Christians, the Old Testament & cherry-picking

One-on-one debates

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
fewwillfindit
Guru
Posts: 1047
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:43 am
Location: Colorado, USA

Christians, the Old Testament & cherry-picking

Post #1

Post by fewwillfindit »

Johnmarc and I have decided to discuss the widely held view among skeptics that Christians cherry-pick which parts of the Old Testament they obey and which parts they do not obey. This discussion will surround the Mosaic Law and the Old and New Covenants.

Johnmarc will be taking the skeptical position, and I will be defending it. This will not be a formal debate, but rather a non-combative discussion regarding the topic. Johnmarc has expressed a keen interest in the subject, as he has always wondered just why and how fundamentalist Christians arrive at the conclusions at which they arrive without cherry-picking. Johnmarc is a liberal Christian who doesn't believe that the miracles in the Bible actually happened, doesn't believe in God, and is not a literalist.

I am a traditional Christian who does believe that the miracles literally happened, who does believe in God, and who reads the Bible as primarily literal. I contend that mainline orthodox Christianity does not arbitrarily cherry-pick which parts of the Old Testament to obey, but instead has a sound Scriptural basis from which it determines that it is not bound to the Law of Moses and the Old Covenant, and is instead under the New Covenant.

For those who are unfamiliar with Biblical terminology, a simplified explanation would be that I am going to demonstrate why the laws found in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy are not applicable to Christians.

It is my intention in this discussion to put to bed the continual cry from skeptics that Christian doctrine is arbitrarily cherry-picked as it relates to the Mosaic Law and the Old Covenant. It is not my aim to convince skeptics to affirm this doctrine or to be convinced of its validity. I contend that all I have to do to show that we do not arbitrarily cherry-pick is demonstrate why, from Scripture, we believe as we do. To me, cherry-pick means, "I like that, and that, nope not that, definitely not that, but I'll keep that and that." That is exactly what is implied when the accusation of cherry-picking arises.

I look forward to our discussion, johnmarc.

I will begin by making the first post.
Last edited by fewwillfindit on Sat May 14, 2011 11:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

User avatar
fewwillfindit
Guru
Posts: 1047
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:43 am
Location: Colorado, USA

Post #31

Post by fewwillfindit »

johnmarc wrote:Three points: (1) The Jews (Judaizers) seem to have found a way around the strict laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy by applying some good old practical common sense to the whole. The vast majority of Jews interpret their Torah pretty liberally---they can hardly be called modern day Pharisees or Sadducees. I hope that this is not a slam on the Jewish faith.
Just a slight clarification here. Jews are distinct from Judaizers in New Testament terminology. Jews are Jews who do not accept Christianity. Judaizers are Christians who attempt to impose the Mosaic Law on other Christians.

johnmarc wrote:(2) It seems that you have drug me across the tracks to knock on every door and interview each family to show me that they were poor. We never needed to get out of the car for that. That the NC trumps the OC in conservative theology seems pretty clear at the outset. Isn’t that why the NT was written?
It may seem clear to you, but you would be surprised at how many non-Theists on this forum are still arguing that Christians are commanded to kill unbelievers because there is a law in Deuteronomy to kill unbelievers, or that we cherry-pick because we obey the New Testament command to not steal while "ignoring" the Old Covenant law to not mix fibers in our clothing. I have clearly demonstrated in our discussion that these are fallacious arguments.

People who use these arguments are ignorant of basic Christian Theology and of the teachings of the New Testament. They presume to argue against that which they haven't made the effort to learn. It is very difficult for me to have any respect for such uninformed arguments. I do not use the term "ignorant" pejoratively here. I am using it in its basest form to mean "uninformed" regarding Christian Theology and the Bible.

I would not presume think that I could adequately debate AkiThePirate about physics because I have not made the effort to study it and get up to speed on the subject. I would be foolish to jump into a debate with him, toss around random equasions, then assume that I trounced him with bulletproof arguments. He would laugh me out of the room, and rightly so.

