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

[Akita Suggagaki]

Come to think of it, I am pretty much vegan so no problem with dietary laws. I'd only need to worry about wearing two kinds of thread. The other specifically Jewish laws are rather antiquated.

 

[1watchman]

Come to think of it, I am pretty much vegan so no problem with dietary laws. I'd only need to worry about wearing two kinds of thread. The other specifically Jewish laws are rather antiquated.

I doubt that the issue is mostly a problem of "dietary laws" about the OT religion that some OT practicianers like to practice today ---which it is; but more about the error of NOT accepting the New Testament truth for true salvation, and our walk in obedience to God as shown in the Gospels and Epistles. That appears to me to be offensive to God.

 

[The Narrow Way]

Thank you, sister, for taking the time to write out some references to Scripture which influence your thinking on the issue you've brought up in this thread. It does seem that you're right about Peter being taught by the Lord to regard Gentiles for salvation along with his fellow Jewish brethren. Most likely, the dream Peter had wasn't simply about the eating of unclean versus clean foods, but in the recognition that God intends to gather in Gentiles along with people of Israel, without bias and without prejudice. And you make a good point in mentioning that Acts 10:28 emphasizes this central motif of discernment.

However, I'm still wondering something here. If we're going to utilize the book of Acts for the sake of establishing our doctrine, shouldn't we include all aspects of this book? I seem to remember that something related to this same issue regarding the connection between Gentiles and the possible eating of 'unclean food' coming up for consideration in chapter 15 of Acts, specifically in the narrative Luke provides about the deliberations over this matter among early church leaders like Paul and James in the Council of Jerusalem (i.e. Acts 15:1-29).

Wouldn't this 15th chapter also have some bearing upon the extent to which we should expect Christians, even those of us who, like me, are Gentile, to evaluate the foods we might eat as Christians? I'm just wondering how you may interpret what we find here as well.

Again, thank you for your time in discussing this. I appreciate it.

And I very much appreciate the discussion, too....

As I understand it @2PhiloVoid , there are 3 sets of Laws.

1. The Ceremonial Laws
2. The Moral Laws (the 10 Commandments)
3. The Health Laws.

I believe the KEY to understanding Acts 15, is to see that Acts 15 was a rebuttal to the Jewish Christian leaders, who were trying to force the new converts to accept the Ceremonial Law of Circumcision if they wanted to be accepted into the faith. It's not discussing the MORAL LAWS or the HEALTH LAWS (it does touch on a segment of the Dietary Laws that fall under the Health Laws). As far as I can tell, there are no references to the Ten Commandments (the MORAL LAW) in Acts 15. Can we conclude then, that because the TEN COMMANDMENTS were not mentioned as something that the Gentile converts must abide by, that they were FREE to MURDER, COMMIT ADULTERY, LIE, STEAL, BOW DOWN TO IDOLS, etc? Surely we wouldn't say that.... Instead we would say that when Gentiles were converted to the TRUTH, that it was a common understanding that part of what they were learning was to keep the Moral Law. Just as today, when we bring someone out of the world into the TRUTH, we teach them that being a Christian means you no longer steal, lie, commit adultery, etc.

Also, the Health Laws were not being discussed in Acts 15, other than confirming that the health law of not consuming blood or the meat of strangled animals was still binding. There are many more health laws that were not touched on.

"You must abstain from eating food offered to idols, from consuming blood or the meat of strangled animals, and from sexual immorality. If you do this, you will do well. Farewell.” Acts 15:29 (NLT)
​

There were 3 things that the Apostles believed needed to be taught to the new converts right from the beginning. Surely we can see the wisdom in not overwhelming new converts with too many things at one time. They narrowed down what they believed were the most important 3 things that new converts should accept before being allowed into fellowship. But surely, we wouldn't stop at that and say, "Those 3 things are all that matters, there is nothing more for them to learn." We should be learning and growing into the TRUTH, walking in the light on the ever narrowing path to Heaven more and more as time goes on.

