Only if you believe that the moral law was abolished.

Actually, for the Christian, it was; read Galatians 4. It was replaced by the commandment of Jesus, ie: John 15:17 "This is my command: love each other."

Therefore the requirement to love God, and love each other, and express this love in meaningfull ways, remains. The moral law, on the other hand, is gone. It is replaced by "the law written on our hearts", the inner desire to do good, prompted by the Holy Spirit which dwells in us.

JAK,

There are many who have been drinking from some polluted streams of truth. Some of these streams, unfortunately, come to us under the name of "Holy Bible." They are, however, misguided translations in which men have inserted their own doctrines.

If you are reading from the NIV Bible, it is inevitable that you would conclude the law was abolished. But if you go back to the original Greek from which the KJV was translated, you will find that the moral law was never abolished. Find a KJV Bible and read Colossians 2:14 and Ephesians 3:15, and then compare those verses with the NIV. You will see a big difference.

There were two "laws of Moses." One was the Ten Commandments, usually referred to as the law or the commandments. The other was handwritten laws and instructions for daily living which were placed in a pocket on the outside of the ark and usually referred to as ordinances or statutes. Of these ordinances, provided in the books of Exodus thru Deuteronomy, there were two classes: 1) the ceremonial laws (those which pointed forward to Christ), and 2) the laws of healthful living and which governed relationships. The latter set of laws, along with the Ten Commandment Law, were never to be abolished. The ceremonial laws, however, were abolished at the cross. There was no longer a need for sacrifices, etc. after Jesus, the Antitype, had fulfilled that to which the type had pointed.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

KJV or NIV, they both say the same thing. "[24]Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.... [30]Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.
[31] So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free." Gal. 4:24, 30-31 (KJV)

One cannot just brush off an argument by saying "You're using the wrong translation." A doctrine that can only be supported by a single translation of Scripture is on pretty shaky ground. Besides, the idea that the law was "abolished" is older than the NIV.

EGW herself used many available translations. Here is a comment from the White Estate website:

"Did Ellen White use any translations of the Bible other than the King James Version?

Yes. While it was Ellen White's custom to use the King James Version, she made occasional use of the various English translations that were becoming available in her day. She does not, however, comment directly on the relative merits of these versions, but it is clear from her practice that she recognized the desirability of making use of the best in all versions of the Bible. For example, in her book The Ministry of Healing, Ellen White employed eight texts from the English Revised Version, 55 from the American Revised Version, two from Leeser's translation, and four from Noyes, in addition to seven marginal renderings. In her preaching, however, Ellen White preferred to use the language of the King James Version as it was the most familiar to her listeners. (I added the bold.)

Notice that she did not use KJV because it was doctrinally pure, but because it "was most familiar to her readers."

The idea that "There were two 'laws of Moses.'" although prevalent, cannot be shown from Scripture. None of the Bible writers had this understanding, certainly not Paul. It falls into the category of "teaching for doctrine the commandments of men."

As for the ten words inside the ark, they are called עדות (`eduwth) in the hebrew and (testimony) in the KJV. Exodus 25:16
The law outside of the ark is called תורה (towrah) in hebrew and (law) in the KJV. Deu 31:26

In the LXX, the word used in Exo 25:16 is μαρτύριον (martyrion).
The LXX word used in Deu 31:26 is νόμος (nomos). This happens to be the same word used in Eph 2:15 (I assume it is the verse you are interested in Greenie?).

In Col 2:14, the interesting word is δόγμα (dogma). It is interestingly used twice of imperial orders and once of an apostolic order (Luk 2:1; Act 17:7; Act 16:4). Could it here be a reference to such laws we make up and impose upon each other naively thinking that we are thus helping one another to keep the commandments of God?

Could it be that the strongest argument concerning post-resurrection law is made in Galatians and Romans? The law is good, it has a purpose, which is to show us our sinfulness and kill us as lawbreakers. By grace we are then resurrected with Jesus to live with Him and by the Spirit. Anyone who still tries to obtain righteousness by lawful acts has not yet been (allowed him/herself to be) killed by it as a lawbreaker, and having thus not died has also not risen to live through the Spirit, and is therefore still struggling vainly in their own strength.

