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 #2

Post by fewwillfindit »

Before I begin, I would like to just briefly reiterate my intentions for this debate.

It is my intention to present evidence that conservative Christians do indeed have sound Scriptural reasons why we are not bound to the Law of Moses and the Old Covenant.

My intent is not to convince skeptics to believe in this Theological view. Rather, it is to show that their repeated and voluminous allegations of cherry-picking regarding which parts of the Old Testament we follow and which parts we don't follow, are decidedly fallacious.

I do not include you in this group, johnmarc, as I have only seen you mention this twice, and I found your tone to be inquisitive and respectful.


Now onto the meat of the topic:

First, many opponents will quote the following in support of Christians being under the Law of Moses:
Matthew 5:17-18 ESV wrote:Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
They will say that since heaven and Earth have not passed away, the Law of Moses is still in effect. That's right. The Law remains in effect until the end. What is important to discern is to whom the Law applies. That is the key. Everyone who has not been justified by the sacrifice of Christ is still under the Law and subject to its effects. Christians, under the New Covenant, are no longer under that law. This is why Jesus says that the Law remains in effect until the end.

It is also important to recognize the wording in this passage, "the Law and the Prophets." When referred to together like this, it means the Pentateuch and the Prophets, and refers to the Old Testament in general. Christians do indeed see fulfilled messianic prophecy in the Prophets, so Christ was indeed the fulfillment of the prophecies found in the Prophets.

After reading the Scriptural evidence, a member I was debating said this:
If you accept Pauls writings as equivalent to Jesus writings, though one was a prophet and the other wasnt, go right ahead. Simply put:

If Paul=Jesus for authority then christians arent cherry picking. This is essentially saying that paul and jesus were the same person and infact the trinity is instead a quadrivium.
To which I responded:
fewwillfindit wrote:No, it is not saying that Jesus and Paul are essentially the same person, or that Paul is a member of the Godhead. The fact is that Christians believe Paul when he said this
Galatians 1:11-12 ESV wrote:For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
So you are wrong. Paul was indeed a prophet. Paul is authoritative to Christians because they believe him when he said that his words are directly from Jesus Christ.

Christians also believe Peter when he very clearly said that the writings of Paul were considered to be Scripture:
2 Peter 3:15-16 wrote:And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
I mention the above so that you can see where conservative Christians are coming from when it comes to Paul. Now would be a good time to mention that elements of redaction, pseudepigrapha and non-traditional dates of authorship are well beyond the scope of this debate. Such things are theoretical and unproven, and the canon as we have it today is considered to be not only authoritative and accurate, but closed, by conservative Christianity.


What is the Old Covenant?
Exodus 34:27-28 ESV wrote:And the Lord said to Moses, "Write these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." So he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights. He neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.
Deuteronomy 4:11-14 ESV wrote:And you came near and stood at the foot of the mountain, while the mountain burned with fire to the heart of heaven, wrapped in darkness, cloud, and gloom. Then the Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of words, but saw no form; there was only a voice. And he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments, and he wrote them on two tablets of stone. And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and rules, that you might do them in the land that you are going over to posess.
Here we see that the Ten Commandments were part of the Old Covenant. But that is not all that comprises the Old Covenant:
Exodus 24:12 ESV wrote:The Lord said to Moses, "Come up to me on the mountain and wait there, that I may give you the tablets of stone, with the law and the commandment, which I have written for their instruction."
Nehemiah 9:13-14 ESV wrote:You came down on Mount Sinai and spoke with them from heaven and gave them right rules and true laws, good statutes and commandments, and you made known to them your holy Sabbath and commanded them commandments and statutes and a law by Moses your servant.
Here we see that God Himself gave the entire Law, including not only the Ten Commandments, but the other 603 laws as well, which comprises the Law of Moses ratified by the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant is given from Exodus 20 to the end, plus Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

So what does the New Testament have to say about the Old and New Covenants?
Romans 10:1-4 ESV wrote:Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them [the Jews] is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
Hebrews 8: entire chapter ESV wrote:Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, "See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain." But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. For he finds fault with them when he says:

"Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more." In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Here it shows that everyone is under the Law, regardless of whether or not they accept and affirm it:
Romans 2:12-16 ESV wrote:For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
Why the Law and what are its effects?
  • It condemns mankind
    Romans 3:19-20 ESV wrote:Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.
    2 Corinthians 3:2-11 ESV wrote:You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all. And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone [the Ten Commandments], came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory? For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory. For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.
  • It brings death to mankind
    Romans 7:9-12 ESV wrote:I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
  • It empowers sin
    1 Corinthians 15:56 ESV wrote:The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.
  • It imprisons everything under sin
    Galatians 3:21-22 ESV wrote:Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
  • It holds a record of debt against mankind
    Colossians 2:13-15 ESV wrote:And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.
  • It divides Jews and Gentiles
    Ephesians 2:11-16 ESV wrote:Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.
What happened to the Law after Christ?
  • It was cancelled, set aside and nailed to the cross
    Colossians 2:13-15 ESV wrote:And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.
  • It was set aside because of its weakness and uselessness
    Hebrews 7:18-19 ESV wrote:For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.
  • It was made obsolete
    Hebrews 8:13 ESV wrote:In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
  • It was abolished
    Ephesians 2:15 ESV wrote:by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace
The Law was designed to lead us to Christ and to make us aware that we needed a Savior by revealing our sin and demanding a penalty for that sin. But in Christ, under the New Covenant, we are no longer under that guardian, or tutor as some translations say. Paul was quite upset when the Judaizers tried to rob the Christians of their freedom in Christ and attempted to impose the Law of Moses on them:
Galatians 3: entire chapter ESV wrote:O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— just as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"? Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them." Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith." But the law is not of faith, rather "The one who does them shall live by them." Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"— so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith. To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one. Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.
To summarize the passages above, we have seen that the Law of Moses under the Old Covenant was nailed to the cross (figuratively), weak, cancelled, abolished, a ministry of condemnation, a ministry of death, obselete, vanishing away, found to have fault, a curse, and was merely a shadow (foreshadow) that pointed to Christ.

Christians now have available to them the substance, which is Christ, and no longer shrink back to the shadow. This would be like a soldier leaving the love of his life to go to war. While away, he cherished and longed after her picture. After many years passed, he finally returned home, and when she ran to meet him, he turned his back on her and instead preferred the picture that he so cherished.

This is exactly what happens when Christians attempt to place themselves back under the Law of Moses. They are spitting in His face, in essence telling Him that they preferred all the ritual and ceremony which pointed to Him, rather than He Whom it all foreshadowed. Scripture calls it returning to "weak and beggarly elements." As a matter of fact, when a Christian turns back to the Law, they can no longer see Christ. They cannot even perceive him:
2 Corinthians 3:12-18 ESV wrote:Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end. But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.
That's pretty explicit.


Apparently these Judaizers were also trying to force the Sabbath, the Holy Days and the clean and unclean food laws upon unsuspecting Christians as well. Here Paul makes it clear that these were all mere shadows that pointed to Christ. Now that we have the substance, Christ, we no longer need the shadow which pointed to Him:
Colossians 2:16-17 ESV wrote:Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.
Galatians 4:8-11 ESV wrote:Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? You observe days and months and seasons and years! I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.

This quote from a recent discussion I had may be helpful as well (I altered my reply a bit for clarity):
fewwillfindit wrote:
A question: Are the Ten Commandments not part of the Mosaic Law? The Ten Commandments are given at least lip service by most Christian denominations and are certainly part of the Old Testament, included in the part allegedly written by Moses. Is there some fine technical distinction here?
Christians obey the commandments, but it is not because they are given in the Mosaic Law. It is because they are reiterated in the New Testament, with the exception of the Sabbath command. Some Christians see the Sabbath as a creation ordinance which preceded the Mosaic Law. Others do not recognize this and only keep 9 commandments. Yet others keep the principle of resting one day in seven, but do it on Sunday in accordance with the example of the New Testament Church. However you slice it, the bottom line is that the reason that Christians keep the commandments is not because they are part of the Mosaic Law.

Another way to explain this is to look at a hypothetical. If you are a U.S. citizen and U.S. law states that espionage is illegal, yet France, which coined the term, also has an identical law, you are not accused of placing yourself under French Law because you do not commit espionage. Rather, you are under U.S. law.

