Even the Apostle Peter said that St. Paul’s writings were difficult to understand, and throughout history Christian men (and women) have often found them difficult to align congruently with the rest of Scripture.
In the past 150 years it has become fashionable to act—and even believe—that the Law was done away with by Messiah’s sacrifice. In a certain and specific sense that is true; but the way in which it has commonly come to be understood is blatantly and grievously erroneous.
Dispensationalism was largely responsible for spreading this unfortunate idea; an idea that is in many ways responsible for the present deplorable state of Christian morals in America (see Barna’s recent report). What I find so astounding, however, is the degree to which the dispensational approach to Paul’s writings have so profoundly influenced those who would vigorously protest any suggestion that they are dispensationalists.
But more to the point, or at least to my point, is this assertion: it has been the predominant, historic, and orthodox Christian belief that every believer is beholden to keep God’s commandments as they exist in both the Old and New Testaments. Attempts to figure out how to walk out that obligation vary widely, and I have my own opinion. The point, however, is that varying applications aside, we must agree that, as Article 7 of the Articles of Religion state:
…no Christian man whatsoever is free from the obedience of the Commandments which are called Moral.
Granted, that begs the question, “Which commandments are moral?” But I leave that for another discussion.
Allow me, finally, to arrive at the quote which I originally set out to blog upon.
The following was written between 1832 and 1863 by Charles Simeon, the father of Anglican evangelicals, fellow of King’s College, Cambridge, and vicar of Holy Trinity Cambridge.
He begins with stating the objection urged against the Gospel; “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?” And then he answers it at large; and affirms, that the covenant of grace, so far from invalidating our obligation to good works, absolutely secures the performance of thema….[1]
[Christ, our incarnate Lord, has fulfilled every part of God’s law; enduring its penalties, as well as executing its commands: and this he has done, as our Surety: so that, if we believe in him, we may plead his obedience unto death in bar of all the punishment it denounces against us; and may even plead it also as having procured for us a title to all its promised blessings. Our blessed Lord, in fulfilling the law, has abrogated it as a covenant; and has obtained for us a new and better covenant, of which he himself is the Suretyb. As a rule of conduct, the law does, and ever must, continue in force; because it is the transcript of the mind and will of God, and contains a perfect rule for the conduct of his creaturesc: but as a, covenant it is dissolved; and is, in respect of us, dead; so that we have no more connexion with it than a woman has with her deceased husband: our obligations to it, and our expectations from it, have ceased for everd.[2]
[1]Charles Simeon, Horae Homileticae Vol. 15: Romans(London, 1832-63). 165.
[2]Charles Simeon, Horae Homileticae Vol. 15: Romans (London, 1832-63). 166.
Long-ing For Life 
“/as a, covenant/ it is dissolved; and is, in respect of us, dead; so that we have no more connexion with it than a woman has with her deceased husband: our obligations to it, and our expectations from it, have ceased for ever”
…this part doesn’t add up to me. Maybe I’m reading it wrong; not sure.
Well, it’s confusing; which is why people have opted to simply say that the Law has been done away with, rather than do the difficult exegetical work of figuring out why Paul uses this illustration, or of why Hebrews says that there is a New Covenant which has replaced the Old.
It’s not easy to reconcile. Indeed, I can’t yet explain in terms that resonate with me how these things co-exist.
The point of this post, of course, is Simeon’s ringing declaration, “As a rule of conduct, the law does, and ever must, continue in force; because it is the transcript of the mind and will of God, and contains a perfect rule for the conduct of his creatures.”
However, as you point out, his next sentence is troubling to us who contest antinomianism and comforting to those who embrace it. I say it is Scripture we must deal with, and not back down from. It does make sense.