A clash of humanity...a glimpse of God

We hear a lot these days, on the doctrine of Grace. Indeed at 2 Hillsong conferences past, they've gotten guests speakers to preach it. 

some even take it to the point and make statements like, "the law was old testament, its no longer rel event! This is the age of Grace!"

In response to this we hear many other pastors take to the doctrine of Law, attempting to counter the so called "cheap grace" ideology being raised by the formerly mentioned preachers by calling it a watered down spiel to make the faith more attractive by lowering its standards.

Having attended churches from both camps,  I feel that God has shown me the 2 sides of the issue and also shown me where things should sit.

In Acts 15: 36 -41 we see a mighty clash of what was probably equivalent to Christian celebrities in the early church.

2 heavy weights of the church square off and go at each other like a couple of battleships trading cannon blast, it seems like a terrible example of humanities' failure at playing nice as Paul and Barnabas go on their separate ways.

Or is it?

Whilst we see the argument on the surface, a study group member shared this insightful view.

That in this situation, we see the fullness of God's personality, his overarching plan over us and the combination of the 2 seemingly divisive doctrines that plague the modern church of law and of grace.

Barnabas, the compassionate one as we will call him. Was the instrument chosen by God to introduce a then Saul/Paul to the church. Passionately arguing that God's transforming power in Saul's life into the man that eventually turned to be Paul, we can deduce the heart this man's ministry as one that ex amplifies the forgiveness and grace of God.

Indeed the crux of the falling out in Acts 15 it seems, is the very same scenario, where Barnabas is seen defending one John Mark to a somewhat less accommodating Paul.

Paul on the other hand, has always been a beacon of discipline in the early church, his letters and ministry to bring much needed guidance, rules and sometimes rebuke to the various churches of the day. Taking his ministry to a point, he can be seen rebuking even Peter, one of the original 12 for his 2 mindedness in his treatment of Gentile believers... A set of rules, do and do nuts, does this not seem akin to the Law of old?

So we see painted in concept and doctrine, Grace and Law in a seemingly irreconcilable argument, split off to walk separate paths of ministry...

Or is it? For if w study Acts, we will see that both paths from this fork led to highly successful ministries that resulted in the church of the day growing in numbers  and blessing.

Could it be that  instead of a clash of opposing doctrines, we have just seen a small glimpse that they are but small aspects of a larger whole? Of the multi faceted nature of God? (I think so)

Even Paul himself writes in the book of Romans, that it was the law that defined man kind as sinful, the law that dictated how we are to please god, the law that taught us how we were to co-exist with an infinite being.

Yet it is through the very existence of the law that we discover that we are imperfect and unable to meet the minimum standards that God sets for us.

Enter the need for Grace, which in spite of our human inequities draws God and Man together in the person of Jesus Christ and the Crucifixion.

So who is right? Neither s the obvious answer.

The law is completely necessary as a definition of the standards that God has called us to and that we humanly cannot meet. Grace is the counter point that ensures as that in spite of our human flaws we can still please and be accepted by a holy perfect God.

Grace however is certainly not a license to carry on our lives in our own fatalistic wills, but the acceptance of us in Jesus Christ as we daily strive to put our old selves to death and live in him.

Grace is in fact the fulfillment of law.