So, to conclude this first post, I briefly defined the Mosaic Law and the Old and New Covenants, and showed a handful of Scriptures which explain why/how the New Covenant has replaced the Old Covenant. I anticipate quite a few questions and observations, and I will do my best to address them.
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 #3

Post by fewwillfindit »

Duplicate post. (Darned phone)
Last edited by fewwillfindit on Sat May 07, 2011 4:25 pm, edited 2 times 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 #4

Post by fewwillfindit »

I suppose the best way to begin is to just dig right into the meat of the topic:

First, many opponents will quote the following in support of Christians being under the Law of Moses:
Matthew 5:17-18 ESV wrote:Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
They will say that since heaven and Earth have not passed away, the Law of Moses is still in effect. That's right. The Law remains in effect until the end. What is important to discern is to whom the Law applies. That is the key. Everyone who has not been justified by the sacrifice of Christ is still under the Law and subject to its effects. Christians, under the New Covenant, are no longer under that law. This is why it is consistent that the Law remains in effect until the end, and yet Christians are not under that Law, as we will see below.

It is also important to recognize the wording in this passage, "the Law and the Prophets." When referred to together like this, it means the Pentateuch and the Prophets, and refers to the Old Testament in general. Since Christians do indeed see fulfilled messianic prophecy in the Prophets, it makes perfect sense that He fulfilled the Law and the Prophets. He was the fulfillment of the Law in that many of its elements foreshadowed Him and by their nature required a better system (which He offered), and He was the fulfillment of the Prophets in that He was the Messiah.

Certainly I understand that skeptics have their pat answers regarding messianic prophecies, but my intent in this debate is not to defend critical analyses, but rather to demonstrate that conservative Christians do, in fact, have Scriptural reasons for disregarding the Mosaic Law and the Old Covenant and embracing the New Covenant, rather that merely cherry-picking which parts of the Old Testament to obey.


After reading some of the Scriptural evidence in this thread (which I presented in another thread), a member I was debating said this:
If you accept Pauls writings as equivalent to Jesus writings, though one was a prophet and the other wasnt, go right ahead. Simply put:

If Paul=Jesus for authority then christians arent cherry picking. This is essentially saying that paul and jesus were the same person and infact the trinity is instead a quadrivium.
To which I responded:
fewwillfindit wrote:No, it is not saying that Jesus and Paul are essentially the same person, or that Paul is a member of the Godhead. The fact is that Christians believe Paul when he said this
Galatians 1:11-12 ESV wrote:For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.
So you are wrong. Paul was indeed a prophet. Paul is authoritative to Christians because they believe him when he said that his words are directly from Jesus Christ.

Christians also believe Peter when he very clearly said that the writings of Paul were considered to be Scripture:
2 Peter 3:15-16 wrote:And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
I mention the above so that you can see where conservative Christians are coming from when it comes to Paul. Now would be a good time to mention that elements of redaction, pseudepigrapha and non-traditional dates of authorship are well beyond the scope of this debate. Such things are theoretical and unproven, and the canon as we have it today is considered to be not only authoritative and accurate, but closed, by conservative Christianity.


What is the Old Covenant?
Exodus 34:27-28 ESV wrote:And the Lord said to Moses, "Write these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." So he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights. He neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.
Deuteronomy 4:11-14 ESV wrote:And you came near and stood at the foot of the mountain, while the mountain burned with fire to the heart of heaven, wrapped in darkness, cloud, and gloom. Then the Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire. You heard the sound of words, but saw no form; there was only a voice. And he declared to you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments, and he wrote them on two tablets of stone. And the Lord commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and rules, that you might do them in the land that you are going over to posess.
Here we see that the Ten Commandments were part of the Old Covenant. But that is not all that comprises the Old Covenant:
Exodus 24:12 ESV wrote:The Lord said to Moses, "Come up to me on the mountain and wait there, that I may give you the tablets of stone, with the law and the commandment, which I have written for their instruction."
Nehemiah 9:13-14 ESV wrote:You came down on Mount Sinai and spoke with them from heaven and gave them right rules and true laws, good statutes and commandments, and you made known to them your holy Sabbath and commanded them commandments and statutes and a law by Moses your servant.
Here we see that God Himself gave the entire Law, including not only the Ten Commandments, but the other 603 laws as well, which comprises the Law of Moses ratified by the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant is given from Exodus 20 to the end, plus Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

