I was converted from Catholicism to Christ at the age of 19.

[De_Maria]

The only Law against murder is in the Decalogue and that’s a part of the Mosaic Covenant which ended with the sacrifice of Christ (Rom. 10:4). Believer’s are “not under law but under grace” (Rom. 6:14).

And “NO,” before you go there, this doesn’t mean God now accepts murder. Such replies only demonstrate that a person has no idea what divine grace means.

I think you have a grave misunderstanding of the “Law of Grace”. The Law of Grace is descriptive. It is the fruit of virtue.

Galatians 5:22-25
22But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,* 23Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.** 24And they that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts.** 25If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. *

Not prescriptive as are the Ten Commandments. It is the result of a condition.

One who is “under grace” is in a state of grace and thus has repented of sin, been forgiven of sin and has not sinned to that point in his life. To sin means to violate one of the Ten Commandments. When one who is in a state of grace, sins, he goes from a state described as being “under grace” to a state described as being "under the law. That is why St. Paul says:

Romans 2:13
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

and

Romans 3:31
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[Contarini]

How is it bigoted, stereotypical and rude to say that you dance and clap at your church.

Because you haven’t been to his church. Not that there is anything wrong with dancing and clapping.

I was invited to a service by a Protestant friend and this is exactly what they do. They read about 10 lines of the Gospel and the rest is a long winded sermon and clapping and singing.

And you assume that all Protestant churches are identical why?

Now Caroline said that we pay monks and nuns to pray for us. Is that less, bigotted, stereotypica and rude?

Why is OSL responsible for what Caroline said?

Catholics on this board have a weird habit of complaining about Protestant divisions one minute and expecting Protestants to march in lock-step the other. “Protestant” is just a handy historical umbrella term. OSL and I are both in many ways much closer to Catholicism than to many of the forms of Protestantism you are likely to have experienced.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Forgive me; you don’t believe that grace is “substance.”

Of course he doesn’t. That is a common Protestant misstatement of the Catholic view. (One that I’m ashamed to say I continued to repeat until some years after I had been in grad school and should have known better–until a Catholic on a discussion board corrected me, pointing out that in traditional scholastic terminology grace is a “quality,” not a “substance.”)

If they die in infancy, they’re immediately with the Lord.

So it is possible for human beings–fallen human beings at that–to be united to the Lord without grace? This is nothing other than Pelagianism.

Edwin

 

[mercygate]

How is it bigoted, stereotypical and rude to say that you dance and clap at your church.

I was invited to a service by a Protestant friend and this is exactly what they do. They read about 10 lines of the Gospel and the rest is a long winded sermon and clapping and singing.l

Now Caroline said that we pay monks and nuns to pray for us. Is that less, bigotted, stereotypica and rude?

O.S. Luke states his faith tradition is United Methodist. I dare you to go to a United Methodist church and find people dancing and clapping. Ain’t happenin’. We Catholics are always whining about non-Catholics who bash us from a platform of ignorance. We have no excuse for doing the same thing.

 

[mercygate]

**I find here that it’s ok for Protestants to insult my Catholic church, but when a Catholic (God forbid) says something back it is uncharitable…please… **

Lack of charity is lack of charity, wherever it comes from. We, as Catholics, are “hosts” on this site and should hold ourselves to a higher standard.

O.S. Luke in particular has been a good citizen and deserves none of the opproprium he has received.

 

[Contarini]

Yes they do…that is why they pay monks and nuns to pray for them.

I think you are talking about “Mass stipends” (i.e., the custom of giving a priest some money and asking him to say a Mass for someone’s soul–similarly, one may make a contribution to a monastery/convent and ask the brothers or sisters to pray for someone) which are in my opinion a bit of a problem, though in fact they are not obligatory and priests and religious pray for people all the time without receiving money.

However, the fact remains that in Roman Catholic theology these prayers (when offered for the dead) are seen as effective only for those who have died in a state of grace–that is, those whose eternal salvation is already assured. What determines your salvation is whether or not you die in a state of grace–i.e., believing in Christ and repenting of your sins. Certainly prayer *for the living *can influence them toward this goal, just as Protestants believe. But prayer *for the dead *and the application of indulgences to the dead (which is something different) do not affect someone’s eternal salvation one way or the other. You are simply misinformed here.

