May 14, 2011 – Romans 6:15 - 7:25

I wonder how this talk of being a slave for God is matched with what we read in John 15:15. And there it says Jesus told the Apostles that he no longer called them slaves, because slaves don't know what the Masters doing, but he calls them friends. So we see a distinction between slaves and friends and the distinction is based on knowing what God wants in our lives or what he is doing for us. Here we see Paul describing Christians as slaves yet Jesus said that we shouldn't be slaves. I think I understand what he's saying is that we need to be totally devoted to God, and in doing so being like a slave. But I just think it's interesting that Jesus says not to be a slave, or that he at least distinguishes the Apostles as not being slaves.

I wonder if it has anything to do a with the special calling that the Apostles had in that they were called to be different or special compared to normal or other followers. Catholics understand that the Apostles were the first bishops, that they were retained to be leaders of the Church. We also believe that our bishops are traced directly from those 1st Apostles. Maybe that's the answer. We, as normal lay Catholics, not being ordained with any special knowledge or understanding or the Graces that come with ordination, do not have that same knowledge of what the master is doing and therefore are to be slaves. There's a chink, a rather big one, in that understanding because Paul calls himself Apostle, least of the Apostles. So he doesn't see himself, and Apostle, as being different than a slave, at least not in this reading.

Chapter 7 is really confusing. First of all we have another occasion of Paul using this term "of course not" to point out something that is absurd. This time he is saying that the law is sin and that this is an absurdity. The reason he has to do that is because some of what he writes can be seen as saying that the law is sin or leads to sin. Some of what he says, I think, can be read as something like if you don't know the law then you can't break the law. But once you know the law and what is wrong, then you know or do what you’re not supposed to. A lot of this chapter kind of has that feel to it and yet he makes the distinction and that the law is not sin. I thought the footnote was helpful to a point, when it was talking about death and Baptism and reliance on belong and its connection to sin. The fact that Christ came to fulfill the law and that when we're baptized we die with Christ and that death frees us from sin all seem to be connected.

But can all this be connected to the understanding of salvation by faith alone. Many times in the arguments regarding this understanding the law is seen as works. We've talked before about the law being the traditions and teachings of the Church and how those are weighed against the idea of believing in Jesus and that faith alone not requiring the traditions and beliefs of the Church. But I see this understanding in Paul and that there is a connection between the law and faith and Paul is not saying that faith alone can save you as much as I believe he is saying that law alone cannot save you. I think Paul is being misinterpreted when people say he argues for faith alone. I think it is much clearer that he is arguing against law alone, which if you look, Acts is something that many early Christians tried to follow or least to force upon Gentile Christians. In the context of that argument, Paul might have leaned or argued in a way that could be seen as faith alone unintentionally in vehemently arguing against the law believers.