So what does the New Testament have to say about the Old and New Covenants?
Romans 10:1-4 ESV wrote:Brothers, my heart's desire and prayer to God for them [the Jews] is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God's righteousness. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.
Hebrews 8: entire chapter ESV wrote:Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man. For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; thus it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. They serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things. For when Moses was about to erect the tent, he was instructed by God, saying, "See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain." But as it is, Christ has obtained a ministry that is as much more excellent than the old as the covenant he mediates is better, since it is enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion to look for a second. For he finds fault with them when he says:

"Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt. For they did not continue in my covenant, and so I showed no concern for them, declares the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor and each one his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will be merciful toward their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more." In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Here it shows that everyone is under the Law, regardless of whether or not they accept and affirm it:
Romans 2:12-16 ESV wrote:For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
Why the Law and what are its effects?
  • It condemns mankind
    Romans 3:19-20 ESV wrote:Now we know that whatever the law says it speaks to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be stopped, and the whole world may be held accountable to God.
    2 Corinthians 3:2-11 ESV wrote:You yourselves are our letter of recommendation, written on our hearts, to be known and read by all. And you show that you are a letter from Christ delivered by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts. Such is the confidence that we have through Christ toward God. Not that we are sufficient in ourselves to claim anything as coming from us, but our sufficiency is from God, who has made us competent to be ministers of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit. For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Now if the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone [the Ten Commandments], came with such glory that the Israelites could not gaze at Moses' face because of its glory, which was being brought to an end, will not the ministry of the Spirit have even more glory? For if there was glory in the ministry of condemnation, the ministry of righteousness must far exceed it in glory. For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.
  • It brings death to mankind
    Romans 7:9-12 ESV wrote:I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.
  • It empowers sin
    1 Corinthians 15:56 ESV wrote:The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law.
  • It imprisons everything under sin
    Galatians 3:21-22 ESV wrote:Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
  • It holds a record of debt against mankind
    Colossians 2:13-15 ESV wrote:And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.
  • It divides Jews and Gentiles
    Ephesians 2:11-16 ESV wrote:Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called "the uncircumcision" by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility.
What happened to the Law after Christ?
  • It was cancelled, set aside and nailed to the cross
    Colossians 2:13-15 ESV wrote:And you, who were dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses, by canceling the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross. He disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him.
  • It was set aside because of its weakness and uselessness
    Hebrews 7:18-19 ESV wrote:For on the one hand, a former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness (for the law made nothing perfect); but on the other hand, a better hope is introduced, through which we draw near to God.
  • It was made obsolete
    Hebrews 8:13 ESV wrote:In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
  • It was abolished
    Ephesians 2:15 ESV wrote:by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace
The Law was designed to lead us to Christ and to make us aware that we needed a Savior by revealing our sin and demanding a penalty for that sin. But in Christ, under the New Covenant, we are no longer under that guardian, or tutor as some translations say. Paul was quite upset when the Judaizers tried to rob the Christians of their freedom in Christ and attempted to impose the Law of Moses on them:
Galatians 3: entire chapter ESV wrote:O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? It was before your eyes that Jesus Christ was publicly portrayed as crucified. Let me ask you only this: Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun by the Spirit, are you now being perfected by the flesh? Did you suffer so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? Does he who supplies the Spirit to you and works miracles among you do so by works of the law, or by hearing with faith— just as Abraham "believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness"? Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith. For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them." Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith." But the law is not of faith, rather "The one who does them shall live by them." Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree"— so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith. To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, "And to offsprings," referring to many, but referring to one, "And to your offspring," who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise. Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one. Is the law then contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could give life, then righteousness would indeed be by the law. But the Scripture imprisoned everything under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. Now before faith came, we were held captive under the law, imprisoned until the coming faith would be revealed. So then, the law was our guardian until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.
To summarize the passages above, we have seen that the Law of Moses under the Old Covenant was nailed to the cross (figuratively), weak, cancelled, abolished, a ministry of condemnation, a ministry of death, obselete, vanishing away, found to have fault, a curse, and was merely a shadow (foreshadow) that pointed to Christ.

