A New Series: Law vs. Grace

I'm trying to think about why the people of free grace stand up for the gospel. Why must they defend the gospel of faith alone in Christ alone? At this point they know the alternative is a departure, so that is good. They have knowledge because they have arrived at the right answer.

In my case, I was told that I had to be baptized in water, in order to be saved. Faith + baptism = salvation. I studied baptism, first. I figured out that it wasn't needed. But the scriptures started stressing in my reading, the importance of being saved by a faith that is alone, not including works. That was even better than protecting my salvation from the claim that baptism was necessary -- it meant I could protect it from any claim that came in the form of a commandment.

Now, I haven't shared all of this, with anyone, before. At least, I have with two people, but neither of them understood or accepted it. Actually, I shared it a bit at bible.org, but everyone ignored me. Then I took a free grace class, and I heard that we believe in the same manner: faith + nothing = salvation. Now, it is my chance to receive input from those who might understand me, for the first time.

Keep in mind as you are reading that I described a "free grace" salvation and sanctification, happening in super-Calvinistic ways. Talk about a mess, eh?? I have spent these few months trying to detox in the descriptions, believing now in free will. If I don't completely arrive, please, help me.

I have been told, that it is difficult to understand me. You will notice that I am... probably... a hermeneutical mess, but, if you take them as they are, I hope you will easily see that I use these passages in ways firmly gripped in their biblical context.

I was not trained by the Christian culture, not by commentaries or schooling, so I say things differently, I've been told, than what is usual.

In conclusion, because it is difficult for me to be understood, I am going to go out of order. I'm going to give you the conclusions, first, so that you understand why I am quoting these passages and what I am getting out of them, the point that I have come away with that I hope anyone else might clearly see, too. So, please don't assume that I started with an opinion or agenda, first, and then read that opinion into scripture next, because even though that is the order in this email, that is not what I have done.

Some basic points that are the conclusion of reading upon the topic of law vs. grace:

1) In order to not sin we must be free from obligation to obey God.

2) Obligation produces a superficial obedience, which, when that obligation is removed, proves lawlessness.

3) In Galatians, Paul wrote to help those becoming deceived. They were deceived about sanctification, equally as they were about salvation.

4) The law in itself is not evil but rather good, but since sin dallies behind law we cannot use it.


These, I think, are pretty bold or uncommon conclusions. But I hope you will see as I have come to see, that they are the point of Paul's teachings on law and grace. I started studying this topic in 2002. In 2005, I wrote essentially what you are reading now and what is to come. I made a few adjustments in language for the sake of free will, but the boundaries for God's grace are the same in my mind now as they were back then.

Thanks for putting up with me.