The Eastern Orthodox do have a different view–they (or at least some of them) believe that prayer for the dead might in some circumstances make a difference between heaven and hell. I specifically said “Roman Catholic” above because I presume that some Eastern Catholics may share the Orthodox view here.

Edwin

 

[churchcamefirst]

I think you are talking about “Mass stipends” (i.e., the custom of giving a priest some money and asking him to say a Mass for someone’s soul–similarly, one may make a contribution to a monastery/convent and ask the brothers or sisters to pray for someone) which are in my opinion a bit of a problem, though in fact they are not obligatory and priests and religious pray for people all the time without receiving money.

However, the fact remains that in Roman Catholic theology these prayers (when offered for the dead) are seen as effective only for those who have died in a state of grace–that is, those whose eternal salvation is already assured. What determines your salvation is whether or not you die in a state of grace–i.e., believing in Christ and repenting of your sins. Certainly prayer *for the living *can influence them toward this goal, just as Protestants believe. But prayer *for the dead *and the application of indulgences to the dead (which is something different) do not affect someone’s eternal salvation one way or the other. You are simply misinformed here.

The Eastern Orthodox do have a different view–they (or at least some of them) believe that prayer for the dead might in some circumstances make a difference between heaven and hell. I specifically said “Roman Catholic” above because I presume that some Eastern Catholics may share the Orthodox view here.

Edwin

Know so much about the Catholic faith, but isn’t Catholic…go figure…

 

[mercygate]

Note:

This post may solely be of interest to those following this thread-
yet not posting to same. In this post, I challenge the very basis of
Christian doctrine: ‘original sin.’

---

“Ideas have consequences…”

-Saul manufactured ‘original’ sin. He was a brilliant man,
and he was taught by the grandson of Hillel. He knew darn
well that Judaism did not hold that the sin of Adam was
‘inherited’ by each man and woman. [Judaism, in terms of
the dominant thought, holds that man is born in innocence.]

While it may have shifted the view from a military savior,
Christianity actually teaches a God/man, as savior.

Yet where appears the acknowledgment ------> that God forgave sin,
offering both mercy and eternal life to* all* people, not just
members of the chosen people…and this was taught
centuries before the birth of Jesus.

This reality [God forgives sin, in the OT] abrogated the ‘need’ for a savior -
from personal sin, quite obviously. So Saul now teaches a doctrine foreign to
the parent faith: ontological sin. A sin in man’s very being.
[This, then, providing cogency - to the novel doctrine that
a savior was needed from this purported ‘inheritance’ from Adam.]

This is why doctrine, concerning original sin, is held to be
a ‘hinge’ doctrine.
No original sin = no need for a savior from same.

The Church, herself, sees the criticality of this doctrine.

CCC from Vatican website, # 389

The doctrine of original sin is, so to speak, the “reverse side” of the Good News
that Jesus is the Savior of all men, that all need salvation and that salvation
is offered to all through Christ. The Church, which has the mind of Christ,
knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin
without undermining the mystery of Christ.

It was from this teaching that concepts like Limbo were
discussed… for 700 years. An off-the-wall speculation:
-that an innocent, who died before baptism, would be
deprived of the beatific vision, for all eternity.

The colossal error, of this teaching, provided a field ripe for such speculation:
At one point, Augustine held that such infants would be subject to
the ‘positive miseries of the damned.’
Even the Baltimore Catechism, of days past,
taught that these infants would be deprived of heaven.

To cavil over the point that this was never official teaching, is to ignore the salient fact -
that it was taught - to generations of Catholics, and speculated upon for 7 centuries.