It is no different with Christian Theology. It seems that some non-Theist would-be debaters open a Bible, close their eyes, point to a passage of Scripture in the Old Testament, and say, "Aha! I've got him now!", without ever making the effort to understand that which they argue against. This uninformed "debating" is actually quite prevalent on this forum.

johnmarc wrote:(3) I have a bad feeling about this. If you are now going to now interpret the OC through the Great Commandment, it seems that the following should be noted: (A) This is what we liberals do. Obviously, it is more sophisticated than that, but not by much. (B) The whole thing could have been done in one paragraph.
But what would be the fun in that? ;)


johnmarc wrote:Are we moving on to the good stuff?
I thought that was the good stuff. :)

Actually, I think we've about covered it.
Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

User avatar
johnmarc
Sage
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:21 pm

Post #32

Post by johnmarc »

Fewwillfindit wrote:Just a slight clarification here. Jews are distinct from Judaizers in New Testament terminology. Jews are Jews who do not accept Christianity. Judaizers are Christians who attempt to impose the Mosaic Law on other Christians.
I didn’t know that. One learns something new every day around here.
Fewwillfindit wrote:It may seem clear to you, but you would be surprised at how many non-Theists on this forum are still arguing that Christians are commanded to kill unbelievers because there is a law in Deuteronomy to kill unbelievers, or that we cherry-pick because we obey the New Testament command to not steal while "ignoring" the Old Covenant law to not mix fibers in our clothing. I have clearly demonstrated in our discussion that these are fallacious arguments.
If you have clearly demonstrated that, you will have to show me where. From where I stand, I have accepted the authority of Paul and the authority of the New Covenant and not much more. None of this is a formula that I might use to separate good laws from bad laws. The New Covenant trumps the Old Covenant is not a set of directions that I can use effectively. It merely lays the foundation for a set of parameters which are at this point still undisclosed.
Fewwillfindit wrote:People who use these arguments are ignorant of basic Christian Theology and of the teachings of the New Testament. They presume to argue against that which they haven't made the effort to learn. It is very difficult for me to have any respect for such uninformed arguments. I do not use the term "ignorant" pejoratively here. I am using it in its basest form to mean "uninformed" regarding Christian Theology and the Bible.
Given the information that I have so far, I remain one of the ignorant ones. I have made the effort to learn. I don’t understand how you can arrive at ‘specifics’ from the generalizations that we have agreed upon thus far. We don’t have an algorithm until I can work my way through each of the 613 laws and say, Law 123 is applicable according to (this objective standard) and Law 419 is inapplicable according to (that objective standard) As things stand, I don’t have the tools to do that yet.
Fewwillfindit wrote:It is no different with Christian Theology. It seems that some non-Theist would-be debaters open a Bible, close their eyes, point to a passage of Scripture in the Old Testament, and say, "Aha! I've got him now!", without ever making the effort to understand that which they argue against. This uninformed "debating" is actually quite prevalent on this forum.
What I see commonly on this forum is debate from extremes. There is no purpose to that. In a sense, when one posits the extreme fringe element of a particular opposition position, it is essentially the creation of a strawman that presents more confusion than clarity. It makes no sense for Christians to defend positions that they don’t hold just because atheists believe that those positions are a logical extension of some extremist challenge. This type of argument occurs here all of the time. It is not an attempt to understand, it is an attempt to trap and defeat. This particular thread has been a refreshing attempt at clarity for me and I hope for you as well.
Fewwillfindit wrote:I thought that was the good stuff.

Actually, I think we've about covered it.
I don’t think so, big guy. Get back to work on it. We aren’t finished yet.

User avatar
fewwillfindit
Guru
Posts: 1047
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:43 am
Location: Colorado, USA

Post #33

Post by fewwillfindit »

I apologize if I have not been as thorough as I thought that I have been. When I look back over the conversation, the methodology seems very clear to me, but that is most likely because what is in my head hasn't transferred to my pen, as it were. You are looking for an algorithm, or methodology, by which you can easily point to any given law in the Old Testament and immediately relegate it to either the Old Covenant or the New Covenant. I have given you a simplified version of how to do just that: If it is in the New Testament, then it applies to Christians. If you are looking for a more in-depth explanation, it will require me to explain the various views held within orthodox Christianity. Although the methodology differs slightly, the end result is virtually the same, which is the simplified version above.

Regarding the example in Deuteronomy, the command was given to Israelites to kill anyone who was a friend or a family member who secretly seduced them to "go and serve other gods." Just prior to that, they were instructed to kill anyone who claimed to be a prophet who said that they were to "go after other gods," even if his words were accompanied by a sign or a wonder that came true. Then it uses interesting language to describe this execution: "So you shall purge the evil from among you." It is interesting because Paul said the same thing to the Corinthian Church regarding the sexually immoral among them (1 Cor. 5:13), yet he meant that they were to disassociate themselves with them rather than kill them.

The point here is that although many of the OT moral laws are retained in the New Covenant, the apostles clearly removed the death penalty (carried out by the Church) as a consequence of violating these laws. The Mosaic Law reveals that it is immoral to have any other gods, and it is immoral to engage in sexual immorality. This moral standard is retained in the New Covenant. However, there were laws which did not address morality, per say, but were designed to set Israel apart from all the other nations. Examples of these laws include the Sabbath, the ritualistic cleanliness laws, the clean and unclean foods laws, etc. These laws made Israel distinct from other nations and marked them as God's people.

