----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Terry Rayburn" <terryrayburn@...>
> The law of Christ, then is not a "rule of life", but
> a guide

I agree with what you've said about Romans 6, this statement here is where 
we part company.  If the "Law of Christ" is not a "rule of life", then Paul 
would not have chosen the word "law" to identify it.  He says "Law of 
Christ" precisely because He and it are to be obeyed (Matt. 5:17, John 
14:21, John 15:12, James 2:8-12, and 1 John 3:23,24 are as much about the 
law of Christ as Galatians 6:2).  We cannot do violence to the Law concept 
from Genesis to Revelation by stripping "law" of that which is inherent to 
its very nature: a command to be obeyed.  It is not merely a guide but a 
command (John 14:15... for starters).

We are not under the OT law, but we *are* under a law... the law of Christ. 
And that's precisely why I firmly believe "not under law, but under grace" 
is a cliche to be avoided.  It wrongly extrapolates a phrase in Romans 6, 
and uses the phrase as if it explains the entirety of the Romans 6 is not 
the whole story.  It is just a part of the whole.  In fact, James is pulling 
the OT law into the new covenant... we play right into the CTer's objection 
if we dismiss James 2 as nothing more than a "guide".  "We are not under law 
but under grace" is unique to the argument of Romans 6 and cannot be 
stripped from its context to say more than it does... there's plenty of 
"law" to go around in the NT that the phrase cannot be used to brush it all 
aside as "guide".

IMHO.

Chad Bresson
Xenia, OH



Chad Bresson
Xenia, OH