This is where the falsity of the doctrine of original sin is seen most clearly.
Room was made - for such speculation [based on the doctrine of original sin]:
Limbus patrum, Limbus infantium.

newadvent.org/cathen/09256a.htm

This, to me, points to the colossal error of teaching a God/man -
the ‘need’ for whom is based in an erroneous teaching: original sin.

reen12
This whole line of thinking presupposes that Jesus did not rise from the dead. This fact completely re-tools the view of man’s relationship with God. It is the central point of all Christian life. Whatever one may think about the Resurrection, it shapes ALL Christian thinking on salvation history, on the development of the mission, on the evangelical enterprise. Chrhistians do not “argue” their position from the platform that Jesus did not rise from the dead. Can’t be done. Up thread you asked, “When did he become God” or something like that. We would answer that as Christ He did not “become” God, He is God from Eternity. As Jesus, incarnate Son of God, he “becomes” human at the moment the Holy Spirit overshadows the Blessed Virgin and is conceived in her womb. For the disciples he “becomes” the Son of God through the signs he worked during his mission. For the Church He “becomes” God three days after Calvary.

Certainly, if “real” Judaism believed that mercy and forgiveness were for all people, there was within it a stout body of Jews who saw themselves not as bearers of the good news to the world but as separated from the world. Pharisaic Judaism is all about separation from the corruption and idolatry of the gentile world. The people who, through the Covenant of Abraham, were to become a blessing for all nations had been pulling in their oars for generations.

 

[guanophore]

That’s what the scripture says; however, the Catholic ultimately is not bound by the scripture, but by what the Church’s teaching hierarchy teaches.

Thus Ignatius of Loyola’s exhortation to all Catholics in all ages:“We should always be disposed to believe that that which appears white is really black, if the hierarchy of the Church so decides”.


.

We are surely not bound by the interpretations of scripture that are made by persons who are separated from the Apostolic Tradition that produced those scriptures. The two were never meant to be separated, and when the Reformers did so, all manner of division and error has resulted.

Since the understanding of Scripture must be consistent with what the Apostles taught (kerygma), if a person interprets scripture in a manner that appears to be opposite of what was taught ( a different gospel) then we know that what appears white is really black.

 

[O.S.Luke]

How is it bigoted, stereotypical and rude to say that you dance and clap at your church.

I was invited to a service by a Protestant friend and this is exactly what they do. They read about 10 lines of the Gospel and the rest is a long winded sermon and clapping and singing.l

Now Caroline said that we pay monks and nuns to pray for us. Is that less, bigotted, stereotypica and rude?

Both were bigoted, And I’ve been a Protestant all of my life. Never heard anyone clap or dance. Have heard singing… even an alleluia after the Gospel reading. And Protestants do not have a monopoly on long-winded sermons.

Not all Protestants worship the way you think. I know that most Catholics do not worship Mary or statues, either.

 

[O.S.Luke]

**I find here that it’s ok for Protestants to insult my Catholic church, but when a Catholic (God forbid) says something back it is uncharitable…please… **

Show me where I have ever insulted the Catholic Church. Once.

 

[mercygate]

This whole line of thinking presupposes that Jesus did not rise from the dead. This fact completely re-tools the view of man’s relationship with God. It is the central point of all Christian life. Whatever one may think about the Resurrection, it shapes ALL Christian thinking on salvation history, on the development of the mission, on the evangelical enterprise. Chrhistians do not “argue” their position from the platform that Jesus did not rise from the dead. Can’t be done. Up thread you asked, “When did he become God” or something like that. We would answer that as Christ He did not “become” God, He is God from Eternity. As Jesus, incarnate Son of God, he “becomes” human at the moment the Holy Spirit overshadows the Blessed Virgin and is conceived in her womb. For the disciples he “becomes” the Son of God through the signs he worked during his mission. For the Church He “becomes” God three days after Calvary.

Certainly, if “real” Judaism believed that mercy and forgiveness were for all people, there was within it a stout body of Jews who saw themselves not as bearers of the good news to the world but as separated from the world. Pharisaic Judaism is all about separation from the corruption and idolatry of the gentile world. The people who, through the Covenant of Abraham, were to become a blessing for all nations had been pulling in their oars for generations.

[continued] It is precisely BECAUSE the Covenant people were not fulling their mission to deliver mercy to the world that God promises to destroy Jerusalem in Jeremiah 34:12-22 [quoting fully]:

The word of the LORD came to Jeremiah from the LORD: "Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel: I made a covenant with your fathers when I brought them out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage, saying, `At the end of six years each of you must set free the fellow Hebrew who has been sold to you and has served you six years; **you must set him free **from your service.’ But your fathers did not listen to me or incline their ears to me.

