Does the OT matter to us conservatives?

[Psalms34]

Only Conservatives need post/reply, please. (not open debate, only conservatives)

What is your view of the Old Testament as a conservative Christian?

 

[Psalms34]

Poll is open for name inspection, so to keep the libs from throwing our vote once again

I voted essential of course. My study is primarily based in revised dispensationalist theology (often terribly misrepresented), so I just cant imagine lopping off three-quarters of the inspired word of God. I would have a very tough time understanding the NT without the OT.


Feel free to discuss and/or debate, just keep it civil

 

[Secundulus]

I think the OT is necessary if you want to fully understand the NT. It is essential if you think your calling is to be a teacher or a preacher.

On the other hand, the OT is not essential for salvation. For that one needs only to confess Christ as Lord and be Baptized and then follow and obey Christ.

Of course, that last part requires a called and qualified teacher or preacher to properly guide one in the faith.

 

[Psalms34]

Well the OT validates the NT. Without the OT in existence, I couldn’t accept the NT as it is. In such a case, I’d probably cut the NT into little paper dollies(as many do), all it would be worth to me. The Gospel comes from the OT, fulfilled in the NT. It would seem to be as blind faith to be without the OT and to accept the NT based upon a “just trust me” invitation. God fully shows His nature throughout the entire bible, that He is faithful, that He gives life, that He knows the beginning from the end and gives victory over death, that He never changes. The OT teaches faith and perseverance, love and hope. Without the OT, we have no rudder to attach to the NT, but swept up with every wind of doctrine tossed to and fro.

Christ Is Preached to an Ethiopian

Acts 8:26 Now an angel of the Lord spoke to Philip, saying, “Arise and go toward the south along the road which goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is desert. 27 So he arose and went. And behold, a man of Ethiopia, a eunuch of great authority under Candace the queen of the Ethiopians, who had charge of all her treasury, and had come to Jerusalem to worship, 28 was returning. And sitting in his chariot, he was reading Isaiah the prophet. 29 Then the Spirit said to Philip, “Go near and overtake this chariot.”
30 So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
31 And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he asked Philip to come up and sit with him. 32 The place in the Scripture which he read was this:


“ He was led as a sheep to the slaughter;
And as a lamb before its shearer is silent,
So He opened not His mouth.
33 In His humiliation His justice was taken away,
And who will declare His generation?
For His life is taken from the earth.”

34 So the eunuch answered Philip and said, “I ask you, of whom does the prophet say this, of himself or of some other man?” 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning at this Scripture, preached Jesus to him. 36 Now as they went down the road, they came to some water. And the eunuch said, “See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?”
37 Then Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.”
And he answered and said, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”
38 So he commanded the chariot to stand still. And both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water, and he baptized him. 39 Now when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught Philip away, so that the eunuch saw him no more; and he went on his way rejoicing. 40 But Philip was found at Azotus. And passing through, he preached in all the cities till he came to Caesarea.

 

[MrJim]

From my post in other thread:

...there's enough simple teaching in the NT to last me a lifetime--I reference stuff back into the OT as needed, but frankly often there is little need. I still carry a complete bible (small RSV tucked into a side pouch) to church but my primary is a New Testament (with Psalms, Orthodox Study Bible to be exact). That is not to say there is not value there--you scholars just knock yourselves out trying to figure out prophecies and calculating all that historical data...I am challenged spending the next 20 years simply learning and applying the Sermon on the Mount in transforming me and serving God and my neighbor...I could spend years just working on Colossians 3...just not very interested in OT anymore (did spend time in it during my younger Christian years) than I'm interested in learning Latin or Greek---but that's just me; it has to go beyond the academics--it has to be applied to me to amount to anything and OT is simply that: Old. Much of my understanding quite frankly comes from my anabaptist underpinnings, of which I'm not ashamed. One teaching had to do with the approach to scripture, and some of that had to do with the way the OT is handled. A lot of american evangelicalism has to do with taking parts of the OT to build the religious nationalism that is so prevelant in our culture...

The OT validates the NT?~~quite the opposite I would say, for without the NT I would cut up the OT into dollies...again I'm not Jewish. We are not required to become Jewish, and the NT message of the gospel stands quite well on its own. While the prophecy is there to see, it is primarily for the Jew, God's first chosen. The NT is sufficient. The "rudder" for the NT is the Church guided by the Holy Spirit, not the OT.

1Ti 3:14 –1Ti 3:15 NKJV
These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly;
but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

As a Gentile it is not necessary for me to learn about being a Jew. Is there value in learning how God dealt with His and other people in the past? Certainly, and recommend it as needed. But the Scriptures, to be understood, need to be viewed Christocentrically--it is better for Gentiles to work from the Gospels out rather than linear-from Genesis to Revelation. And there is enough meat there (with the occasional OT reference ) to last forever..

