I have noticed a few controversial issues discussed on this Board that involve the right view of the law in grace. I have worked on this idea for quite some time, being presssed by controversies in myown church. What is the NT view of the place of the law in a Christian life? We have Theonomy stating that the civil laws are still binding; we have Dispensationalists saying that even the decalogue is not binding (to a degree, I would think ); we have A4 that would bind the law to justification again; we have NCT advocating distinctions between the OT and NT that impinge on how we view the law; just to name the main ones. It seems to me that there is a certain amount of cloudiness about just what it was about the law that was satisfied by Christ's atonement. What does it mean when in Galations, the epistle about the place of the law, it states, "Stand fast therefore in the liberty by which Christ has made us free, and do not be again entangled with a yoke of bondage" (NKJV), or "For freedom Christ has set us free. Stand fast, therefore, and donot submit again to a yoke of slavery." (RSV) The ESV also puts it the same: "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery." The NKJV has a footnote that states it teh same. Just what does this mean in relation to these controversies? We just went through Galations in family devotions. I stated it to my children in this way, briefly: the law no longer stands against us in our christian walk; it stands for us to help us. We are not under it for justification, for being reconciled to God; but we are not apart from it in ordering our lives so that we can change from the old man into the new man continuously throughout our lives. It is our guide, not our accuser. That is what we need to hold, and that is what we need to present in how we live to others. Every word of the OT is Scripture, and so is our guide to knowing God's will. But our salvation is in the work of Christ, plus nothing. My children too have to be nourished and strengthened after being exposed to Reconstructionism. I don't know what it is that has been planted in their minds, but my wife and I pray for proper guidance and understanding in establishing the gospel in them. So we don't shy away from these teachings. Yet it is also true that I am fallible. It seems to me that, and this is what I taught my wife children, Galations really tries to define terms for what they umcompromisingly are. Grace is grace, through and through; reconciliation is reconcilitaton, through and through; and liberty in Christ is liberty in Christ, through and through. These terms need to be taken a principles of salvation. In Romans (also about the place of the law ) it is added that sin is sin, through and through; God is the judge and the justifier of those whom He deigned to save, while they were yet sinners. If we have so been justified, then that is how we must also walk our new life. If we begin by the Spirit, also live by the Spirit. (Gal. 5: 25 ) The law forbids sins, such as those listed in vss. 19 -21 of ch. 5. But it does not forbid those things listed as fruits of the Spirit, listed in vss. 22-23. These are not the fruits of the law, for the only fruits the law can yield in sinner can be a restraint against the former list, but not righeousness, or kindness, or peace, or joy, etc. The Christian life has to be more that legal submission, for that did not avail the Jews anything either. There is something in the fruits of the Spirit that the law cannot meet, that it cannot even demand, that is can never satisfy in a personal obedience. For legality does not satisfy the law, love does, and faith does. Legality misses the whole intent. Yet every word of the OT yields to us the will of God in His gospel of reconciliation. So this requires of us a view of the law that accomodates the necessity that we are not under law, but under grace, yet we are not without the law either. As my chatechism teacher told me, "We are free to uphold the law, through faith alone." We are free, and not under bondage to the law in any way; Ch. 5:1 must mean that, it seems to me. And that is where I see a connection with all these new teachings, in that this basic principle is undermined. What do you think?