You recently repented and did what was right in my eyes by proclaiming liberty, each to his neighbor, and you made a covenant before me in the house which is called by my name; but then **you turned around and profaned my name when each of you took back his male and female slaves, whom you had set free **according to their desire, and you brought them into subjection to be your slaves.

Therefore, thus says the LORD: You have not obeyed me by proclaiming liberty, every one to his brother and to his neighbor; behold, I proclaim to you liberty to the sword, to pestilence, and to famine, says the LORD. I will make you a horror to all the kingdoms of the earth.

And the men who transgressed my covenant and did not keep the terms of the covenant which they made before me, I will make like the calf which they cut in two and passed between its parts – the princes of Judah, the princes of Jerusalem, the eunuchs, the priests, and all the people of the land who passed between the parts of the calf; and I will give them into the hand of their enemies and into the hand of those who seek their lives. Their dead bodies shall be food for the birds of the air and the beasts of the earth.

And Zedeki’ah king of Judah, and his princes I will give into the hand of their enemies and into the hand of those who seek their lives, into the hand of the army of the king of Babylon which has withdrawn from you.

Behold, I will command, says the LORD, and will bring them back to this city; and they will fight against it, and take it, and burn it with fire. I will make the cities of Judah a desolation without inhabitant."

And of course, Zedekiah is captured, his sons are slaughtered before his eyes, then his eyes are poked out and he is dragged, blinded and in chains, back to Babylon . . . where Abraham had started out to become a blessing to all peoples.

 

[sandusky]

Contarini:

Of course he doesn’t. That is a common Protestant misstatement of the Catholic view.

For heaven’s sake Edwin, I was involved in a discussion on this forum over the summer in which the half-dozen Catholics participating insisted, and attempted to prove that grace is a “substance” that’s infused.

(One that I’m ashamed to say I continued to repeat until some years after I had been in grad school and should have known better–until a Catholic on a discussion board corrected me, pointing out that in traditional scholastic terminology grace is a “quality,” not a “substance.”)

In that same discussion, only one jumped in and described grace as a “quality,” and a state of being.

Nothing I say is made up, but brought up in discussion from things I’ve read and heard Catholics say. :ehh:

Catholics, even the old dead ones, speak of grace as being infused. Didn’t you read that in grad school?
Contraini:

So it is possible for human beings–fallen human beings at that–to be united to the Lord without grace? This is nothing other than Pelagianism.

There again, Edwin, none of the Catholics on this thread have disagreed with me on that statement, but you.

Catholics are the first to say that the “channel” of grace is through the sacraments—normatively.

They also insist that God is not bound by sacraments—where’ve you been all your life, Edwin?

If God’s not bound by sacraments, He’s not bound by Pelagian either.

(Academics, you can’t live with them, and you can’t live with them, IMO).

 

[moondweller]

I think you have a grave misunderstanding of the “Law of Grace”. The Law of Grace is descriptive. It is the fruit of virtue.

Law is law and Grace is grace.

One who is “under grace” is in a state of grace and thus has repented of sin, been forgiven of sin and has not sinned to that point in his life.

One who is “under grace” has believed the message concerning the Person and work of Jesus Christ and has been redeemed from sin by His blood, reconciled to God through His death and gifted salvation, justification and eternal life - according to the N.T. Scriptures.

To sin means to violate one of the Ten Commandments. When one who is in a state of grace, sins, he goes from a state described as being “under grace” to a state described as being "under the law.

One is “under law” when he is under a covenant of Law. The covenant of Law ended with the sacrificial death of Christ (Rom. 10:4). No man, Jew or Gentile, is under law. ALL who have truly believed in Christ are brought into fellowship with God under a grace relationship. That’s why Paul says, Rom 6:14-15 “For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!”

 

[Mickey]

For heaven’s sake Edwin, I was involved in a discussion on this forum over the summer in which the half-dozen Catholics participating insisted, and attempted to prove that grace is a “substance” that’s infused.

In all fairness to those “half-dozen Catholics” you were interacting with–perhaps you misunderstood them? Perhaps they were speaking metaphorically? Perhaps you could show us the quotes?

