Michele,

Don't confuse the "law of love", which in the examples you gave have to do with the "law of liberty", aka: Adiaphora (things indifferent). In those situations, there is no "law" prohibiting the use of foods, etc., as they are all "good". It is one's conscience that prohibits one from partaking of them. And thus, for example, Paul could participate in a Jewish festival as just that, a festival that had no bearing upon his salvation. Circumcision is probably the best example however. For in one case, he allowed one to submit to it for the sake of the Gospel, but in another case, he flatly refused to it. For, in that case, those who demanded circumcision held that salvation was dependent upon it.

What this topic is about is the "MORAL law" of God, those laws which are the expression of God's very nature; i.e., that which determines what is holy and righteous. Mark and other Antinomians deny that Christians are "bound", under obligation to keep them, saying they were specifically Israelic; belonging to the nation of Israel and no one else. They would contend that because we are under "grace", then ALL the moral law is abrogated and no longer applicable to believers.

Of course we disagree. The "key", IMHO, is understanding how Paul, e.g., uses the word "law" and in what context he is using it. For a Christian, the law is not applicable for the obtaining of Justification. Nor is the law necessary to securing Sanctification. But rather the moral law is the RULE and GUIDE to becoming sanctified; to becoming more and more like Christ.

Anyway, perhaps that will give you more food for thought? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]