----- Original Message ----- 
From: "jamie Houghton" <j_jamie@...>
>    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".

Absolutely!!  In fact, John posits the eschatology this way: the *law* was 
given through Moses, *grace and truth* came through Jesus Christ (John 
1:18), a *grace and truth* that is embodied in Christ himself (John 1:14). 
In the context of *The Logos* in the prologue (which would have brought to 
mind the Torah to any Jew listening to the prologue), vs. 14 & 18 are 
presenting Christ as the New Torah.

>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.

I'm one who thinks our own contemporary context is important in how we 
express what we believe.  Arminians/Dispensationalists make up 60-85% of our 
evangelicalism, depending on who's doing the polling.  That means an 
overwhelming majority using the phrase "not under law, but under grace" are 
using it to deny being under any law at all.  And since it is a phrase that 
is pulled from only one passage in the canon, I think it is wiser for those 
of us who disagree with that view to find some other means of explaining our 
relationship to the law.  "not under law, but under grace" is a cliche for 
*most* who use it.

The claim "we are under no law at all" does not take seriously Christ's 
statement that he did not come to abolish the law.  In effect, the "cliche", 
as most evangelicals understand it, renders Matthew 5 as this: I did not 
come to abolish the law, but to abolish it... and only slightly less 
egregious: I did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it... then 
abolish it.  Either way, "fulfill" is being defined in a way that makes 
nonsense Christ's first clause.  Just because we disagree with the way CT 
defines fulfill doesn't mean we have to tap dance around the word "abolish" 
with hundreds of qualifiers.  Let it stand as Christ said it and meant it: I 
did not come to abolish the law.  There are other ways to disagree with CT 
without neutering "abolish".

IMHO.

Chad Bresson
Xenia, OH