A passage that seems to me to encapsulate Paul’s thought is 1 Corinthians 1:14-17:
I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one can say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.)
For Christ did not send me to baptize but to proclaim the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its power.
You can tell that on a certain level, he would prefer to say “I thank God that I baptized none of you,” full stop. Then he remembers Crispus and Gaius, but continues as though he has baptized none — and then he remembers some more, and leaves open the possibility that he baptized others he can’t recall…. But anyway, “Christ did not send me to baptize.”
The key here is what the parenthetical asides reveal: Christ also did not send Paul not to baptize. This is what “death to the law” represents — not only does the law not positively determine you, but it also does not negatively determine you as something to be studiously avoided. To be free from the law is also to be free to fulfill the law — and this includes the nascent “new law” of the sacraments (cf. the Council of Trent) in the Christian communities.
A parallel here can be found in Acts, where Paul personally circumcizes Timothy. Putting myself in the position of Paul’s Jewish opponents, I can see being more angered at this act than at the hypothetical insistence that Timothy doesn’t need to be circumcized — by nonetheless going ahead and circumcizing him, Paul shows that his position with regard to the law is thoroughly unprincipled. It is in this radical amorality that Paul shows himself to be in genuine continuity with the life and teaching of Jesus.