Christians now have available to them the substance, which is Christ, and no longer shrink back to the shadow. This would be like a soldier leaving the love of his life to go to war. While away, he cherished and longed after her picture. After many years passed, he finally returned home, and when she ran to meet him, he turned his back on her and instead preferred the picture that he so cherished.

This is exactly what happens when Christians attempt to place themselves back under the Law of Moses. They are spitting in His face, in essence telling Him that they preferred all the regulations, ritual and ceremony which pointed to Him, rather than He Whom it all foreshadowed. Scripture calls it returning to "weak and beggarly elements." As a matter of fact, when a Christian turns back to the Law, they can no longer see Christ. They cannot even perceive him:
2 Corinthians 3:12-18 ESV wrote:Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end. But their minds were hardened. For to this day, when they read the old covenant, that same veil remains unlifted, because only through Christ is it taken away. Yes, to this day whenever Moses is read a veil lies over their hearts. But when one turns to the Lord, the veil is removed. Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit.
That's pretty explicit.


Apparently these Judaizers were also trying to force the Sabbath, the Holy Days and the clean and unclean food laws upon unsuspecting Christians as well. Here Paul makes it clear that these were all mere shadows that pointed to Christ. Now that we have the substance, Christ, we no longer need the shadow which pointed to Him:
Colossians 2:16-17 ESV wrote:Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.
Galatians 4:8-11 ESV wrote:Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? You observe days and months and seasons and years! I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain.

This quote from a recent discussion I had may be helpful as well (I altered my reply a bit for clarity):
fewwillfindit wrote:
A question: Are the Ten Commandments not part of the Mosaic Law? The Ten Commandments are given at least lip service by most Christian denominations and are certainly part of the Old Testament, included in the part allegedly written by Moses. Is there some fine technical distinction here?
Christians obey the commandments, but it is not because they are given in the Mosaic Law. It is because they are reiterated in the New Testament, with the exception of the Sabbath command. Some Christians see the Sabbath as a creation ordinance which preceded the Mosaic Law. Others do not recognize this and only keep 9 commandments. Yet others keep the principle of resting one day in seven, but do it on Sunday in accordance with the example of the New Testament Church. However you slice it, the bottom line is that the reason that Christians keep the commandments is not because they are part of the Mosaic Law.

Another way to explain this is to look at a hypothetical. If you are a U.S. citizen and U.S. law states that espionage is illegal, yet France, which coined the term, also has an identical law, you are not accused of placing yourself under French Law because you do not commit espionage. Rather, you are under U.S. law.

So, to conclude this first post, I briefly defined the Mosaic Law and the Old and New Covenants, and showed a handful of Scriptures which explain why/how the New Covenant has replaced the Old Covenant. I anticipate quite a few questions and observations, and I will do my best to address them.
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 #5

Post by johnmarc »

About fifteen years ago, I set off on a Quest to destroy the Bible singlehandedly. It didn’t look like anyone else was getting to it, so I supposed the task fell to me*. I read the Bible over four years with an Episcopalian theology group, EFM, (perfect attendance) spent 21 evenings with Seventh Day Adventists, (perfect attendance) went to countless meetings and seminars, and read two hundred books. The only thing that distinguishes that reading was that it covered the gamut from, ‘Jesus Christ was the code name for a hallucinogenic plant’, all the way to ‘Christ’s return is scheduled for next week’. And everything in between. There are many people better read than me, but probably no one more broadly read. Having said that, I fell in with the Jesus Seminar and that is where my theology rests today. That is to say, Funk, Hoover, Borg, Crossan, et al. They use the word Fundamentalist and the word Cherry Picking as synonyms. As a result, so do I.

One day when Few was trying to send me to Hell and I was trying to disengage him from his literal God, it dawned on me that I have never actually sat down and listened to a Fundamentalist explain how cherry picking really isn’t cherry picking. * I pretty much know it from the other side, but I don’t actually know the Fundamentalist position.

So, that is my goal. Not a mudbath, but an attempt to communicate. My goal in all of this is to exit the thread when both of us feel that we have exhausted the subject, accurately paraphrased the opponent’s position and identified the lines of agreement and disagreement.

