It's Sad That So Many Christians Consider Themselves "New Testament" Christians

[expos4ever]

The tendency to divide the OT law into ceremonial, civil, and moral is anachronistic and ad hoc. I don't think an ancient Israelite would have recognized such a division; the law was simply the Torah.

I agree - there is no Biblical evidence, or even extra-Biblical evidence, that the Jew thought of the laws in terms of such "categories".

In fact, I suggest that those who, for whatever reason, believe the Law remains in force, at least to some degree, introduce these categorical distinctions, without warrant, expressly to support their position.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's very common....did you see DragonFox91's post?

No, I haven't seen DragonFox91's post, but I can go look at it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I agree - there is no Biblical evidence, or even extra-Biblical evidence, that the Jew thought of the laws in terms of such "categories".

In fact, I suggest that those who, for whatever reason, believe the Law remains in force, at least to some degree, introduce these categorical distinctions, without warrant, expressly to support their position.

Not all of us do. But at the same time, I don't really feel it's anything to argue about.

For the most part, since there's several different configurations of interpretation here, I'm guessing some of us are (or will be) just talking past each other in attempting to grapple with all which we each think are the actual tensions between the Law and the Gospel.

 

[Albion]

Following up on some of the comments offered by previous posters, I know of only one Christian movement and several denominations that descend from it that essentially discount the OT as a permanent doctrinal guide, making the NT be their authority instead...and even they aren't going so far as to say that the OT is irrelevant.

In other words, it doesn't seem as though what was proposed in the OP is correct.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

No, I believe God wants His people today to be as healthy as He wanted the Israelites to be, so those laws didn't change...only the Laws that had to do with the Sanctuary ceremonies...as they all pointed TO JESUS COMING....and then when He came, that was the end of those laws.

So dietary and clothing laws remain in effect.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's very common....did you see DragonFox91's post?

ok. I read it. Yeah, I understand that some folks (whether they're Christian or otherwise) may decide to not engage the O.T. very frequently. However, I'm not sure how much of a problem that is if those same folks are still firmly conscious about living holy and loving lives as they do their best to follow Christ.

Personally, I've attended both Southern Baptist churches as well as Christian Churches/Disciples of Christ, and in both kinds of churches, there was typically a frequent effort to present messages culled from the O.T., so it's difficult for me to say that today's Christians are fully and purposely ignoring the O.T. from just those experiences alone. I'd also like to think most churches will deal with the O.T. in one way or another, especially when one can't help but to hit upon it while reading the N.T.

For the most part, I don't think it's a major problem if a church pastor tends to preach mostly from the N.T.

I do think it would be a problem if someone misinterprets or just flat out mishandles his reading and interpretation of the O.T., though. And that's where a lot of problems can come in, I think.

But, these are things we can all keep open for discussion among ourselves.

[sorry for the typos and corrections folks!]

 

[public hermit]

No, I believe God wants His people today to be as healthy as He wanted the Israelites to be, so those laws didn't change

It sounds like you are saying the law is still in effect due to the practical effects of keeping them such as the health benefits that result from dietary laws. I think there is something to be said for the practcal benefits of keeping various OT laws, but I wonder how far one should take that. Let's use not eating pork as an example. Is it that God condemns those who eat pork, is it that ill effects will result from eating pork, or is it both?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

I politely suggest that the following line of reasoning is weak:

- Scriptures tells us to "obey the commands of God"
- the Law of Moses comes from God
- Therefore, we all still need to follow the Law of Moses.

Let's be clear: there are many commands in scripture from God to specific people/ groups that are time limited (we are not, for example, to obey the commands to Solomon to build a temple!).

Given these sorts of complexities, one cannot simply argue that since the Law of Moses is from God, it is still in force for all of us. Or even any of us.

Even more importantly- both Paul and Jesus make very definitive claims that the Law is over with. So it is very hard to sustain the position that the Law of Moses remains in force solely on the basis of general instructions to "obey the commands of God".

There are different laws that serves different purposes. How many laws did God write with His own Finger? How many laws were inside the ark of the covenant in the Most Holy of God's Temple? Which is also revealed in Heaven. Revelation 11:19 Do you really think you are free to worship other gods, bow down to idols, vain God's name? Steal, murder, not honor our parents, lie, covet and doing these things you will be blessed and enter into the kingdom of heaven despite the many warnings? Matthew 7:21-23, Matthew 17:19, Revelation 22:14-15 The only reason people claim they don't have to keep the commanmdnets of God is becuase of the one God told us to Remember, so we see a 101 reasons, none which are biblical. God says He shows mercy to thousands who love Him and keep His commandments right in the Ten. Exodus 20:6 and Jesus repeated this verbatium John 14:15.

 

[DragonFox91]

A lot of pagan arguments against Christianity come against the Old Testament. I think it's imperative Christians have a thorough understanding of it.

 

[expos4ever]

The only reason people claim they don't have to keep the commanmdnets of God is becuase of the one God told us to Remember, so we see a 101 reasons, none which are biblical.

Ok then, what is Paul telling us here?

But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

Why would Paul say we are released from the Law if we are still to let it guide our actions.