When dealing with Jews, then certainly the OT would be most essential in laying the groundwork, for the OT is their foundation.

When dealing with the story of Christianity the OT is essential, since it is the backdrop of history that culminated in the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection of the Saviour.

When dealing with the day by day struggles and joy of faith, then I am not missing anything when I only have a NT to read. Is the OT the "Word of God"? Interesting question, for while it is, I would say it is not particularly relevant anymore as guide in that much of it is obsolete--not usable. This came a bit in the "woman leader" thread; stoning sinners obviously isn't something we do anymore--yet it is "The Word of God", but it is obsolete-not authoritive any more. Not eating pork and shellfish is an OT rule-a Word of God; but it is not in effect anymore, so it is obsolete. Picking and choosing my way through the OT for what is "effective" and what is not seems to be a foolish endeavour--better to simply work from a NT basis and go from there. My anabaptist teachers used to say that protestants (and no, anabaptists do not consider themselves "protestant"), when they can't find a basis for their beliefs in the NT just go back into the OT for "proof texts" to justify their beliefs...I find this to be somewhat true.

 

[Rhamiel]

the OT helps us understand Christ and the Kingdom of God

 

[Zecryphon]

Only Conservatives need post/reply, please. (not open debate, only conservatives)

What is your view of the Old Testament as a conservative Christian?

Who else but Conservatives would respond in a Conservative forum? And where's the poll option that says the OT is abso-freakin'-lutely neccessary? You can't understand or interpret the NT without the OT. It is in the OT that the promise of a future messiah would come. It is in the OT that we learn why a messiah is neccessary. We also learn a great deal about Jewish law, culture and life which is neccessary because Christianity comes out of Judaism. Jesus was a Jew, to understand Him more fully and completely we need to understand the world He came to save and what He was up against with religious leaders and Sadducees and Pharisees and everything else. I mean there's just so much pertinent information there in the OT, that these NT only Christians are really only getting half the picture if that.

 

[Zecryphon]

The OT validates the NT?~~quite the opposite I would say, for without the NT I would cut up the OT into dollies...again I'm not Jewish.

You would cut up the written, revealed word of God Himself? What's wrong with you?

We are not required to become Jewish, and the NT message of the gospel stands quite well on its own.

No it doesn't. The NT message is the gospel, which means good news and the good news is Christ is the messiah who has come to deliver the world from it's sins. But what is a sin? It's a violation of God's law. Where do we find God's law? In the OT. The law convicts the sinner of his sin, show the sinner why he is a sinner. It's a school master, a curb and a guide, but it does not save. So without any knowledge of the law or how we have transgressed the law, the reality of a coming messiah to save us from our sins is foolishness. That's why the cross is foolishness to many, because they don't understand their standing before a holy and righteous God. Law and Gospel, they work hand in hand, you can't have one without the other.

While the prophecy is there to see, it is primarily for the Jew, God's first chosen. The NT is sufficient. The "rudder" for the NT is the Church guided by the Holy Spirit, not the OT.

If you have no use whatsoever for the OT, why are you reading the prophecies contained there? Shouldn't you be busy with your scissors cutting up the OT, since it's so worthless in your opinion? Do you forget that Gentiles were grafted into the promise of a messiah, that was sent to the Jews?

1Ti 3:14 –1Ti 3:15 NKJV
These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly;
but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

As a Gentile it is not necessary for me to learn about being a Jew. Is there value in learning how God dealt with His and other people in the past?

There is incredible value in learning about how God deals not only with His chosen people but people in general. For since God does not change, how He deals with us in the future will be similar to the way He dealt with people in the OT, who did not abide by His words.

Certainly, and recommend it as needed. But the Scriptures, to be understood, need to be viewed Christocentrically--it is better for Gentiles to work from the Gospels out rather than linear-from Genesis to Revelation. And there is enough meat there (with the occasional OT reference ) to last forever..

Talk about picking and choosing what you want. The Bible is not a buffet table. You take all of it as the divine written word of God or you don't. See 2 Timothy 3:16. Do you agree or disagree with that verse. From what I've seen here I'd say you disagree with it, since you have no use for the OT.

When dealing with Jews, then certainly the OT would be most essential in laying the groundwork, for the OT is their foundation.

The OT is the groundwork for everything. If you throw out the OT, how do you explain creation? Adam and Eve? Original sin? These would all be metaphors, but since you have absolutely no use for the OT you can't even take THAT position, because you won't bother to read it.

When dealing with the story of Christianity the OT is essential, since it is the backdrop of history that culminated in the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection of the Saviour.

Sounds like you just contradicted yourself.

When dealing with the day by day struggles and joy of faith, then I am not missing anything when I only have a NT to read. Is the OT the "Word of God"? Interesting question, for while it is, I would say it is not particularly relevant anymore as guide in that much of it is obsolete--not usable.