And I am going to do this from the Fundamentalist’s side. I will ‘join’ the local Assembly of God, Nazarene, Four Square, fraternity and listen to the ‘commands to obey’ that Minister Few has given me. I will then make the effort to find continuity and consistency in the pattern that is presented. If I can poke the guy in the pew next to me and say, “That’s wrong and the Bible says so.� Few wins. If, instead, I am holding a can of worms, I win. (and I use the word, ‘win’ in the context of ‘who buys the beer’.)

It will, no doubt, be weeks before I understand everything on the page above me. That is my first goal---to make sure that Few and I agree on the fundamentals of the verses before we get into the interpretation of the verses.

I plan to do this in many small pieces. I have a little brain and it does not do ‘comprehensive’ very well. Hopefully we can go part by part until we are able to do a final analysis of the whole.

Thank you Few for this opportunity.

*1)Unfortunately, the Bible sucked me in. I have a nice Oxford here with every Biblical embarrassment highlighted. I don’t need it anymore.

*2)That particular sentence was in jest. There is not a lot of humor on this forum.

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

Post #6

Post by johnmarc »

OK, point one. Do we have full disclosure?

That is to say, are all applicable verses out and available for examination? I don’t want to discover somewhere in all of this that there are other verses which are applicable to this debate floating around somewhere undisclosed.

(1) If this is something that you have worked out for yourself, is it researched well enough to contain the entirety of the issue.? I trust you implicitly, but you are a human being---same as me. A single effort to examine the Bible can leave a lot of ground uncovered.

(2) If this comes primarily from Fundamentalist research sources, that is a different story. I don’t trust them at all.

This is a point that we might never agree on and it could bog the discussion down at the start. However, that is not my goal. I will say the following and move on:

Each and every point that I concede will be understood to contain the caveat, “providing we have full disclosure.�

On another note, a weird thing happened to me yesterday. I was eating a Girardelli chocolate bar and for some reason the chocolate was particularly sticky and stuck to my lips and tongue. I wiped my lips with a paper towel, but then my lips were dry. So I licked my lips and then my lips had chocolate all over them again. After I went through two paper towels, I realized that I had a problem. There may be a medical term for this, I don’t know. At any rate, I yelled for my wife and she said, “Chocolate!� and licked my lips clean. I just figured that if anyone else had had this same problem, I had found a solution to it. Just trying to help.

This was going to be a relaxed debate, right?

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

Post #7

Post by fewwillfindit »

johnmarc wrote:OK, point one. Do we have full disclosure?

That is to say, are all applicable verses out and available for examination? I don’t want to discover somewhere in all of this that there are other verses which are applicable to this debate floating around somewhere undisclosed.

(1) If this is something that you have worked out for yourself, is it researched well enough to contain the entirety of the issue.? I trust you implicitly, but you are a human being---same as me. A single effort to examine the Bible can leave a lot of ground uncovered.

(2) If this comes primarily from Fundamentalist research sources, that is a different story. I don’t trust them at all.

This is a point that we might never agree on and it could bog the discussion down at the start. However, that is not my goal. I will say the following and move on:

Each and every point that I concede will be understood to contain the caveat, “providing we have full disclosure.�
We have just scratched the surface regarding applicable Scriptures. I planned on introducing them as clarifications in answer to future questions and comments that may arise. The basic elements are found above, which should make a good starting point.

As for my sources, that's a hard one. They run the gamut. I have studied this subject for over twenty years, and have internalized it to the point where it would be very difficult to differentiate between my own thoughts on the subject and those of other sources.

Prior to that, I spent the first twenty years of my life "under" the Law of Moses. I was raised in a church which observed the Sabbath, the Holy Days and the clean and unclean meats laws. So I literally lived the Galatians passage above which says that the Law was our tutor to lead us to Christ. It was my study of this subject which was a catalyst that was instrumental in the "veil" being lifted.

As for not trusting fundamentalist sources, remember that this is not a liberal or progressive understanding (as far as I know), in that the Bible must be understood literally to glean anything from this discussion. In other words, put on your fundy hat and hang on for the ride. Although we have already seen metaphor employed more than once in my first post, this understanding is derived from a primarily literal understanding of the Bible.