There are different views within orthodox Christianity regarding how we arrive at these conclusions, yet the end result is nearly identical. The end result being this; that the Old Covenant laws are not applicable to Christians, and that Christians are now under the New Covenant laws. New Covenant laws are those which are given in the New Testament. Now as to the methodologies, most see a division of laws in the Old Covenant into three categories; moral, ceremonial and judicial. Ceremonial laws are those which pertain to ceremonial cleanliness, festivals, diet, and the Levitical priesthood. It is only the moral laws which are retained in the New Covenant. Others see this same distinction, yet believe that of all the laws, only the Ten Commandments and those commands which are repeated in the New Testament are binding on Christians. Yet others see that every moral law in the Old Covenant is binding on Christians.

Now although this may seem to confuse the issue, what matters is the end result, which is that only those commands which we find repeated in the New Testament are binding on Christians, with the exception of the Sabbath command. Of the various methodologies above, not a single one allows that laws such as mixing of fibers in clothing is applicable to Christians. Why? Because irrespective of the method used, such laws are excluded from the New Covenant. It is not a moral law and it is not found in the New Testament.

When it comes to laws such as the one discussed above, which is to execute those who attempt to seduce us to follow after other gods, we see the command repeated in the New Testament in various ways, yet the penalty, death, has been abrogated. So it is still a sin to follow after other gods, yet the Church is no longer commissioned to execute violators.

So in the Old Covenant, we get a very clear picture of God's heard towards immorality and just exactly what he considers to be immoral, and in the New Covenant, regardless of the methodology by which we arrive at our conclusions, the end result is that even though the morality delineated in the Old Covenant is retained in the New Covenant, it is not because it was given in the Old Covenant that we adhere to it, it is because God's heart towards morality is also given in the New Covenant.

So although Catholics, Anglicans, Protestants and Calvinists have slightly different methodologies, or an algorithm as you put it, they all end up in the same place, which is that Christians are not obligated to keep the Laws given to Israel. So law 192 is no more applicable to Christians than law 475 in and of itself. What determines its applicability depends on the methodology used. Is it a moral law? Is it repeated by command or example in the New Testament? If no, then it doesn't apply. If yes, then it does apply. Has law 192 been repeated in the New Testament, yet has its death penalty been abrogated? Then the law applies but its penalty has been changed.

Do Christians believe in every word of the Old Testament? Absolutely. Does this belief mean that we ignore to whom the laws were given and under which covenant they were commanded and carelessly and without thought assign, with the stroke of a very broad brush, the whole enchilada to Christianity? Absolutely not.
Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

User avatar
fewwillfindit
Guru
Posts: 1047
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:43 am
Location: Colorado, USA

Post #34

Post by fewwillfindit »

Sorry for being inactive for a few days. My schedule has been crazy. Before I put together a response to your last post, can you clarify what it is you are looking for? I understand that you still haven't seen a clear methodology (algorithm) by which we determine which laws are applicable and which laws aren't, yet repeatedly I have stated that if the law is in the Penteteuch and not in the New Testament, then it doesn't apply (with the exception of the Noahide laws found in Genesis). This, of course, is a simplified explanation, as various sects use slightly different methodologies by which they arrive at the same conclusions.

If you like, I can begin explaining these different methodologies. For instance, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Protestants and Calvinists all use a slightly different method, yet they all arrive at virtually the same conclusion. The differences lie mainly in the distinction created by a division of the Mosaic laws into three categories; moral, ceremonial and judicial, with only the moral laws retained. In this view, although the method is slightly different, the end result is still virtually the same as those who teach that only the New Testament laws apply; the only difference being the retention of the Sabbath command for Christians, with its day of worship changed from Saturday to Sunday due to the example of the New Testament Church.

I'm not sure if you want me to go into such depth, but I will if you feel it necessary.

Thanks
Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

User avatar
johnmarc
Sage
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:21 pm

Post #35

Post by johnmarc »

Fewwillfindit wrote:Sorry for being inactive for a few days. My schedule has been crazy. Before I put together a response to your last post, can you clarify what it is you are looking for? I understand that you still haven't seen a clear methodology (algorithm) by which we determine which laws are applicable and which laws aren't, yet repeatedly I have stated that if the law is in the Penteteuch and not in the New Testament, then it doesn't apply (with the exception of the Noahide laws found in Genesis). This, of course, is a simplified explanation, as various sects use slightly different methodologies by which they arrive at the same conclusions.
I guess that I am not sure what I am looking for. So let me brainstorm a bit and see if we can come to some agreement on particulars. As I understand the paragraph above, one can disregard all 613 Old Testament laws and find a new set of laws in the New Testament. If theologians have been anal enough to catalog the 613 laws of the OT, then they have been as particular about the NT. Somewhere there should be a list, or at least the verses that suggest a list.

