The distinction drawn by Moses, Jeremiah, Paul, and the author of Hebrews is not whether the law is written on our hearts. It’s who writes the law on our hearts.

Compare —-

(Deu 10:16) Circumcise your hearts, therefore, and do not be stiff-necked any longer.

(speaking of the pre-Messianic age) with —

(Deu 30:6) The LORD your God will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.

(speaking of the Messianic age).

Just so, speaking of the pre-Messianic age, Jeremiah writes,

(Jer 4:4) Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, circumcise your hearts, you men of Judah and people of Jerusalem, or my wrath will break out and burn like fire because of the evil you have done — burn with no one to quench it.

but Jeremiah speaks of the Messianic age saying,

(Jer 31:33) “This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time,” declares the LORD. “I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.”

The command is the same. The means of obedience is different. And Hebrews quotes Jer 31 in Heb 8, applies it to Christianity, and argues from it through chapter 10.

(Heb 10:13-18) Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14 because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy. 15 The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says: 16 “This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.” 17 Then he adds: “Their sins and lawless acts I will remember no more.” 18 And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin.

In v. 15, the author says this passage from Jeremiah testifies to what he’d just said: “he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.” And notice the verb tense: “are being made” holy is passive — which perfectly suits the meaning of the Jeremiah passage quoted.

Just so, we see in Romans 2:29 —

(Rom 2:29) No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man’s praise is not from men, but from God.

Again, the active element is found in the Spirit who circumcises, in contrast to being circumcised by the “written code,” that is, from merely reading and applying what you’ve read. It takes something more, which is God’s own hand.

Your example of David is entirely apt, as God was a man after God’s own heart because he possessed the Spirit.

(1 Sam 16:13a) So Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the presence of his brothers, and from that day on the Spirit of the LORD came upon David in power.

I offer my thoughts on prevenient grace at http://oneinjesus.info/index-under-construction/searching-for-the-third-way/.

No, it doesn’t make sense, but that is the argument. Actually, 1 Corinthians 12:13 uses the Greek preposition en, which is the same preposition John the Baptist used when he said the one coming after him would baptize in or with the Holy Spirit (Matthew 3:11). So, the exegesis of 1 Corinthians 12:13 in my first paragraph above in not correct. Rather, this passage points to our new relationship to the Spirit as a result of our baptism.

I mention this only to suggest that as good as I think your argument is, the conservative mindset will not understand it. It is outside his way of approaching Scripture.

Keep up the good work!

You says that to have God’s laws written on our hearts means “To have them written on our hearts is to understand that they are given for our good, to believe or trust God’s goodness which Satan denies, and therefore to follow them because we believe they will bring us only good.”

I don’t deny that this is part of it, as you’ve paraphrased Rom 12:2. But many First Century Jews had exactly this attitude toward God’s law. How then do Jeremiah and the author of Hebrews say that the new covenant is different from old covenant? What’s changed?

According to Heb 8:9-10, the difference is that it will be God himself who writes the laws on our hearts.

Do you concede this? Or do you believe that we write the laws on our own hearts, after having first read the word? The Jews read the word. What’s different now?

The point remains the same. Those who are on their way to the baptistry are being led by the word just as much as they are being led by the scriptures. They are not yet being led by the Spirit, as they won’t receive the Spirit until baptism (in the normative case).

Just so, it can hardly be argued that all First Century Christians possessed the entirety of the word, if by “word” we mean God’s completed revelation that’s now found in the New Testament. They all had the gospel — the “truth” — but not the “word,” as so understood. But they did all possess the Spirit.

After all, it’s obvious that even the prophets didn’t possess the complete revelation that we now have. As I explain elsewhere,

You see, the Churches of Christ (and many others) have traditionally taught that New Testament prophecy was given in lieu of the New Testament until the canon was complete — and thus that prophecy served to fill in the gaps of inspired literature. But if that’s so, why did Paul need to write to Corinth? Why didn’t the several prophets who were already there straighten things out?

Just so, as Rome had prophets (Rom 12:6), why did Paul write Romans to them? Why didn’t the prophets already know this material and teach it straight from the Spirit?

http://oneinjesus.info/2009/08/04/church-of-christ-deism-showing-the-spirit/

Another excellent post! However, the conservative position is not accurately represented in it, so much so that you are likely to be accused of building a straw man. You wrote:

“This passage teaches that the Spirit helps us further our repentance by helping us ‘put to death the misdeeds of the body.’ Further, we are assured that all who are sons of God are ‘led by the Spirit.’

“Many interpret this passage as referring to the New Testament, but the New Testament had not been written at this time. It’s likely that not a single Gospel had been penned. And given that Paul is confident that every single Christian has the Spirit, and only a handful of Christians would have possessed any of the other epistles that had been written or even the Old Testament, he could not have been speaking of owning parts of the Bible.

“Besides, a sinner who believes in Christ and is on his way to be baptized is being led by the scriptures, but he is not yet a son of God who is being led by the Spirit. Paul says that all who are led by the Spirit are sons of God already. So ‘Spirit’ can’t mean scripture.”

The conservative position is not that Scripture itself is the Law of God, but that the Message of Scripture is that Law. The Message was in the apostles and prophets (who had the measures of the Spirit that gave inspiration) before it was in the book – and that the early Christians were led by the Spirit through the teaching (doctrine) of the apostles and prophets. Today, since we do not have inspired people, the Scripture is the Message for us. Hence, all you wrote about the early church not having the Scripture is nonsense, because the early church DID have the inspiration of the apostles and prophets.

Of course, the Bible never speaks of “measures” of the Spirit, except in italicized words in the KJV (which indicates the words were added by the translators) in John 3:34 – “God gives not the Spirit by measure” and adds, “to him” (i.e., to Jesus). Thus, the real thrust of your position is negated by denying that each Christian has the indwelling Spirit, except through the Word.

Keep plugging away at that mindset, though. It is gradually wearing away. When we begin to understand the role of the Spirit of God in the spiritual transformation of the child of God, we will begin to find the freedom of which Paul wrote in Galatians 5!

As I said in the beginning, an excellent post focusing on the Spirit as our “helper” or “Comforter” as in John 14 – 16.