Shane asked a couple of questions in the comments section for Romans 6. “Is this then to say that the Law was done away with Christ’s sacrifice? Did the Law ever condemn or was it sin that condemned? How do we determine which pieces of the Law are still binding?” I’m sure Brother Shane won’t mind if I make these questions the basis of this stage of the defense of God by Paul (herein referred to as Sha’ul)…as in the text.
Category: romans
According to Romans 7, is Paul describing a pre-conversion experience
or a post-conversion experience? Why aren’t we perfect after being
justified and reckoning ourselves dead? Is there even a problem that we
should be aware of? What is a believers current relation to sin?
Is a dichotomous lifestyle applauded by Paul in Romans 7 (as in
Christian in the inside, but continually sinful in the flesh? What does
the flow of thought tell us?
Update: We worked out the study over in this section here and Romans 8.
Fine then, the Law came in so that lawbreaking would increase which would mean all the more need for grace. So what does it matter? Why not (for example a Jew who has the Law and knows this) keep sinning? I mean, Paul, if God is so righteous and he is now saving sinners by grace’why not sin so that there’s even more grace? What answer do you have to that sin nature in all of us?”
"Excuse me, sir but there is a gaping hole in God's righteousness."
We're back in the courtroom where Paul is defense lawyer for God. The
prosecution is Man and he's trying to prove how God is unrighteous.
"You say that God is righteous in that he justifies the sinner…but he
did nothing to the sinner's mind!"