Joe, and Chad, I was laughing out loud at the Peptists controversy. Terry: I completely agree with your posts. You do echo Luther on Law and grace. We are joined to Christ as whiteness to a wall as Luther said. Therefore we cannot be under the Law for we are dead to it and alive unto God in Christ. Romans 7, and Galatians 2 as you shared as well. Chad. When Terry challenged your citing the Word of God in Romans 6:14 as a cliche, you responded that this isolated passage should not be taken out of the context of Romans 6 and surrounding. Terry then provided you and us with Romans 7 "dead to the Law", "discharged from the Law", and Galatians 2, "through the law, I died to the law". The other passages she provided not only support Romans 6, if anything they are stronger! The passage is not isolated. Sounders, the thing that attracts me to your post is your recognition that the Old covenant was insufficient and that we are no longer under it, along with your generally Calvinistic soteriology. However, your recognition of our freedom from the Old Covenant will be all for naught if you begin to approach the New Covnt as a legal code. I strongly encourage you to carefully consider Terry's post and warning that galatianism is alive and well and wants to bring you under its grip. There are still Judaisers who will "spy out our (your) liberty that we (you) have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us (you) under bondage". Some of them will be extremely persuasive and eloquent too. Saying that we are not under the Old law, but under a new higher law, will NEVER open you up to the charge of being lawless, as Paul was charged in Rom. 6:1. It will be a sure sign that you are not preaching the radically free and new grace "in which we stand" Rom. 5:2. "The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death" Rom 8. This is radical freedom. "For through the law I died to the law that I might live unto God" Gal. 2. "The life that I live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God ". Gal. 2 "The law is not of faith" Gal. 3. Do you want sin not to have dominion over you? My sinful passions, "which were aroused by the Law". Rom 7. And finally, "Sin shall not have dominion over you for you are not under law but under grace" Rom 6. Does this sound too much like Dispensationalism? Perhaps this is a point where some of them may have been in line with Paul. That is the point right? You still have many differences with Dispensationalists. Most Dispensationalists of the last 50 years do not know or believe in this anyway as Fuller documented in his book where he made those claims about the complete consistency of law with faith- the title evades me. Grace to you brethren and peace. Mike PA On Fri, 26 Nov 2004 07:57:28 -0800 (PST) Terry Rayburn <terryrayburn@...> writes: > Brethren, > > A lot of virtual ink has flowed on this topic since > I wrote and then left town for Thankgiving dinner > at my cousin's house. I appreciate you all for > your thoughtful responses. Instead of a point > by point response, may I add the following: > > 1. I hope I made it clear in my original post that > I'm not opposed to obedience. When I discuss > true radical grace with folks, they often say > something like, "Yeah, grace is fine, but it must > be balanced with obedience." While that sounds > good, it misses the point. Grace can't be > "balanced" with anything. The real question is, > "What leads to obedience, the law, or grace?" > Paul's answer...grace. Thus, point 2: > > 2. Grace leads to obedience First, because we > are regenerated by grace with a new spirit which > is made one with His Spirit, and which loves > Christ and His ways, and hates sin; Second, > we are crucified with Christ so that the old man > is dead...or as Paul puts it in Rom. 6, we are > "dead to sin and alive to God through Christ"; > Third, we are given by grace the righteousness > of God, whereby His obedience is unilaterally > chalked up as ours; and Fourth, though we > may still sin in the flesh, in the spirit we > respond to His love by following Him and > His ways. > > 3. The law, OT or NT, can never, I repeat never, > bring obedience in the important heart sense > of the word. That's what the writer of Hebrews > meant when he said in Chapter 8 that the Old > Covenant failed, so to speak, and the New > Covenant had to be instituted. Because man > could not keep the law, and still can't. In fact, > the scripture says in several different ways > that the law inflames sin. > > 4. The law, in the generic sense of clear > commands from God, has never been > abolished. It has been declared under > rent covenants, has been expounded on, > and reiterated in part by Christ Himself, > and the New Testament writers. > Paul himself says, "...the law is holy, > and the commandment is holy and righteous > and good." (Ro 7:12) And every unregenerate > man is UNDER that law, and condemned for > breaking ALL of it, having broken even ONE. > > 5. But we, praise God, are not UNDER the > law, as born again believers under the > grace of the New Covanant! > > If Ro 6:14 is not clear enough ("For sin shall > not be master over you, for you are not under > law, but under grace."), please consider the > following: > > "All things are lawful for me, but not all things > are profitable. All things are lawful for me, > but I will not be mastered by anything." > (1Co 6:12) > > "All things are lawful, but not all things are > profitable. All things are lawful, but not all > things edify." (1Co 10:23) > > "But now we have been released from the law, > having died to that by which we were bound, so > that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not > in oldness of the letter." (Ro 7:6) > > "For through the law I died to the law, that I > might live to God." (Ga 2:19) > > Notice Paul doesn't say that the law has been > abolished, but that we have died to it, and > thus are no longer under it. > > 6. "...our adequacy is from God, who > also made us adequate as servants of > a New Covenant, not of the letter, but > of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the > Spirit gives life." (2Co 3:5b-6) > If we debate with the CT merely by > replacing the OT law with the NT law, and > one-up CT-guy by telling him, "We are > UNDER an even higher law, so there!", > we risk skillfully winning the debate battle, > but losing the war to Galatianism. Instead > let's humbly hold our head high (how's that > for an oxymoron?), and proclaim our > Savior and Lord Who said, "It is finished!" > We have been set free. It is all of grace, > all of grace, ALL of grace. > > With the deepest of love and appreciation > for you all, > > Terry Rayburn > Clarksville, TN > http://www.graceforlife.com > > > > --------------------------------- > Do you Yahoo!? > The all-new My Yahoo! What will yours do? > -- > 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 > > > > >