Okay, I can’t resist this. Remember Horus Ruins Christmas? Well, he’s back with a devastating argument against Christianity he learned on the internet.
The response to Horus in the video takes a somewhat different approach from what we generally talk about here. For example, while we would say that the moral law still applies in that it accomplishes the things mentioned in the video for Christians today (and I would add that it also reveals God’s nature to us), we wouldn’t say that it applies in virtue of it being part of the Mosaic Law (though perhaps Lutheran Satire wouldn’t either). But you’ll definitely find it interesting, not to mention entertaining. It explains well (or as well as it can in such a brief format) why Christians no longer are under a covenant that includes any of the ceremonial aspects of the law that were contained in the Mosaic Covenant. You can read what Greg has said about this issue here.
?¿?
Which side are the filmmakers on?
Posted by: ronh | November 23, 2014 at 06:16 AM
ronh,
Didn't you understand that the Mosaic ordinances were expressions of three avenues of legal systems? There was the Moral Law (the 10 Commandments, God's basic expression of common right and wrong for all humanity), the Ceremonial Law (regulations of worship practice for Tabernacle and Temple, now no longer in effect), and the Civil Law (specific regulations for the people of Israel to differentiate between them and their Canaanitish neighbors, also no longer in effect).
So, when you state briefly "Which side are the filmmakers on?" (and the nifty upside down question mark -- mystifying!!)), I am uncertain of the point you wish to make.
Posted by: DGFischer | November 23, 2014 at 10:29 AM
Expressing this view in his response to Horus's critique, the man in the dress shows where to look for the real problems. For example..
Expressing the view doesn't make it true. And the video doesn't support the accuracy of the view.
Were the Bible taken, as a whole, to express the view, that wouldn't make it true. And the video doesn't support the claim that the Bible can be taken as a whole to express any view - let along this view.
Posted by: RonH | November 23, 2014 at 01:22 PM
What a great video!
I like the Shorter Catechism's approach to interpreting the 10 Commandments by inverting many of them. That is, if it's wrong to steal then it's right to take action and to give. If it's wrong to lie, then it's right to take action and speak the truth and so on. In this sense the New Testament, especially the Sermon on the Mount becomes a commentary on the Law and it's basis for Christian ethics.
We can argue a lot from an Old Testament platform, but if the New Testament condemns a specific sin (Homosexuality), that settles it.
Posted by: dave | November 23, 2014 at 02:15 PM
Why does that settle it, dave?
Posted by: RonH | November 23, 2014 at 03:08 PM
I recommend all of Pastor Fiene's videos, particularly if you're a Lutheran.
Posted by: Mike Westfall | November 23, 2014 at 04:01 PM
RonH;
It settles it because the New Testament has priority over the Old. Do you know of anywhere it teaches otherwise? I'd like to hear it.
Posted by: dave | November 23, 2014 at 04:16 PM
Hi dave,
Granting, for discussion, that the NT has priority over the OT, why does that settle it?
Posted by: RonH | November 23, 2014 at 05:10 PM
Hi RonH;
It certainly settles it as far as it concerns Scripture.
If you would like to venture out side of that realm then we can hurl opinions at each other all night long and settle nothing.
I would challenge you to a Scripture debate if you're up to it.
Posted by: dave | November 23, 2014 at 06:28 PM
RonH, the reason the NT condemning homosexuality settles it is because it doesn't leave open the claim that "That was just under the old covenant" or "That only applied to Jews under the Law," or "The law is no longer applicable," or "Christians are not obligated to keep the Mosaic law," which things are frequently said in response to citations of the Mosaic law.
Posted by: Sam Harper | November 23, 2014 at 08:52 PM
Sam,
What does 'it' in 'settling it' mean?
Posted by: RonH | November 24, 2014 at 03:29 AM
It think that the central matter at this point in this argument over "settling it" and the identity of the most highly regarded and awesome "IT" RonH desires to know has to be based on authority. The pastor (the man in the dress) has spoken to an issue of the state of marriage. Horus appears and coldly claims that such regulations are a confused mish-mash of Old Testament legality. The pastor explains the muliple lavers of Mosaic Law, which is relevant today and which passed with the coming of Christ. Horus is made a fool again.
And RonH desires to know the reason why such IT is now in a state of "settled." We get to the point of the authority of Scriptures both to "the household of faith" and "mankind in general." A study of the Bible using methodologies applicable to proper interpretation (and not "Bible-dipping" or Kabbalah) reveals that God addresses all, believers and doubters alike. The reception of the message is irrelevant ("I believe" = makes it true; "I don't believe" = makes it false). It stands relevant and true despite reception or fail to receive.
As an analogy, "65MPH on the Interstate" remains relevant whether I own a car or not. The law is established for the sake of safety. Reports of death and maiming in accidents are impartial advocates for the wisdom of such laws. Those who do 90MPH may make claims of the laws relevance or fairness, but they do so in a state of committing the illegal. They see no consequences for their own actions.
This was the logical flaw of Horus in the Satire. Acknowledging no basis for OT law, he could imagine no purpose. It is short-sighted disregard for truth which establishes good law for the time and disposes of it when irrelevant.
This may or may not get us closer to handling RonH's "IT," but I would opt that someone with a better understanding of ontology could improve matters. All I wish to know is: "If IT is not settled, why?"
Posted by: DGFischer | November 24, 2014 at 06:57 AM
RonH,
Are you just trying to be obnoxious? "It" refers to the question of whether the Bible condemns homosexuality or not.
Posted by: Sam Harper | November 24, 2014 at 07:42 AM
Right DGFishcer, and we are told that they are blind [as we were also], and many blind guides are in prominent places leading them and comforting them along the path.
Posted by: Brad B | November 24, 2014 at 08:02 AM
If the Bible, taken as a whole says what the Mosaic ordinances were an expression of, and that doesn't make it true that that's what the Mosaic ordinances are an expression of, what else possibly could make it true? If the Bible says what the Bible means about X, how could it possibly be wrong about what the Bible means about X?
Posted by: WisdomLover | November 24, 2014 at 08:05 AM
I like how he says those who engage in homosexual acts were to be put to death. Like God was just cool with that at that point in time. Haha well whatever
Posted by: Aron | November 24, 2014 at 12:52 PM
Aron, the idea of God in scripture does not line up with human thinking. In scripture, God gives the death penalty to a culture for adultery, homosexuality, cross-dressing, and even breaking the Sabbath. He also destroys all of humanity in a flood. On the other hand, God also is so extreme so as to allow his son to die on the cross, and to step down into humanity. The God in scripture is extreme to the utmost. I would not do any of those things. If God does not fit your criteria, then you shouldn't be surprised. That would be the reason his is God (although of course I recognize you don't believe in such a being). It's not actually a good argument to say that God does not exist because the God that we claim does not look like what you think he should.
Posted by: JBerr | November 25, 2014 at 05:28 AM
@ Sam Harper
"Are you just trying to be obnoxious? "It" refers to the question of whether the Bible condemns homosexuality or not."
RonH always plays word games like this. I don't know why.
Posted by: Mo | November 30, 2014 at 02:51 PM