Why would Paul refer to the Law as something that once bound us, if we are still under it?

Why would Paul refer to the Law as an old way and then present us with a new way to serve that is distinct from the law.

I will be interested to read your replies.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

Ok then, what is Paul telling us here?

But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.

Why would Paul say we are released from the Law if we are still to let it guide our actions.

Why would Paul refer to the Law as something that once bound us, if we are still under it?

Why would Paul refer to the Law as an old way and then present us with a new way to serve that is distinct from the law.

I will be interested to read your replies.

This was already answered here: It's Sad That So Many Christians Consider Themselves "New Testament" Christians

We are only "released" from the law "condenmation of the law and in danger of judgement" if we are breaking the law. If walking in the Spirit of Christ, we are not sinning. Sin comes from the "other spirit" 1 John 3:8 not God. There are many warnings that tell us we should obey. Matthew 7:21-23, 1 John 2:3-5, James 2:10-12, Revelation 22:14-15, John 14:15. Lawlessness is not biblical.

 

[expos4ever]

We are only "released" from the law "condenmation of the law and in danger of judgement" if we are breaking the law.

On what basis, precisely, do you justify this highly restricted sense of being released?

Look at Paul's exact wording - he says we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the law.

He is talking about how we actually conduct our lives - there is no sense at all that he wants us to continue to follow the dictates of the law, and there is certainly no sense that he is saying we are to still serve according to the letter of the law, having but been released from condemnation conferred by the Law.

 

[expos4ever]

Do you really think you are free to worship other gods, bow down to idols, vain God's name? Steal, murder, not honor our parents, lie, covet and doing these things you will be blessed and enter into the kingdom of heaven despite the many warnings?

Those who hold the Law is still in force very frequently use this line of reasoning. They seem to think that to deny the Law is in force means saying it is ok to steal and murder.

But let's reason together - does a Christian with the indwelling Spirit really need a law to tell them what to do? Surely the Spirit is not silent, sitting in there in the barca-lounger of your mind, doing nothing?

It is inconceivable that the Spirit is so impotent that it cannot let you know that murdering that guy who cut you off in traffic is not such a great idea.

 

[expos4ever]

It sounds like you are saying the law is still in effect due to the practical effects of keeping them such as the health benefits that result from dietary laws. I think there is something to be said for the practcal benefits of keeping various OT laws, but I wonder how far one should take that. Let's use not eating pork as an example. Is it that God condemns those who eat pork, is it that ill effects will result from eating pork, or is it both?

In any event, Jesus is pretty clear: the food laws are over with. From Mark 7:

Again Jesus called the crowd to him and said, “Listen to me, everyone, and understand this. 15 Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them

Of course, there is a standard counter-argument that is always put forward. But that argument is really quite contrived and extremely shaky.

 

[The Narrow Way]

So dietary and clothing laws remain in effect.

Yes, the clean/unclean laws of Leviticus 11 are still 100% in effect. God gave them those laws to keep them healthy....and He wants you and me to be healthy today,...so the laws are for our own good. I've lived by them for 60+ years.

And when you say clothing, I'm assuming you are talking about the laws that speak of not mixing various materials? I try hard to follow that, too.... Even if there are things I don't understand about these laws, I know God knows best, so I just follow them. They are not a burden for me...I see them as PROTECTORS.

 

[The Narrow Way]

A lot of pagan arguments against Christianity come against the Old Testament. I think it's imperative Christians have a thorough understanding of it.

I couldn't agree with you more

 

[The Narrow Way]

It sounds like you are saying the law is still in effect due to the practical effects of keeping them such as the health benefits that result from dietary laws. I think there is something to be said for the practcal benefits of keeping various OT laws, but I wonder how far one should take that. Let's use not eating pork as an example. Is it that God condemns those who eat pork, is it that ill effects will result from eating pork, or is it both?

It's both....He told us not to eat pork, because He knows that it's unhealthy....and we show our love to Him by being obedient to Him....if we don't respect Him enough to obey Him, we are condemned.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's both....He told us not to eat pork, because He knows that it's unhealthy....and we show our love to Him by being obedient to Him....if we don't respect Him enough to obey Him, we are condemned.

Oh goodness! Well, there goes the pork tenderloin cuisine that my wife was marinating and lovingly preparing for me and the rest of our family ... for tonight's dinner.

So, if I understand what you're saying correctly, if we eat our pork tenderloin dish tonight, it means we're going to Hell?

 

[hedrick]

I suspect that if someone says they are a NT Christian, what they actually mean is that they are just like the early church as described in the NT, not that they reject the OT.

 

[expos4ever]

(CLV) Php 3:6
in relation to zeal, persecuting the ecclesia, in relation to the righteousness which is in law, becoming blameless.

Context, context, context. Paul is describing his reputation, his past history, as a keeper of Torah. One cannot, legitimately anyway, infer that he believes the Torah remains in force. Here is the full context:

If someone else thinks they have reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless

And, in fact, we know he believes the Law has fulfilled its role and is to be set aside:

Before the coming of this faith, we were held in custody under the law, locked up until the faith that was to come would be revealed. 24 So the law was our guardian until Christ came that we might be justified by faith. 25 Now that this faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.