The law justifies no-one in the sight of God, and the one who strive to do the law lives by the law, ignorant of the fact that the law has no life to give. The law has fulfilled its duty the moment it brings a sinner to Christ, who has life to give, life overflowing. The law which does not bring the sinner to Christ binds the sinner in his sins and indeed becomes one of those laws which the events on the cross set us free from.

And finally, lest someone take this to be a gospel of anything goes, the apostle makes clear that those who walk with the Spirit do not walk in sin.

(Gal 2-5; Rom 6-8)

So far with theory, what about practise?

I propose that this means the proper response to conviction of sin in our lives is not to put more efforts into keeping the law, but rather to put more efforts into seeking Jesus in all those places where He can be found, through prayer, study of His testimony (by which I of course mean the bible) and through His body on earth (by which I of course mean all and any christian who embody the commandments of Jesus in the gospels).

That is not true at all for the case I am referring to, but you may be saying this based on my own mistake of saying "3:15" instead of "2:15" as Vaster has pointed out just above. While you are on the right track that the covenants are tied to God's Law, these verses may not be saying what you seem to think they are saying.

Undoubtedly it is older....much, much older...as old as Satan himself. Satan's first lie was that God's law could not be trusted. He has always wished to abolish it from the beginning of time. And yet we read from the Bible how the law was not to be changed in the slightest..."till heaven and earth pass." (See Matthew 5:18, Luke 16:17.)

It is true that Ellen White occasionally used other versions of the Bible. It is my understanding that she carefully supervised which translations were used by her editors, and at times she authorized another translation to be used while in other places she kept to the King James Version. I believe she was given prophetic discernment to know which translations were pure, and sometimes even the NIV does a better job than the KJV. However, the NIV presents so many errors as to have brought me to the point of naming it the "Never Inspired Version." There is an entire thread elsewhere on this forum dedicated to this topic. NOTE: Ellen White never once quoted from the NIV.

I'm not sure which scripture you are reading. It can certainly be shown from the scriptures which I use that there were at least two unequal parts of the "law of Moses." The King James Version of the Bible shows this more clearly than the NIV in the verses I mentioned.

Blessings,

Green Cochoa.

Do you take me for a fool? If this was intended for a joke it was not perceived in that manner. You realize, of course, that the NIV was first released in 1978? And Ellen White died in 1915

I'm reminded of the old adage which says "When arguing with a fool be sure they are not doing the same thing."

This is cute. Haven't heard this before.

E. J. Hibbard wrote an excellent book on this subject called, "The Two Laws." Some of what he wrote can be seen here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=Pk27zLR...p;q&f=false

(I tried to tiny this twice, but it didn't take. You can Google "Hibbard Two Laws" if the long link doesn't work.)

******* NOTE: I edited this and used the 2nd icon from the list in the text box to make this linkable. - Daryl F. *******

Hibbard makes use of the following verse, "For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law." (Heb. 7:12) I don't remember his argument, however.

Regarding the moral law being gone, I would assume that only the moral law could be written in our heart and mind, which is Jer. 31, quoted again in Heb. 8. I don't see what law this could possibly be other than the moral law. You couldn't argue that the law written in the heart quoted in Heb. 8 refers some new law which didn't exist previously, because it's quoting from Jer. 31.

It looks like the argument you're wishing to make here is the following:

1.Paul is saying that the Old Covenant, and its corresponding law (which includes the moral law) was done away with at the cross.
2.Now we're under a New Covenant, and a new law.

Assuming I've understood your argument correctly (if not, please restate it), this begs the question of how anyone was saved before the cross. The only way anyone could be saved is by faith in Christ, right? And this is the New Covenant. So the New Covenant must have existed before the cross, or nobody could have been saved (nobody was saved by keeping the law, right?).

Sorry if I've misunderstood a point you were making, but this seems to be an obvious flaw in what I understood you to be saying.