Maybe I'm missing the point here, but aren't we making a salvation
historical statement when we state that we are "not under law, but under
grace". It doesn't mean that we are not under Christ's law.
Doesn't the phrase emphasis that unlike the previous law this new one is
gracious? I'm not sure that I want to call "not under law, but under grace"
a cliché for it expresses just what kind of law we are under.
Jamie
ps: be gentle with me I'm new at this.
<soundofgrace@...> wrote in message
news:E2C143C6-3F0E-11D9-A0C1-000393C7E350@......
> Chad,
> I must agree that what you are saying is the correct view.
> We need to remember that the Law of Moses was directly tied to the
> Levitical priesthood and the LAND promises, without them there is no
> purpose for the Law for National Israel under the Oold Covenant.
> Joe
> On Thursday, November 25, 2004, at 12:50 PM, Chad Richard Bresson wrote:
>
>> ----- 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
>>
>> --
>> Read the Sound of Grace pages at
>> http://www.soundofgrace.com
>>
>> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to:
>> soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
>>
>> To view our online archive go to our web page at
>> http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace
>>
>>
>>