. I rejoice with Paul when in Rom 8:1 he rejoices as well:
I love the health metaphor used by Luther - it implies the idea of the growth of the saved.
I don't think that there is any reason to be discouraged by the grace/sin struggle in our lives. It is an indication that we are alive in Christ and are not just floating down-stream like a dead fish.
Great thoughts. I particularly like this:
The problem with "accounting" is that it is self-focused - which is the polar opposite of the mind set to which Christ calls us. He wants us to focus on service like He did. Paul counsels us to "Let this mind be in you which was in Christ Jesus." (Phil 2:4-8)
Absolutly Inge, we will not be saying I overcame this or that, or be saying Lord I kept the ten and I fed the needy. We will be saying I am not worthy, worthy is the Lamb, I acept Your grace. Not to belittle overcoming, but now and when the roll is called of younder, we humble ourselves before the Lord, putting ourselves in His hands instead of ours.
Happy Sabbath.
Paul never made the claim that he was perfect either but that he had fought the good fight. His remarks in Romans 7 can be summed up in this statement:
We are "Married to the Wrong Man" and as long as we are STILL married to the "old man of sin" it is unlawful for us to be married to Christ!
Christ said we are to "take up our Cross DAILY!" We are to DIE daily, to be crucified daily with Him and by doing so we can indeed to married to HIM every day! As Paul put it "I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me:" "it is Christ in me, the Hope of Glory!"
Luther's comment gives the impression we can NEVER overcome sin in our lives, that the "old man of sin" will just keep right on living. Waggoner's agrees completely with what Paul is trying to impress upon us - victory IS possible in and through Christ every day, every hour, every minute! John put it this way:
"Whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen HIm, neither known Him." "Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for His seen remaineth in Him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." 1 John 3:6, 9.
The "last word" on this whole issue is Christ said "Go and sin no more." Romans 6-8 shows us how and Waggoner comments certainly are in harmony with this issue, Luthers is not.
Daniel, I hope the way I have made peace with the Paul/Luther/Waggoner question you may also find helpful. For me it is resolved in the account of Israel's exodus from Egypt and resettlement in the land promised. I understand the account to be allegorical, with Israel being symbolic of fallen humanity. The subsequent rescue and resettlement is therefore God's salvation plan for humanity.
Understand that man was created single-minded for good, like God (Gen 1:26; Mt 19:17). After the fall, God declares a new reality for humanity and we are deemed double-minded (Gen 3:22; Jam 1:8; Rm 7:21, 23-24).
Switching to the exodus, national Israel (humanity) which is created solely for God's service (Ex 19:6; 4:23), is recorded instead serving pharaoh (satan) in enslavement (Ex 5:4,7-8)--a picture of human duality, due to the presence of BOTH good AND EVIL in our minds. God calls Moses (Christ, Dt 18:18-19) as a deliver with a message for the pharaoh (Ex 5:1) AND the people (Ex 6:6-8), but BOTH messages are pictured as falling on God-resistant minds (Ex 5:2; 6:9). We see God breaking the mind of the pharaoh and releasing the previously enslaved into the care of His Deliverer (Col 1:12-13)--but the RELEASED still have a double-mind problem (Num 14:2-3; Ex 32:1,4) that resurfaces repeatedly as a result of the difficulties of wilderness travel (Ex 16:15; Num 21:5). Were they His people when they weren't serving Him while in enslavement? Were they His people when they weren't serving Him in the transition place typified by the wilderness? I think those questions are answered in God's commitment to His people hundreds of years--and many reversals--later (Dan 9:26; Jn 3:16)!
Luther and Paul are both correct--just not simultaneously--as each are describing different phases of God's intent to return humanity to the Sabbath rest of single-minded sonship like Christ (Gal 4:6-7; 1 Cor 2:16). This is finalized by the Spirit (Act 15:8-9; Eph 1:13-14), AFTER the work of release by the Father and the Son's leadership (2 Cor 1:21-22. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are unitedly working in the phased restoration of our individual duplicitous minds for their created singular service of God.
If Paul is not referring to the 10 commandments then why does verse 7 onwards refer to a law that shows us our sin?
Paul is referring to the 10 commandment on these chapters from chapter 3-9. SDA members who are not born in the Spirit
first of all can not understand spiritual revelation. But those who are born in the Spirit they understand that there is a war against the spirit and the flesh still going on (Gal.5:16,17)The good news is those sins committed by the flesh will not be remembered by Him because of His Mercy,theirs sins and iniquities I will remember them no more.(Heb.8:11,12).Rom. 8:23 we are still waiting for the redemption of our body when Jesus shall return on His second coming.
What did Paul mean by, “dead to the law”?
The answer to that question might be helpful to me in my own spiritual journey but another question I think we should consider is how the WAY we answer it relates to what our evangelism goals are.
Protestants subscribe to the doctrine that salvation (or at least justification) is by grace alone through faith alone.
LdS (Mormons) make no pretense of being protestant. One LdS baptismal class teacher summarized Mormonism as being, “all about what you DO” (with the emphasis on the word, “DO”). In the case of Mormon doctrine, what Paul meant by, “dead to the law”, doesn’t matter at all.
Should we (Christians in general and adventists in particular) try to offer people a balance between our emphasis on faith compared to our emphasis on doing?
Until a person sees himself as a sinner, he will not have any sense of need for the biblical gospel. That’s why, almost everywhere I go, I carry copies of the ten commandments on fancy card stock suitable for framing. I’m aware that some of the people to whom I have given them have put those copies to good use.
At the same time, I don’t talk to people very much about the behavior criteria for membership in our denomination because I believe the Lord has called me (and other Adventists) to emphasize the purpose of his second advent and the nature of the millennial kingdom. I think there isn’t much value in emphasizing those two doctrines until people FIRST know who Jesus is and have become very well acquainted with basic protestant principles--including the principle that what Jesus has done, what he is doing now and what he will do in the future are the only basis of our salvation--not anything we have done, are doing now or could ever do.
What advice can you give Adventist pastors about how to explain “dead to the law” if their congregations consist of members who are absolutely protestant AND members who, whether they think of themselves as protestant or not, are really no more protestant than Mormons are?