For example, knowing how important Paul is to the conservative church, I read through Romans until I found the first ‘law.’

Romans 18:22-23

Claiming to be wise, they became fools; and they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling a mortal human being or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.

That seems pretty clear, the image of God and Adam in the Sistine Chapel is in violation of New Testament law. Hundreds of millions of dollars of iconic art ‘against the law’. The Jesus picture hung on my grandmother’s wall---against the law.

This is another one that has always puzzled me:

Acts 4:32

Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common.

As a result and from where I stand, using the New Testament as a template for discerning appropriate and inappropriate laws is problematic.
Fewwillfindit wrote:If you like, I can begin explaining these different methodologies. For instance, Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Protestants and Calvinists all use a slightly different method, yet they all arrive at virtually the same conclusion. The differences lie mainly in the distinction created by a division of the Mosaic laws into three categories; moral, ceremonial and judicial, with only the moral laws retained. In this view, although the method is slightly different, the end result is still virtually the same as those who teach that only the New Testament laws apply; the only difference being the retention of the Sabbath command for Christians, with its day of worship changed from Saturday to Sunday due to the example of the New Testament Church.
I am convinced that what you say here is true. I believe that there is a methodology for this kind of determination. After all, it is the function of Christian theologians to do this kind of work. Every minister I ever listened to seemed to have a firm grasp on what was ‘in’ and what was ‘out’. The problem is that I have not been privy to any of it. The Jesus Seminar claims that it is clear and it is clearly cherry picked. I assume that you are calling yourself a Calvinist and therefore I guess that I am only interested in the Calvinist methodology.

There are really three different questions to ask:

(1) Which NT laws/verses/sayings are included and why

(2) Which NT laws/verses/sayings are manipulated and why (camel through the eye of a needle)

(3) Which NT laws/verses/sayings are excluded and why
Fewwillfindit wrote:I'm not sure if you want me to go into such depth, but I will if you feel it necessary.
I really don’t know what depth I am looking for---I guess that I am looking for a common denominator. I assume that this is all laid out somewhere and that it would be no great effort to reproduce that chart/information here.

User avatar
fewwillfindit
Guru
Posts: 1047
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:43 am
Location: Colorado, USA

Post #36

Post by fewwillfindit »

Well, that is a different topic altogether. This discussion is about Christians, the Old Testament and cherry-picking. I specifically chose that title so that we could focus on the Mosaic Law contained in the Penteteuch. Christians, the New Testament and cherry-picking would most likely be an even longer discussion than the four-page discussion we have already had.

I'm not attempting to brush off your concerns, but it is definitely a separate topic deserving its own thread.

I will answer your specific concerns above, but I do not wish to begin dissecting New Testament passages containing commands and examples in this thread and examining them in light of cherry-picking.

Romans 1:22-23 is not condemning the appreciation of iconic art, it is talking about worshipping manmade idols in lieu of God. I do not know of anyone who worships statuary of humans or animals. If they did, it would be wrong. A case can be made that Catholics do this, but they deny this allegation and use the term "venerate."

Acts 4:32 is an historical record of the early Chruch in its infancy. When we look at the Church as it developed throughout the New Testament, we do not see the communal example which was exemplified in Acts carried out indefinitely.

There is no difinitive "list" of New Testament laws in the New Testament. They are found throughout the entirety of its pages.
Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

User avatar
johnmarc
Sage
Posts: 951
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 4:21 pm

Post #37

Post by johnmarc »

Fewwillfindit wrote: It is my intention in this discussion to put to bed the continual cry from skeptics that Christian doctrine is arbitrarily cherry-picked as it relates to the Mosaic Law and the Old Covenant. It is not my aim to convince skeptics to affirm this doctrine or to be convinced of its validity. I contend that all I have to do to show that we do not arbitrarily cherry-pick is demonstrate why, from Scripture, we believe as we do. To me, cherry-pick means, "I like that, and that, nope not that, definitely not that, but I'll keep that and that." That is exactly what is implied when the accusation of cherry-picking arises.
Maybe I misunderstood the discussion from the beginning. Yes, we were examining the Old Covenant Laws.