Regarding full disclosure, I am not holding back Scripture for the purpose of springing it on you later (for nefarious reasons). I just figured that writing a complete essay on the subject in the first post would be a bit overwhelming, so I opted for an overview.

johnmarc wrote:On another note, a weird thing happened to me yesterday. I was eating a Girardelli chocolate bar and for some reason the chocolate was particularly sticky and stuck to my lips and tongue. I wiped my lips with a paper towel, but then my lips were dry. So I licked my lips and then my lips had chocolate all over them again. After I went through two paper towels, I realized that I had a problem. There may be a medical term for this, I don’t know. At any rate, I yelled for my wife and she said, “Chocolate!� and licked my lips clean. I just figured that if anyone else had had this same problem, I had found a solution to it. Just trying to help.

This was going to be a relaxed debate, right?
Ahh, yes, the medical condition known as cocoa lipstickimus. Next time it happens to me, I will certainly attempt to enlist the help of my wife! Thanks for the tip.
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 #8

Post by johnmarc »

Part one:

Fewwillfindit wrote:We have just scratched the surface regarding applicable Scriptures. I planned on introducing them as clarifications in answer to future questions and comments that may arise. The basic elements are found above, which should make a good starting point.

You’re kidding. There is more? I figured that I would be a month just sorting this out.
Fewwillfindit wrote:Regarding full disclosure, I am not holding back Scripture for the purpose of springing it on you later (for nefarious reasons). I just figured that writing a complete essay on the subject in the first post would be a bit overwhelming, so I opted for an overview.

Nothing nefarious presumed. A possibility of unintended incompleteness presumed.
Fewwillfindit wrote:First, many opponents will quote the following in support of Christians being under the Law of Moses:

Matthew 5:17-18 ESV wrote:
Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.


They will say that since heaven and Earth have not passed away, the Law of Moses is still in effect. That's right. The Law remains in effect until the end. What is important to discern is to whom the Law applies. That is the key. Everyone who has not been justified by the sacrifice of Christ is still under the Law and subject to its effects. Christians, under the New Covenant, are no longer under that law. This is why it is consistent that the Law remains in effect until the end, and yet Christians are not under that Law, as we will see below.

Of course, you know that the liberal community will never give up this passage. It is proof positive that the conservative community cherry picks. (don’t panic---more on this later)
Fewwillfindit wrote:It is also important to recognize the wording in this passage, "the Law and the Prophets." When referred to together like this, it means the Pentateuch and the Prophets, and refers to the Old Testament in general. Since Christians do indeed see fulfilled messianic prophecy in the Prophets, it makes perfect sense that He fulfilled the Law and the Prophets. He was the fulfillment of the Law in that many of its elements foreshadowed Him and by their nature required a better system (which He offered), and He was the fulfillment of the Prophets in that He was the Messiah.

I understand the Law and the Prophets to be the Pentateuch and the Prophets and not the Writings. However, to exclude them makes no sense in the context of old and new covenant. I am not aware of an old covenant position that excludes the Writings and therefore I concur. For the purpose of this debate the Law and the Prophets will be understood as the Old Testament.
Fewwillfindit wrote:Certainly I understand that skeptics have their pat answers regarding messianic prophecies, but my intent in this debate is not to defend critical analyses, but rather to demonstrate that conservative Christians do, in fact, have Scriptural reasons for disregarding the Mosaic Law and the Old Covenant and embracing the New Covenant, rather that merely cherry-picking which parts of the Old Testament to obey.

The purpose of this debate is to determine if Fundamentalists (themselves) have a consistent set of rules that govern which laws are obeyed and which are not. In this particular case, I can see no reason that Fundamentalists would react with a multiple of interpretations to this passage. It seems blatantly clear that the conservative church has a uniform sense of this Scripture.

I concede the passage provided:

(1) Caveat one is still in place

(2) The Law and the Prophets are consistently defined as the Old Testament

(3) Any parallel passages continue to refer back to the Old Testament. That is to say, that any time Jesus addresses the Law and the Prophets, the reference is back to the Old Testament.
Fewwillfindit wrote:Ahh, yes, the medical condition known as cocoa lipstickimus. Next time it happens to me, I will certainly attempt to enlist the help of my wife! Thanks for the tip.
Thanks for your help on the medical term. I stink at big words. As a matter of fact, I have learned a lot of big words since I have been on this forum. As the words tend to fit a certain theme, I have purchased a pocket sized dictionary of popular aspersions and have found it much easier to look things up now. Thanks.

