Don't know what happened here folks. It's evident I didn't write this post. Must have pushed the wrong key somehow. Anyhow great thoughts. I wish I did have the brains to have written it! Rob Page. rpage wrote: > > If Reid Ferguson is correct in his latest e-mail (March > 23, 2007 10:20:15), it helps clarify some things in my mind. First, > it explains how some Dispensationalists and some Covenant Theologians > can be very Godly people - they love Christ more than their system of > theology. They often do not realize how inconsistent they are with > their own theology. Secondly, it explains why some NC theologians can > become so legalistic - they want a “new covenant law system” that, > like the old covenant, is law or rule centered. > > Many years ago I saw that Paul had summed up in one verse > the very essence of what it means to live under grace. That text was > Gal. 5:6. The NIV translates it this way: > > /6//For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor > uncircumcision matters. What matters is /*/faith /**/◙/* > <file://localhost/quickverse/&viewer=viewhash::55512832%3Bviewerhash::56719408%3B:&resource=bookIndexValue::6882%3Bbook::148002688%3BcontentKey::%255BThe%20Holy%20Bible%252C%20International%20Standard%20Version%255CGalatians%255CGalatians%205%255D%3B:&LinkToGlossary=data::%255BGalatians%205%253A6%255D%3Bfxid::148002688%3B:>*/ > /**/that is active through love./*/ / NIV > > The Message paraphrase says: > > /6//For in Christ, neither our most conscientious religion nor > disregard of religion amounts to anything. What matters is > /*/something far more interior: faith expressed in love./* The Message > > Phillips paraphrase says: > > /In Jesus Christ there is no validity in either circumcision or > uncircumcision; it is /*/a matter of faith, faith which expresses > itself in love. /*/ //Phillips Paraphrase/ > > All is contingent on *faith.* /“Without faith it is > impossible to please God.”/ But it cannot be a dead faith but a > *working* faith. Faith, by itself is nothing. However, even the most > feverish working faith that is not motivated by love, even though it > is ready and willing to be martyred in flames (I Cor. 13), is sterile > and futile and rejected by God. > > Luther can say, “Love God with all of your heart and do as you > please.” Our Covenant Theology brethren will immediately cry, “Love > without law is blind.” They are convinced that is anti-nomianism. > Actually, Luther was half right and half wrong. Sinners like you and > me dare not follow Luther’s advice, but only because we are sinners. > If, and that is a really big if, we could love God with all of our > hearts then we could do as we please. That is how we will live in > heaven. The Ten Commandments will not be posted in a prominent place > and angelic beings acting as policemen to be sure we keep them. We > sinners while still in the flesh need objective laws because we can > twist love into lust. However, the problem is not with love but with > our sinful nature. That problem will be saved when we get glorified > bodies - real ones, not the like the kind Preterist brag about. > > True love would live a life like that described in I Cor. > 13. It would always be kind and never be mean of bad in any sense. > True love will act as described in I Cor. 13, not because the law says > it must, but because the very nature of true love is to act as set > forth that way. That is the only way love knows how to behave. True > love can only act out its nature. The problem is sinners can’t truly > love perfectly therefore they need objective revelation to define love > and that revelation includes all sixty books of the Bible! However, it > is not the inability of love that is to be blamed. Blame the sinner > for his inability to truly love. > I am afraid we may have allowed Covenant Theology to get > us chasing red herrings simply because we are insisting there is a > definable and complete list of moral laws, called the “Law of Christ,” > that replaces an old set of moral laws. > Is is possible to prove marrying your sister is wrong by > using the old covenant methodology of “sin lists” or law? Is it > possible to prove marrying your sister is wrong by using both the old > testament specific law and clear new covenant principles? Is is > possible that we need a whole new approach to the whole subject? Have > we limited the new coveant to be merely a new list of rules or laws? jgr > Read the Sound of Grace pages at > http://www.soundofgrace.com > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.17/730 - Release Date: 3/22/2007 7:44 AM > >