Mark Shea has written an article that speaks to this metaphorical understanding:

…“unmerited favor” is just as metaphorical as “substance” to describe grace. The only difference is that it is borrowed from our experience with human parents instead of from our experience with garden hoses. In contrast, the Church does not limit our understanding of grace to the single image of unmerited favor (valuable as it is). Rather, She uses other images as well–and all of them rooted in Scripture too. Thus, there is no question of saying that Catholic theology uses images to describe grace but the Bible talks about the “reality.” Rather, both Bible and Church use images since there is no other way to talk about grace. And all of those images are images of the invisible reality.
http://www.mark-shea.com/magic.html

 

[guanophore]

Maybe you don’t believe that grace is “substance.”

However, guanophore and Catholic Dude, and others do as we’ve had this discussion; however, it revolves around justification and the ”infusion of grace and righteousness.”There is, indeed, in the first instance, a vast difference in the respective positions of God and man; but by the infusion of grace man receives a patent of nobility, and thus a friendship of excellency (amicitia excellentiae) is established between God and the just. (See Schiffini, “De gratia divina”, 305 sqq., Freiburg, 1901.)

Why is it that something infused must be defined as “substance”? When I hear this word, my high school chemistry class comes to mind. But we are not talking about an earthly reality here, but a heavenly. This is part of the invisible that is spoken about in the Nicean Creed. Spiritual realities do not necessarily have a physical reflection. Some do, but some do not. The HS cleansing and sanctifying a soul may not have any visible evidence.

I agree; that’s because it’s the Spirit who convicts, De Maria, and He doesn’t convict everyone.

This is interesting. I am looking forward to more on this point.

Previously you told me that “all” does not really mean “all” in this verse:

" God our Savior, 4 who desires everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." 1 Tim 2:3-5

Does “all” in this verse also not really mean “all”?

Acts 17:30-31
30 While God has overlooked the times of human ignorance, now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will have the world judged…"

Or are you saying that, since God does not convict everyone, he is commanding that people do something that He does not give them the ability to do?

God’s grace works through me, and it works through the rankest pagan engaged in humanitarian work as well. Grace is not a substance, but an attitude of God toward the sinner in which He providentially influences the circumstances of everyone, even the pagan, and even through the pagan; God doesn’t work through those in Christ only.

What do you think it means when it says that we are made “partakers” of his grace?

 

[Contarini]

For heaven’s sake Edwin, I was involved in a discussion on this forum over the summer in which the half-dozen Catholics participating insisted, and attempted to prove that grace is a “substance” that’s infused.

In that same discussion, only one jumped in and described grace as a “quality,” and a state of being.

It is admittedly a technical point. I only got involved because you were ascribing this view (which is in fact not the traditional terminology) to a Catholic without any basis in something that particular Catholic had said.

Nothing I say is made up, but brought up in discussion from things I’ve read and heard Catholics say.

Catholics, like Protestants, say a lot of things. The main difference is that Catholics do have a body of official teaching (however complex and difficult to interpret) that they at least nominally share.

Catholics, even the old dead ones, speak of grace as being infused.

Certainly. You have just switched the topic. I deny one thing, and you bring up something else. Of course Catholics think grace is infused into the soul. And traditionally Catholics believe grace is a created quality, though as far as I know they are not forbidden to believe that it is the uncreated life of God–the Holy Spirit present in our souls.

The problem with your view of grace is your inadequate understanding of what it means for God to act graciously toward us. God’s action is not other than His presence. From my perspective, the scholastic doctrine of “created grace” is problematic, though I have so much respect for Aquinas that I’m open to being persuaded that he was right on this one. Still, if you want to attack the idea of created grace as a quality infused into the soul, go right ahead. Just don’t beat Catholics over the head with a particular term that isn’t even the technically correct one.

There again, Edwin, none of the Catholics on this thread have disagreed with me on that statement, but you.

I’m pretty sure that there was a discussion earlier of how Adam and Eve were saved in which the Catholics insisted very strongly that Adam and Eve needed grace as well. Certainly infants need grace far more obviously than Adam and Eve did. If Catholics have not taken you up on this one, it’s because they haven’t got around to it, I suspect.

However, I’m not sure why the fact that some Catholics are Pelagians meas that it’s OK for you to be one.

Catholics are the first to say that the “channel” of grace is through the sacraments—normatively.