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

Post #9

Post by fewwillfindit »

I think that an important distinction needs to be made here. The Writings are not technically part of the Old Covenant or the Law of Moses, although they are in the Tanakh (Old Testament). When you see the Law referred to in the New Testament, it can mean the Penteteuch, but usually, according to context, means specifically the Law of Moses, i.e.; the Mosaic Law (the laws given to Moses for Israel). Sometimes the Law and the Prophets are also referred to as the Law and the Testimony. My reference to the Law and the Prophets referring to the Old Testament in general was not meant to be a focal point of the discussion, but was really just mentioned in passing. I do not have a specific argument that requires that distinction to be made. The point being that when we are discussing the difference between the Old and New covenants, we are talking specifically about the covenant that was made with Israel in the Penteteuch, begininng in Exodus 20 and ranging to the end of Deuteronomy, and even more specifically, the Mosaic Law.

The Prophets will have little to do with the topic of the Mosaic Law and the Old and New covenants (with the exception of instances where the Prophets mention both covenants and the Mosaic Law prophetically), and the Writings even less (if at all).

I say all that to say this: I did not intend for the least significant thing that I mentioned to become a focal point of discussion.
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 #10

Post by johnmarc »

Part two: The Authority of Paul.
Fewwillfindit wrote:After reading some of the Scriptural evidence in this thread (which I presented in another thread), a member I was debating said this:

Quote:
If you accept Pauls writings as equivalent to Jesus writings, though one was a prophet and the other wasnt, go right ahead. Simply put:

If Paul=Jesus for authority then christians arent cherry picking. This is essentially saying that paul and jesus were the same person and infact the trinity is instead a quadrivium.


To which I responded:

fewwillfindit wrote:
No, it is not saying that Jesus and Paul are essentially the same person, or that Paul is a member of the Godhead. The fact is that Christians believe Paul when he said this

Galatians 1:11-12 ESV wrote:
For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man's gospel. For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ.


So you are wrong. Paul was indeed a prophet. Paul is authoritative to Christians because they believe him when he said that his words are directly from Jesus Christ.

Christians also believe Peter when he very clearly said that the writings of Paul were considered to be Scripture:

2 Peter 3:15-16 wrote:
And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.



I mention the above so that you can see where conservative Christians are coming from when it comes to Paul. Now would be a good time to mention that elements of redaction, pseudepigrapha and non-traditional dates of authorship are well beyond the scope of this debate. Such things are theoretical and unproven, and the canon as we have it today is considered to be not only authoritative and accurate, but closed, by conservative Christianity.
Background:

Liberal theology does not accept the authority of Paul. For the liberal church, Jesus was a quick witted street prophet attempting to reform the Judaism of his day. Jerusalem was governed by an Idumean whose strings were pulled by Rome. The Temple housed Maccabean usurpers. These were dark days for the Jewish people and there were reformers on each street corner calling passionately for the Messiah to appear and once again lead them from bondage. After Jesus died and a fledgling new religion began to take form, Paul commandeered it for his own purposes and was instrumental in creating a Christianity that Jesus would not have recognized nor approved. But this is neither here nor there.

Part two:

Does the conservative tradition recognize the authority of Paul? A resounding yes. I have set in Fundamentalist pews for many years and have a clear understanding of the role that Paul plays in the conservative church. Without caveat, Paul’s words are recognized to have equal authority to Jesus’ words.

Pseudepigrapha and other interpretations are outside the scope of this debate. I concur. This debate is about whether or not FUNDAMENTALISTS follow a strict algorithm for decision making and if so, are removed from the charge of cherry picking (in this category only) So long as the criteria is consistent and clear and followed by a substantial portion of the conservative church. Then it stands, whether or not it meets the standards of Critical Scholarship. I would assume that consistency and breath are the key underling factors.

The cannon has been officially closed by the Catholic Church only---in response to Luther’s attacks. There are no other closed cannons of which I am aware. However, the cannon is ipso facto closed by (I assume) every tradition and therefore will concede the point.
Last edited by johnmarc on Mon May 09, 2011 5:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply