The law that once was something we couldn't keep that condemned us and put us under is now under our feet a serves as a smooth road way for our feet. Grace enables us to stay on this road. The law is now etched upon our hearts. The law is Spiritual and constantly leads us back to Christ. Grace enables us by the Holy Spirit to do the law....not as a way of salvation but of life.

The longest book in the Bible (and my fav) Ps 119 is dedicated towards one's love of the law.

So, in summary, law and grace are NOT at enmity with one another for a Christian or shouldn't be and the motivator is neither but the motivator is love for God.  

While the Law serves as an instructional guide for Christians, I think that sometimes we forget that even Christians live by the Gospel.

The Gospel is not something from which we "move on" after we've been saved: God supplies (present tense) the Spirit to Christians by the Gospel. To "walk by the Spirit"/"live by the Spirit" (Galatians 5:16-26) is---at its heart---to hear and believe the good news that our sins (even sins that we commit while being Christians!) are freely forgiven for the sake of Christ.

Unfortunately, much preaching in the Church today forgets this. Some preachers preach the Law pretty sternly, but not sternly enough so that their hearers fully despair of their own righteousness and turn to Christ for forgiveness. Other preachers are really nice and have the smilingest faces, but they preach nothing but "principles for living" which in the end come down to some version of law-keeping. Either way, the hearers tend to either become hypocrites or else feel "dry"/"burnt out"/depressed/vaguely despairing/etc. I wonder how many of the latest church trends ultimately boil down to some attempt to motivate apart from keeping the Gospel central.

This pamphlet (.pdf file) by a former LC-MS president talks about the Gospel and how God works through it in our daily lives. I recommend it not only to those interested in learning more about Lutheranism but also to those who want to know how the Gospel is relevant even for Christians.

Well, see above, I think the Grace v. Law has become a bogeyman and presentation of one v. the other is not to our advantage. Now, as to a means to salvation, yes, life no.

Anyway, that being said here is the Law of the Atheist as per American Vision, today...

recon77, I'm not sure how much we agree or disagree.

Psalm 119 talks about God's "promise" (vv. 41-42) as well as His "statutes" (v. 5). It uses a number of different words, in fact, in talking about God's Word: some of them associated with His Law (if by "law" we mean the commandments which are summarized by Jesus as loving God and loving our neighbor), some of them associated with His Grace, and some of them which may have in view both Law and Grace. There's certainly plenty for me to think about in that Psalm, and I agree that it talks about loving God's commandments---which are good (Romans 7:12). But, it's not just talking about loving God's commandments.

I also agree that both Law and Gospel should be preached to both Christians and non-Christians. But, each has its place, as it says in Galatians 3:15-29, in particular

When I read the word "motivate" in this blog, I associated it with the Spirit (our Helper/Counselor/Advocate; John 14:16-17) who is mentioned throughout Galatians 3 and the phrase "make alive" (or "give life") that is found in Galatians 3:21. I could read or listen to nothing but the Law all day long and hear "good" things. But, I will not be given life thereby, and I will not be given the Spirit apart from the Gospel. Do we not agree on this point? After all, you did say "Grace enables us by the Holy Spirit to do the law....not as a way of salvation but of life."

Finally, besides the last quote, you also said "...Grace v. Law has become a bogeyman and presentation of one v. the other is not to our advantage. Now, as to a means to salvation, yes, life no." Could you clarify for me the distinction you are making between "way/means of salvation" and "life"? Do you mean something like "Now that we are saved, we should strive to do what pleases God and serves our neighbor, and we are instructed by God's Law about how to do this" and have in mind verses such as Galatians 5:13-14? I certainly would agree with that. But, if you mean something else, then I guess that I'm not understanding you.

Youth Pastor, I'm not sure that I follow what you're saying when you write "I agree that Christians are not under the Law given to Moses, but I stop short of saying we are not under any law. Jesus told us we are to love God and love others." As I mentioned in my previous response, loving God and loving our neighbors is Jesus' summary of the Law given to Moses, as it says both here and here. Or, as Paul says in Galatians 5:14, "the whole law is fulfilled in one word: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.'" Maybe it would help me to understand if you clarify what you mean by "under."

Jam 137. It is difficult to explain. If you go back to my original I tried to describe the law as the road we now walk upon, IOW, it is under us, we are not under it. Yes, I agree we are moved by the Holy Spirit to "keep" the law now.

However, I think that antinomianism is an extreme danger to the body of Christ and a great misunderstanding of what Christ did and appropriated for us to do. Galatians is refering to legalists, those that keep man's laws and apply laws that God never meant to be applied as a means to salvation.

It is quibbling with those who would say in essence that we are NOT saved by grace but by works. I would say that it has very little to do with or possibly nothing to do with the 10 commandments or case laws as a whole but is referring to Judaizers. 

Who takes a yolk voluntarily? Only if it is a yoke of love, or returning love first offered. God woos us. He doesn't entrap us. We are free to come or not. The proof that we've come to stay is in the fruit. Love God and love your neighbor is still love. It's a "do" kind of love, but it's a do thing that springs forth from the heart.

This blog wasn't intended to portray law against grace as though the two are in conflict with each other. Rather it was a question of motivation. Which motivates us to do for God, law (the proper way to do things) or grace (salvation a free gift, including life, freedom, riches in Christ, etc.).

Excellent discussion recon, jam, ypc. Some above my head at the present time, I need to hang around you guys and learn!

Zach and Kristie, you are the darned kindest guys on this site, how did I get so lucky to run into you!!! 

Free. But we can't deny that we follow a moral Law. It's the heart that is central to all of this. The heart determines how we approach God, worship, service. Look at the rest of that passage:

Mat 11:30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light."

Compared to the yoke men had placed on them, who wouldn't take it? Grace motivates me. But like alot of people, I had frustrated the grace of God. I have finally figured that out.

recon77 wrote: I think that antinomianism is an extreme danger to the body of Christ and a great misunderstanding of what Christ did and appropriated for us to do. Galatians is refering to legalists, those that keep man's laws and apply laws that God never meant to be applied as a means to salvation.

Antinomianism certainly is a danger, if you're talking about what's described in places like 2 Peter 2. There, it talks about false teachers in the church who are characterized by the following:

But, it should be noted that antinomians and legalists have common key characteristics, even if on the surface they look very different: both groups walk according to the flesh rather than the Spirit, so both groups are enslaved rather than free (the above verses for antinomians, Galatians 3:3, 4:3, 4:9 for legalists). On the other hand, if we belong to Christ, if we walk by the Spirit, then we "will not gratify the desires of the flesh" because we "have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires," and we "are not under the law" (Galatians 5:16-26). I think that we probably (at least basically) agree on this.

recon77 wrote: It [Galatians] is quibbling with those who would say in essence that we are NOT saved by grace but by works. I would say that it has very little to do with or possibly nothing to do with the 10 commandments or case laws as a whole but is referring to Judaizers.

This second statement in this paragraph is something that I disagree with. When Paul is talking about the Law in Galatians 3, he's talking about the whole Law and not just certain ceremonies (e.g., circumcision). For example,

Paul was willing to have Timothy circumcised in order to avoid putting up stumbling blocks in their ministry (Acts 16:3), but in the context of the Galatian churches he stated that "if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you" and "I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law" (Galatians 5:2-4). In other words, because of the way the Galatians were approaching the matter of circumcision, they were obligating themselves to keeping the whole Law (including the 10 commandments), and the Law requires perfect obedience in all of its statutes.

Youth Pastor, I agree with your statement "The summation of the 10 Commandments would be the two things we have been discussing" and your point about how if we love God and neighbor we will not put anything before God, not murder, etc. But, I'm curious to see how yours and Mike's conversation unfolds: I agree with Mike that we are not "bound" by the "moral law." Perhaps further discussion will clarify things.

No time for a long response, but a quick thought on the Timothy/circumcision issue. Could it be for the same reason Jesus was baptized by J the B? (I believe it is...)

See, I look at Jesus' baptism as a stamp on what JTB was doing and to fulfill all righteousness. Matt 3:15. After the cross all righteousness was fulfilled.

Something to consider is the difference in paul's speeches throughout acts. The one at the Aeropagus was uniquely different because of the audience he was addressing. I wonder if it doesn't go along with Paul's statement that he "has become all things to all people so that by any means necessary he might win some. To the Jew a Jew and to the Greek a Greek." We can look at Acts and see that the Apostles still kept the Law. Here is one example late in Acts:

Bammo~! That was the point I was going for Chris, becoming all things to all people. I believe Jesus submitted to a baptism that he spiritually did not need (he was already Christ, i.e. fully identified with himself!!!) for this very reason. So the Timmy/circ deal was the same issue in my mind.

And yes we keep moral laws, for two primary reasons. One, it pleases God, and two, it sets us apart from the world (e.g. holiness). But we're not "under" these laws spiritually. If we break them, it will certainly grieve God's heart, but it doesn't earn us any time in a spiritual detention cell, or necessitate another sacrifice for sin, etc. (Hebrews 7:26-28)  Basically it messes up our relationship with God, which will in turn grieve US! ....i.e. we're free from the Law!!!

So the question again is... what motivates us more, desire to keep the Law (for whatever reason), or a desire to walk closely and intimately with our Savior, with whom we now can now be "with" on a daily basis? THIS explains the law v grace in the title of this blog.

Still enjoying my freedom here guys, and looking forward to getting to know my Savior better every day!! (with your help, too!)

~mike

Youth Pastor wrote: Guys we all keep some form of a moral law. What happens if one of us murders someone? We are punished and at least in some form that binds us to obey. Jesus said, "By this shall all men know you are my disciples if you have love one fo another." However loosely we interpret our freedom, we are still bound to a moral law, not the OT sacrificial system, priesthood, etc. We are bound to show love one for another that others might know we are His disciples. Willingly in fact. "When the Kindgom becomes a treasure, submission (my becomes His will) becomes a pleasure."

If I murdered someone, I indeed would be punished (rightly so) by the civil authorities. Does this mean that I no longer would be "justified" in the eyes of God, that if I died right then that I would automatically have a one-way ticket to hell? No, it's not like Jesus died to take away the sins of the world (John 1:29) except for that one murder. But, like all sin, it is dangerous enough that it could "shipwreck" my faith and conscience apart from God's mercy in dealing with me (1 Timothy 1:18-20). Yes, as free children of God, we willingly love God and one another. But, that's different from being covenantally "bound" to some set of commandments.

I find it amazing, actually, that somehow the "moral law" portion (however that's defined) of the Law of Moses could be considered to be the "easy" part, while circumcision (or perhaps certain "man-made" rules that were added on over time) would be the "hard" part. That seems precisely backwards. When Jesus is talking about murder, he warns about being angry with one's brother (Matthew 5:21-26). What is more difficult, to refrain from anger or to wash one's hands a certain way before eating (Mark 7:1-13)? It seems to me that one key reason that people come up with their own rules is that they are easier to follow than God's Law.

Youth Pastor wrote: Jam, I don't believe Paul is saying the Galatians would be obligated to keep the whole law if they accepted circumcision, but rather the Judaizers would push one law after another onto them to obey. LIke what was tried withthe four things in Acts Chapter 15. Jewish history is full of the "oral" law that just kept adding and adding to what they could/could not do.