Here is why these 3 things were so important:

​

1. "Abstain from eating food offered to idols." That was exactly why Daniel and his 3 friends refused to eat the food from the table of Nebuchadnezzar. One of my favorite authors says the following about that ~

A second consideration of these youthful captives was that the king always asked a blessing before his meals, and addressed his idols as deity. He set apart a portion of his food, and also a portion of his wine to be presented to the idol gods whom he worshiped. This act, according to their religious instruction, consecrated the whole to the heathen god. To sit at the table where such idolatry was practiced, Daniel and his three brethren deemed, would be a dishonor to the God of heaven. These four children decided that they could not sit at the king's table, to eat of the food placed there, or to partake of the wine, all of which had been dedicated to an idol god.... There was no presumption with these youth, but a firm love for truth and righteousness. They did not choose to be singular, but they must be, else they would corrupt their ways in the courts of Babylon.—
Manuscript 122, March 10, 1897.
​

2. "From consuming blood or the meat from strangled animals." I believe 2 Corinthians 6:17 sheds much light on this ~

"Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you..." 2 Corinthians 6:17.​

Blood and meat from strangled animals falls into the category of things that God has told us from the beginning were "unclean". Clearly Paul was confirming in the New Testament that there were STILL UNCLEAN things we as Christians needed to separate from. "Unclean things" have to do with food as well as with who we associate with and the activities we do. The same things that God told us are "unclean" in the OT are still unclean in the NT...and as Paul tells us, if we want to be received by God into fellowship with Him, we need to separate from those things, whatever they are. I'm sure that as the new converts were taught the TRUTH, teaching them the importance of taking care of their body, and that their body was the "temple of the Holy Spirit" included teaching them about which meats were CLEAN & UNCLEAN, and to abstain from the UNCLEAN MEATS.

3. "...and from sexual immorality." Licentiousness and sexual sin was rampant among the heathen. The Apostles knew how important it was to keep the moral standard high, in order to have a pure Church.

​

 

[Leaf473]

As I understand it @2PhiloVoid , there are 3 sets of Laws.

1. The Ceremonial Laws
2. The Moral Laws (the 10 Commandments)
3. The Health Laws.

Does Health Laws refer only to food, or does it refer to anything related to health? For example, these laws from Leviticus 15

He who sits on anything on which the man who has the discharge sat shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening.

Whoever touches anything that she (a woman with a discharge) sits on shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening.

 

[expos4ever]

Many misinterpret Paul in Romans 7 and is about his struggle with sin. Paul is not telling everyone they are free to sin and makes this known if reading Paul's writings correctly. Even in Paul's days many misunderstood his writings to their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:16

All true, but not relevant to what I am saying. Saying the Law of Moses has been retired, including the 10 commandments, does not, repeat does not, put me in a position of saying sin is OK.

People who argue that the law is still in force often use this argument - they claim that to set aside the Law of Moses means you are "free to sin".

But this is simply, and frankly obviously, not correct.

They assume that the Law of Moses (including the 10) is the only standard for determining what sin is. There is no Biblical support for this whatsoever.

With the indwelling Spirit, do you really need a law to tell you what sin is?

 

[SabbathBlessings]

All true, but not relevant to what I am saying. Saying the Law of Moses has been retired, including the 10 commandments, does not, repeat does not, put me in a position of saying sin is OK.

People who argue that the law is still in force often use this argument - they claim that to set aside the Law of Moses means you are "free to sin".

But this is simply, and frankly obviously, not correct.

They assume that the Law of Moses (including the 10) is the only standard for determining what sin is. There is no Biblical support for this whatsoever.

With the indwelling Spirit, do you really need a law to tell you what sin is?

I answered these questions previously and the scripture already provided so I will not repeat myself. I don’t subscribe that we can define sin, that’s God’s job and He already spoke on this subject, so I am going with that. When God wrote His laws in our hearts and minds in the New Covenant, Hebrews 8:10, Jeremiah 31:33 it meant all of them, not just the ones we agree with. We will have to agree to disagree. God bless and take care.

 

[com7fy8]

So, EXACTLY WHICH LAW(S) are we no longer to keep, please give me an example.

