So there are many reasons why I come on here and discuss things. Not least of which is because a conversation can be had even if one person is not present. They can pick it back up when they get back.
However, I like to treat these conversations as if I was in-person talking with someone. Meaning, it is very hard to respond to a long-drawn-out post of someones.
I will ask you to forgive me if I do not hit all of your thoughts - all at the same time. When I come upon a long post, I respond to what catches my eye or any direct questions I do not think are rhetorical.
With that said, Paul does not distinguish between the different laws that were given at Horeb to the Children of Israel. When Paul says "law" he means all of it.
I honestly am trying to get a grasp on what it is you believe. I thought about it for a while and the best question I can think to ask in order for me to understand is the following.
I was not asking you to reply to ever point that I make, but my problem was that you continued to speak about the law not being of faith while ignoring that I had already addressed that point.
Romans 3:27 Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith.
Can you grant that that there is a law that is of works and a law that is of faith and that the above verse contrasts them?
Romans 7:25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.
Can you grant that there is a Law of God and a law of sin and that the above verse contrasts them?
While the Bible uses distinct Hebrew words to refer to different subcategories of law that were given to Moses, neither works of the law nor the law of sin were given to Moses, but rather they are distinct. The phrase "works of the law" has no definitive article in the Greek, so it is literally translated as "works of law", which means that it does not refer to a definitive set of laws, such as THE Law of Moses, but rather Paul used it as a catch-all phrase to refer to a large body of Jewish oral laws, traditions, rulings, and fences that were being taught that Gentiles needed obey in order to become justified. For example, in Acts 10:28, Peter referred to a law that forbade Jews from visiting or associating with Gentiles, however, this is not a law that is found anywhere in the Law of Moses and is therefore a man-made law. It was this law that Peter was obeying in Galatians 2:11-16 when he stopped visiting or associating with the Gentiles, and by doing so he was giving credibility to those who were wanting to require Gentiles to obey their works of the law in order to become justified, which is why Paul rebuked him and reiterated that we are justified by faith and not by works of the law.
The law of sin is not so much a list of rules as as it is a principle or an evil inclination. Paul described it in Romans 7 a law that was working within his members to cause him not to do the good of obeying God's law that he delighted in obeying. In Romans 7:7, God's law is not sinful, but it is how we know what sin is, and when our sin is revealed, then that leads us to repent and causes sin to decrease, however, the law of sin stirs up sinful passions in order to bear fruit unto death, so it is sinful and causes sin to increase. So verses that refer to a law that is sinful, that causes sin to increase, or that hinders us from obeying God's law are referring to the law of sin, such as Romans 5:20, Romans 6:14, Galatians 2:19, Galatians 5:16-18, and 1 Corinthians 15:56.
If the temple had not been destroyed, and they were still offering sacrifices today, would you believe it was right for us as believers in Christ, to go offer sacrifices as well?
In Acts 18:18, Paul took a Nazarite vow, which involved making sin offerings (Numbers 6) and in Acts 21:20-24, Paul was on his way to pay for and join the purification rites of others who had taken a similar vow in order to disprove false rumors that he was teaching against the Mosaic Law and to show that he continued to live in obedience to it. In Hebrews 8:4, it speaks about offerings that were still being made in accordance with the Mosaic Law. Furthermore, it says that Jesus would not be a priest if he were still on earth, and if the Mosaic Law were no longer in effect, then it would have no power to do prevent that. So offerings did not stop with the death or resurrection of Jesus, but only stopped because of the destruction of the temple. However, the Bible prophesies of a time when a third temple will be built and when offerings will resume, so those laws have not gone anywhere (Ezekiel 44-46).
