John, I love this post.  These are terrific questions and thoughts.
Mike M.
PA
On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 11:32:04 -0500 "John Reisinger"
<24jreisinger26@...> writes:
> One of the first items is to define the word "law" and the phrase 
> "the Law."
> (1)  We have rightly preached that law without a penalty or a 
> policeman is not law but only good advice.
> (2)  We insist that a believer is totally, 100%, free from the 
> PENALTY of the Law.
> (3)  We insist (most of us) that a believer is under objective 
> imperitives (if you don't like the word "law") to be be obeyed.
> (4)  We reject CT's "covenant" versus "rule" with no change at all 
> in the Ten Commandments.
> (5)  If we, correctly, define true law in terms of (1), then a 
> Christian cannot be under "true" law in any sense since he can never 
> be under condamnation. This was the basic claim of the true 
> antinomians in history. This has to be answered. How can be not 
> "under law" but under "objective absolutes" demnading obedience.
> (6)  The "covenant of life" versus "rule of life" contains the 
> general idea of the truth but not as it is expressed by CT.
> (7)  I suggest a reading of John Owen's sermon on Romans 6:14 found 
> in either Vol. 7 or 11 of his works. He has an excellent two fold 
> definition of the word "law." It is an excellent place to start.
> (8)  I am sure that an Old Covenant believer's conscience was under 
> law in a sense that a New Covenant believer's conscience dare not 
> be, and likewise, a New Covenant believer's conscience is not under 
> law in a sense that an Old Covenant believer's conscience could not 
> be.
> 
> JGR
> --
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
>