My understanding is that your tradition accepts none of the OC laws as they have been replaced by the NC. That is clear and unequivocatable. None is none. No cherry picking there.
Fewwillfindit wrote: It may seem clear to you, but you would be surprised at how many non-Theists on this forum are still arguing that Christians are commanded to kill unbelievers because there is a law in Deuteronomy to kill unbelievers, or that we cherry-pick because we obey the New Testament command to not steal while "ignoring" the Old Covenant law to not mix fibers in our clothing. I have clearly demonstrated in our discussion that these are fallacious arguments.
Let me untangle this for a bit. If I am to take this paragraph at face value, the command to kill unbelievers and not to mix fibers is from the OC and thus rendered void. The command not to steal is in the NC and therefore rendered valid. That the OC also says not to steal is just an awkward coincidence.
fewwillfindit wrote:Well, that is a different topic altogether. This discussion is about Christians, the Old Testament and cherry-picking. I specifically chose that title so that we could focus on the Mosaic Law contained in the Penteteuch. Christians, the New Testament and cherry-picking would most likely be an even longer discussion than the four-page discussion we have already had.
In my mind, Fundamentalists cherry pick scripture to support and reject their religious positions. In fact, one can see this cherry picking ‘evolve’ over time to reject/support slavery and reject/support full personhood of persons of color. My position on this remains unchanged. What has changed is my understanding of one legal aspect of this issue---that the cherry picking is relegated to the solely to the NT and the NC in a Fundamentalist disengagement from the OC. OK. I understand that. From this point on, I will be more clear. Fundamentalists do not cherry pick the Bible, they cherry pick the NT. The algorithm that I have been looking for exists and does not exist at the same time. It is stated simply that: The OC laws are rendered void and none of them apply to Christians. But at the same time the practical algorithm is missing: The New Testament is a text in flux---free to be interpreted by whomever for whatever. You win a technical KO---I had my mind on cherry picking and you had your mind on the OC and the question was framed in terms of the OC
Fewwillfindit wrote: I'm not attempting to brush off your concerns, but it is definitely a separate topic deserving its own thread.

There is no definitive "list" of New Testament laws in the New Testament. They are found throughout the entirety of its pages.
Then let’s be clear. Fundamentalists do not cherry pick the Old Testament because the laws found in the Old Testament have been rendered moot by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and the proclamation of a New Covenant delivered to Christians. It is instead, the New Testament that is cherry picked.

But your point is a valid one. Most (almost all) of the charges of cherry picking come from Old Testament passages. This is (I assume) where your head has been and rightfully so. My head has been in the writings of the Jesus Seminar and they have not strayed from the NT. So there was some honest confusion at the start. The majority of 'tirades' found on this forum about God, Bible, and Literal have been unleashed from the pages of the Old Testament and at least, in my mind, those charges can now be seen as ignorant attacks on a misunderstanding of the Fundamentalist faith. I am using the word ignorant with the same meaning as you have suggested in your previous post.

For what it is worth, I have benefitted from a worthwhile conversation. Thanks.

User avatar
fewwillfindit
Guru
Posts: 1047
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 11:43 am
Location: Colorado, USA

Post #38

Post by fewwillfindit »

Two points here and then we can wrap this up. First, I take issue with your assessment that it is inconvenient that the command not to steal is found in both the Old and New Testaments. I feel the need to remind you of my earlier analogy regarding espionage, which adequately addresses this. It is not inconvenient at all. I haven't stated my personal position yet, but I believe that God's moral laws are eternal, and are distinct from the ceremonial and judicial laws in the Old Covenant. This point is strengthened by the reiteration of the moral laws in the New Testament.

Second, I do not cherry-pick the New Testament. I am almost persuaded to stick around and do a real H2H with you on that subject, but I have recently made the decision to permanently leave this forum, and I do not wish to get involved in a lengthy debate which will prolong my stay here. I admit that a large segment of contemporary evangelicalism has trended toward cherry-picking a few passages in the New Testament, and that is to their shame. They allow women to preach, they ignore rules about divorce and remarriage, they embrace homosexuality, they ignore the mandates for church discipline, they embrace ecumenism while eschewing exclusivism, etc. As Paul said regarding another subject; "Bretheren, these things ought not be so."

There are, however, many many churches which do adhere to New Testament regulations and take them very seriously. I beg you and the readers to please not judge the obedient by the disobedient.

Thank you very much for engaging me in this discussion, johnmarc. I really do appreciate you sticking with me through the minutia that was required to make my points.

God bless you.
Acts 13:48 And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

Post Reply