Activity

@rochellaine I agree with @wordsmith and @eden-anderson. You have been pretty clear, and I agree with most of what you have said. It’s just little nit-picky stuff I disagree with. Stuff that doesn’t matter much anyway. 🙂

@nuetrobolt I’m part of New Wessex. Which is the bestest guild. XD

@theinconceivable1

Sorry it took me so long to reply. I will try to be as brief as I can.

First of all, the article that you linked basically just had a list of all the verses that mentioned “lasting ordinance” then said, in their words: “As these passages note, the idea of a lasting ordinance indicated an ongoing law, but it was not always intended to be eternal.” But they didn’t give any scripture to back this up. (I’ll address the scripture you gave in a moment.)

1. I agree with your first bullet point. It’s not a good idea to get hung up on words. At the same time, trying to dismiss something in scripture with another part of scripture is dangerous, whatever the reason is.

2. In answer to your answer to my question:-) I will not claim to understand what Paul was trying to say there (2Co. 3:9-11). Peter himself says that Paul is hard to understand, and easy to twist (2Pe. 3:16).

But I will point out that Paul himself was a Jew, and I think it’s reasonable to assume that he obeyed Torah to the best of his ability to his dying breath (Acts 24:16; Php. 3:5-6). I doubt that he would say that we no longer need to obey the Mosaic law. In fact, most of his arguments came from the scripture (Acts 17:10-12 – which would have been the OT), and that was one of the things that annoyed him about the Jews. They opposed him without scriptural reason. So much so that he eventually had to give up on witnessing to them (Acts 13:46).

Besides this, all of our definitions of Moral Law originally came from the Mosaic Law. You can’t take one, and leave the other. Moses brought the Ten Commandments just the same as he brought the commandment to slaughter the red heifer (Num. 19:1-10) and the law for the captive bride (Deu. 21:10-14). (Which, by the way, are both beautiful pictures of Jesus.) They’re all mixed together in the Bible.

So here’s my opinion: All of the law is fulfilled in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. All of the law can still be observed by us today.

Most of it can’t be applied for various reasons. Such as, the laws for the priests and Levites, or the laws for the temple/tabernacle/priesthood. But some of it can. Such as the laws for the feasts (Lev. 23), or the dietary laws (Lev. 11; Deu. 14:3-21. Which I think have more to do with holiness than health, but that’s another rabbit-trail).

And all of it is meant to be shadows and types that point to Jesus Christ. Even the “Moral” laws.

Having all that said, don’t obey the law, follow Christ.

Everyone, throughout all of history, is saved the same way. Jesus died before the foundations of the world (Rev. 13:8) so that Abraham could be declared righteous “by faith” (read Heb. 11 and Gen. 15:6).

We’re saved through faith, not from obeying the law. So the question becomes, does it matter if we obey the law or not? What do you think?

Anyway, I’ve spent too much time on this already. I need to go work on my WIP. 🙂

Legos!? Yes! I’m 21 and I still play with Legos every once in a while. XD I’ve got a little Lego typewriter on my desk right now.

@the-fledgling-artist About the temple, I don’t believe the temple/sacrifices were ever needed for salvation, but I do think there are some beautiful pictures of Jesus in the sacrificial laws that we’re missing because we can’t do them. Some laws you just can’t understand unless you do them.

Alright, I’m going to help New Wessex with the word war. We’re going to beat all y’all. 🙂