Well, Paul never seems to be talking in Galatians about following rules that are not in the Law of Moses. He talks about circumcision as well as "days and months and seasons and years" (Galatians 4:8-11) which seem to be certain Old Testament festivals. But, as I said above, Paul is explicitly talking about the whole Law in places like Galatians 3:10, and Galatians 5:3 says the exact opposite of what you said in the first half of the first sentence in the above quote. The Law is an "all-or-nothing" thing: it doesn't say "It's OK to just keep part of me---just do your best in certain parts and I'll overlook the rest." Besides the above Galatians verses there is the classic James verse

Regarding Timothy being circumcised, Youth Pastor wrote: Something to consider is the difference in paul's speeches throughout acts. The one at the Aeropagus was uniquely different because of the audience he was addressing. I wonder if it doesn't go along with Paul's statement that he "has become all things to all people so that by any means necessary he might win some. To the Jew a Jew and to the Greek a Greek." We can look at Acts and see that the Apostles still kept the Law.

Yes, the key to understanding Timothy being circumcised is 1 Corithians 9:19-23, which was quoted in part above. When one is free from the Law, then "for the sake of the Gospel" one is free to "become all things to all people" in order to "save some." So, in certain places in Acts, the Apostles and others kept the Law in order to not offend the Jews unnecessarily (keeping any stumbling blocks limited to the cross of Christ; 1 Corinthians 1:22-24). This doesn't mean that the Apostles always kept the Law, though, as is clear not only in the 1 Corinthians quote but also in Galatians 2:11-21 regarding Peter. Just as Jesus came not to be served but to serve (Matthew 20:25-28), so in our freedom we should serve one another in love and bear one another's burdens (Galatians 5:13-14, 6:1-5). The Law shows us concretely how this service should look, but we are not "bound" to it.

Regarding dopelessdave's question: we are free to keep the Sabbath if we wish, but as it says in Colossians

So, even if you work seven days a week, let no one judge you on the matter.

I'm guessing that the Seventh Day Adventists told you about how the Sabbath is Saturday (more precisely, Jewish people reckon it from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday), that the fourth commandment is rooted in creation (Exodus 20:8-11), and that the Sabbath didn't somehow change to Sunday in the New Testament. I agree with them. Sometimes Christians say that Sunday is the new Sabbath and that's why church is on Sundays. But, in fact, churches have tended to meet on Sundays because of a tradition that dates back to apostolic times (Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2) which has in view Resurrection Sunday (John 20:1-23), and there's nothing in the New Testament that implies that the Sabbath was changed to Sunday.

Jesus, of course, observed the Sabbath, although He often did so in a way that upset the religious leaders of the day (Matthew 12:1-14). His greatest Sabbath, we might say, was His day of rest in the tomb between the day of His crucifixion and the day of His resurrection. Some people say that because Jesus kept the Sabbath and taught that He came not to abolish the Law and the Prophets but to fulfill them, etc. (Matthew 5:17-20) then Christians are obligated to keep the Sabbath. But, I believe that the above Colossians verses are clear that we are under no such obligation. Mike's citation of Romans 14 is relevant, too.

Not to through more fuel on a fire, but what about this:

Jer 31:31-34 "Behold, the days are coming, declares the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the LORD. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more."

This is part of the debate between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalists. If you see the Church as part of New Israel grafted in by the spirit of aoption then these verses bring up a challenge to saying we are under "no law."

Well, I haven't gone back through all of this stuff and maybe my last paragraph was not stated well about Galatians.

One thing that I will say is that Christ said that upon these 2 hang all of the law and the prophets. I take that to mean NOT that the others are done away with but that the motivation in the NT toward keeping the law (not for salvation) is summed up in loving God and in loving our neighbor as ourselves. Upon these 2 hang all the law and the prophets. And all of the law and prophets always hung upon these 2. THIS was/is the motivation for keeping the law Law. Because we love God and our neighbor we walk upon the smooth law of God that guides and protects us (not saves us). It is not a question of Grace v. Law other than in salvation (eternal). In our daily walk with God his law (which is spiritual) is the only real guidance that we have coupled with his Holy Spirit.