How on earth is this relevant?

They also insist that God is not bound by sacraments—where’ve you been all your life, Edwin?

Listening more carefully and fairly than you. God’s *grace *is not bound by the sacraments. Saying that God can save people without the sacraments is not to say that God can save people without grace. That is a contradiction in terms, because grace is God’s saving activity, making us sharers in the divine life out of His sheer graciousness and mercy.

If God’s not bound by sacraments, He’s not bound by Pelagian either.

Pelagianism is the denial that we need grace. I don’t know how you are using the word. For God to give us eternal life is for God to act graciously, because nothing proper to us as creatures can ever merit eternal life. If you deny this, then you are teaching a form of works righteousness (if that phrase means more to you than “Pelagianism”–it amounts to the same thing). If children go to heaven because they are “innocent” and not because of God’s grace, then “innocence” is a quality that in some way deserves heaven. Never mind the question of whether a fallen human being, even as an infant, can really be said to be innocent.

Edwin

 

[guanophore]

Roman Catholicism and Orthodox are just another Christian denomination.

This does not make any sense. To denominate is to take apart from. Somewhere, there is an original from which all others parted.

Catholicism of not “Roman”, as you seem to believe.

There are a wide range of churches that you consider Protetstant (non-Catholic). Some are true churches and some are apostate false churches. Like all churches, there are degrees of purity. To answer your question, the Catholic Church is not a biblical church;

This is very true. The Catholic Church is not “bible based”, but Christ based. The teaching of the Catholic Church was delivered whole and entire to the Apostles decades before any word of the NT was ever written. In fact, it is the NT that reflects Catholic Teaching, and not the other way around. That is why it is impossible to understand it’s contents correctly without proper context, which is the catholic church.

therefore God worked out a remnant saved by grace to depart from Rome (exodus).

Such a statement would have to presuppose a falsehood, which is that the Catholic Church is “roman”.

You should leave because of what God reveals in the Scriptures in regards to the gospel of God’s grace. I appreciate your question. Now that you are retired, I hope you spend time studying the issues to the glory and praise of God.

I think it will be problematic for you to be on CAF and encourage Catholics by telling them “you should leave”. One of the requirements of participating in CAF is that you respect the faith of Catholics, even if you do not agree with it.

 

[De_Maria]

As I’ve stated before, justification includes endurance to glorification (Rom 8:30)…etc. etc. on and on…

Then he said:
Originally Posted by Robert in SD

 

[De_Maria]

Law is law and Grace is grace.

So is the law of spirit, law or is the law of spirit, grace?
Romans 8:2
For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.

One who is “under grace” has believed the message concerning the Person and work of Jesus Christ and has been redeemed from sin by His blood, reconciled to God through His death and gifted salvation, justification and eternal life -

If he seeks it in patient well doing:
Romans 2:7
To them who by patient continuance **in well doing seek **for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

So, if that person sins, he is under the Law of the Ten
Commandments again:
Romans 2:13
(For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

For the law is spiritual:
Romans 7:14
For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

And it is to the Spirit that we are debtors:
Romans 8:12
Therefore, brethren,** we are debtors**,** not to the flesh**, to live after the flesh. **13For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: **but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.

according to the N.T. Scriptures.One is “under law” when he is under a covenant of Law.

That is another interpretation. We are under the covenant of Grace. But if we break the covenant of grace, we fall under the covenant of Moses.

Galatians 5:18
But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

Obviously then, if you are not led by the Spirit, you are under the law.

The covenant of Law ended with the sacrificial death of Christ (Rom. 10:4).

By no means:
Romans 3:31
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

No man, Jew or Gentile, is under law. ALL who have truly believed in Christ are brought into fellowship with God under a grace relationship. That’s why Paul says, Rom 6:14-15 “For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under law but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be!”

St. Paul is assuming that he is speaking to people that are led by the Spirit. Note all the IF clauses in the text:

5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:

8Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:

And if he is certain they won’t sin, why does he admonish them not to sin?

12Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. **
** 13Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.

** 15What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid. **
** 16Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? **

So, instead of reading Scripture according to the spirit in which it was written, you are reading the letter only and thus killing the spirit:
2 Corinthians 3:6
Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.

Sincerely,

De Maria