We are commanded to keep all the laws, including stoning people for adultery and other capital offense crimes . . . including a woman lying to a guy about being a virgin, in order to fool him into marrying the woman. And execute anyone who works on the Sabbath.

 

[The Narrow Way]

Does Health Laws refer only to food, or does it refer to anything related to health? For example, these laws from Leviticus 15

He who sits on anything on which the man who has the discharge sat shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening.

Whoever touches anything that she (a woman with a discharge) sits on shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the evening.

Yes, I believe those fall into the HEALTH LAWS category.

 

[expos4ever]

Paul says what matters and that is keeping the commandments of God. 1 Cor 7:19

True enough. But some commandments are time-limited and directed to particular people or groups (e.g. the commands to Solomon to build the temple. Paul, obviously, knows this. So when he says we "need to keep the commandments of God", he is obviously not saying that we need to obey the commands God gave to everyone He ever gave a command to.

And, again, some commands are time-limited (e.g. build the temple).

 

[SabbathBlessings]

True enough. But some commandments are time-limited and directed to particular people or groups (e.g. the commands to Solomon to build the temple. Paul, obviously, knows this. So when he says we "need to keep the commandments of God", he is obviously not saying that we need to obey the commands God gave to everyone He ever gave a command to.

And, again, some commands are time-limited (e.g. build the temple).

Yes, but some are not like thou shalt not murder, or thou shalt have no other gods before Me etc. These came in a covenant of Ten, not one or nine. Exodus 34:28 Take care.

 

[trophy33]

Yes, but some are not like thou shalt not murder, or thou shalt have no other gods before Me etc. These came in a covenant of Ten, not one or nine. Exodus 34:28 Take care.

It does not matter in what form they were given to ancient Israel before Christ.

We have a different covenant and a different form.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

We are commanded to keep all the laws, including stoning people for adultery and other capital offense crimes . . . including a woman lying to a guy about being a virgin, in order to fool him into marrying the woman. And execute anyone who works on the Sabbath.

And of course sexual intercourse between two men. We would have to stone all openly gay men. Leviticus 20:13.

 

[com7fy8]

We would have to stone all

But there is the item about there being at least two witnesses >

"'One witness shall not rise against a man concerning any iniquity or any sin that he commits; by the mouth of two or three witnesses the matter shall be established.'" (Deuteronomy 19:15)

So, say-so and thinking it is so is not the same as being an eye-witness.

in order to have a pure Church.

Stoning was intended to keep God's people pure from evil people.

And The Narrow Way has asked which laws are no longer to be kept. And my point is there are laws requiring that certain people be stoned for their evil actions. I will let The Narrow Way answer about if the laws for stoning are an exception, or not, of laws we must keep.

 

[SabbathBlessings]

It does not matter in what form they were given to ancient Israel before Christ.

We have a different covenant and a different form.

No according to God. Hebrews 8:10, Jeremiah 31:33 which we see its still a sin to break any of the Ten Commandments in the New Covenant.

1. "You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve" (Matthew 4:10).
2. "Little children, keep yourselves from idols" (1 John 5:21). "Since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising" (Acts 17:29).
3. "That the name of God and His doctrine may not be blasphemed" (1 Timothy 6:1).
4. "He has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way: 'And God rested on the seventh day from all His works.' There remains therefore a rest ["keeping of a sabbath," margin] for the people of God. For he who has entered His rest has himself also ceased from his works as God did from His" (Hebrews 4:4, 9, 10).
5. "Honor your father and your mother" (Matthew 19:19).
6. "You shall not murder" (Romans 13:9).
7. "You shall not commit adultery" (Matthew 19:18).
8. "You shall not steal" (Romans 13:9).
9. "You shall not bear false witness" (Romans 13:9).
10. "You shall not covet" (Romans 7:7).

I am sticking with the scriptures. We will have to agree to disagree. God bless and tale care.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

But there is the item about there being at least two witnesses >

But if the person openly confesses there is no need for witnesses. And how could anyone witness such acts if the are done in private?

 

[expos4ever]

All throughout scripture which I have already provided in my posts.

Please answer the question. You stated:

If one is keeping the Spirit of the law, the letter is automatically kept and it applies to all Ten of the commandments.

Where does scripture say that to follow the promptings of the Spirit would "automatically" cause you to follow the 10 commandments? And why wouldn't the Spirit prompt us to stone adulterers - that is as much an element of the Law of Moses as the 10 commandments.

 

[The Liturgist]

When Jesus said, ~

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." John 5:29.
​

WHAT were the "Scriptures" He was referring to? Clearly, it had to be the Old Testament as the New Testament was not yet written.

The influence of the Old Testament is seen throughout the New Testament. The New Testament writers included approximately 250 express Old Testament quotations, and if one includes indirect or partial quotations, the number jumps to more than 1,000. It is clear that the writers of the New Testament were concerned with demonstrating the continuity between the Old Testament Scriptures and the faith they proclaimed. They were convinced that in Jesus the Old Testament promises had been fulfilled. Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament - Holman Bible Dictionary -
​

Instead of being NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTIANS, we should just be BIBLE Christians The same God inspired both the Old and the New Testament .

View attachment 314330​

You are absolutely right. To deny the Old Testament or to claim the God of the Old Testament is not the same as the God of the New Testament was the main distinguishing belief of Marcion, founder of the Marcionist heresy, one of the earliest counterfeit Christian cults, from around 1900 years ago. Marcion taught that the God of the old testament was evil and different from that of the New, and to “prove” it, he modified the Gospel according to Luke and some of the Pauline epistles and declared all other Scripture to be apocryphal. Ironically, this was the first New Testament canon; his tampering and the proliferation of false or corrupted Gnostic texts forced the Christian Church to begin working on defining which scriptures were canonical and which were not; the four Gospels were settled fairly swiftly, but as for the epistles and the rest of the New Testament, it was not until the fourth century that St. Athanasius refined the current 27 book New Testament canon, and this became universally accepted in the fifth century.

It was also common to nearly all of the known Gnostic cults, which was the main heresy the Christian Church dealt with in its first three centuries; it remained a problem for much longer, to put it mildly, however, in the fourth century the focus shifted to Arianism as the main counterfeit Christian cult, a belief system currently espoused by Jehovahs Witnesses. Arians denied the deity of Christ, whereas Gnostics and Docetists denied His humanity.

 

[expos4ever]

I don't believe the bible is one big contradiction. Please show me one verse that says if you are in the Spirit you are sinning or free to sin?

This is a strawman - I have posted nothing that would imply that we are free to sin. I have simply said we are not required to follow the Law of Moses.

Let me try to explain this. I am a Canadian and, as such, do not have to follow American law in any way, shape, or form. And yet even though American Law forbids murder, Canadian law does as well. So I "sin" against Canadian law if I murder someone.

In other words, I am not free to sin even though I am in no way obligated to follow American Law.

Back to the topic: If the Spirit replaces the Law, then we are certainly not free to sin against the Spirit even if we have been released from the Law. And Paul certainly does believe we (actually the Jew - Gentiles were never under the Law of Moses) have been released from the Law and now the Spirit guides us:

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

 

[The Liturgist]

If the scriptures testify to Christ and eternal life is in him, then it seems we should be followers of Christ. The scriptures are a means to an end and Christ is that end. To treat the scriptures as an end in themselves is idolatry. Idolatry is sad.

This is also a valid point. The Old Testament is best understood as Christological prophecy, whether one interprets it in a literal-historical context, which was the practice of the ancient catechtical school of Antioch, or in a typological, parabolic or metaphorical prophetic context, the preferred method of the catechtical school of Alexandria, or ideally, using both methods, varying the amount to which one leans towards Alexandria or Antioch depending on the book in question, with, obviously, a book like the Song of Songs being much more metaphorical than a book such as 1 Chronicles. Likewise the New Testament describes Christ, the Incarnate Word of God (John 1:1-17). The point of both Testaments is to reveal God’s plan for our salvation, the Gospel, or Good News, by which He will save those of us who love Him.

 

[expos4ever]

Greetings all, I will be away for the next 3 days and will not be posting. This is an interesting topic, and while I have a position I am advocating for, I would concede that there are some subtleties here that can easily trip us all up.