Nothing is obsolete in the OT. It is all good and relevant for teaching the Christian.

This came a bit in the "woman leader" thread; stoning sinners obviously isn't something we do anymore--yet it is "The Word of God", but it is obsolete-not authoritive any more. Not eating pork and shellfish is an OT rule-a Word of God; but it is not in effect anymore, so it is obsolete.

They're not obsolete as the word of God does not have an expiration date on it. Do you know why the Jews were forbidden from eating shellfish? It's because they didn't know how to cook it to a safe temperature for consumption. So rather than have millions of Jews get sick, God just forbid the eating of this food. Stoning the children can't be picked out and stated as obsolete when the Jews lived in a theocracy where their religious beliefs were intertwined with their laws. That law is as much a civic law as it is a law of God. You can't separate the two in that instance. But Jesus showed them a better way when they wanted to stone the woman caught in adultery.

Picking and choosing my way through the OT for what is "effective" and what is not seems to be a foolish endeavour--better to simply work from a NT basis and go from there.

But picking and choosing what you like from the OT is exactly what you do.

My anabaptist teachers used to say that protestants (and no, anabaptists do not consider themselves "protestant"), when they can't find a basis for their beliefs in the NT just go back into the OT for "proof texts" to justify their beliefs...I find this to be somewhat true.

Anabaptist, huh? Yep, that explains all the heresy I'm seeing here.

 

[MrJim]

Anabaptist, huh? Yep, that explains all the heresy I'm seeing here.

That didn't take long

 

[Zecryphon]

That didn't take long

It's no secret that confessional Lutherans see Anabaptists as heretics. It's all in the BoC, which confessional Lutherans such as myself, adhere to. But out of all that I typed, THIS is what you respond to? Interesting.

 

[MrJim]

It's no secret that confessional Lutherans see Anabaptists as heretics. It's all in the BoC, which confessional Lutherans such as myself, adhere to. But out of all that I typed, THIS is what you respond to? Interesting.

I'm in the middle of a project in the bathroom~just now I got chased out so I checked in..I'll respond later..

But I will say about this:

Do you know why the Jews were forbidden from eating shellfish? It's because they didn't know how to cook it to a safe temperature for consumption. So rather than have millions of Jews get sick, God just forbid the eating of this food.

Following that logic, did God institute circumcision because His chosen didn't know enough to keep their penises clean?

 

[Cris413]

The OT reveals the "why" and the "how" of that which is revealed in NT....and by this we know...the entirety of Scripture is absolute truth.

It also proclaims the prophesy of Christ Jesus and totally supports we can be absolutely certain and trust that Jesus is EXACTLY who He says He is....and not just some guy who said and did a lot of awesome and amazing stuff.

All Scripture referrences in the NT is teaching using the support of OT Scripture. Apparently...Jesus and the Apostles still considered it quite beneficial to the New Covenant teaching.

Now...I do not consider that when we are taught the value of Scripture....in Scripture...that it's so time and culture restrained those teachings are no longer applicable to any and all of us today in context...

Example...

2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
2Ti 3:17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.


Someone actually suggested that this Scripture only applied to OT Scripture...

I guess that person didn't consider the eternal nature the Holy Spirit and that ALL actually means....ALL...

 

[AnneSally]

I've always felt that the OT is the foundation of the NT and the NT is the fulfilment of the OT.

Jesus said He fulfils the Law and the Prophets, and that's pretty much the OT, isn't it?

 

[AnneSally]

--it is better for Gentiles to work from the Gospels out rather than linear-from Genesis to Revelation.

That's interesting, I tend to think of the Bible holistically, as the full written revelation of God, from Genesis through to Revelation. I think sometimes there's a tendancy by Christendom to cut off the NT from the OT and that doesn't give the full picture. But I agree with you that the NT seems to be the validating factor, Jesus is the One who validates the entire thing...

 

[AnneSally]

Who else but Conservatives would respond in a Conservative forum? And where's the poll option that says the OT is abso-freakin'-lutely neccessary? You can't understand or interpret the NT without the OT. It is in the OT that the promise of a future messiah would come. It is in the OT that we learn why a messiah is neccessary. We also learn a great deal about Jewish law, culture and life which is neccessary because Christianity comes out of Judaism. Jesus was a Jew, to understand Him more fully and completely we need to understand the world He came to save and what He was up against with religious leaders and Sadducees and Pharisees and everything else. I mean there's just so much pertinent information there in the OT, that these NT only Christians are really only getting half the picture if that.

I agree!

 

[Zecryphon]

I'm in the middle of a project in the bathroom~just now I got chased out so I checked in..I'll respond later..

But I will say about this:



Following that logic, did God institute circumcision because His chosen didn't know enough to keep their penises clean?

Is everything a joke to you? Circumcision was not instituted to help God's people keep their penises clean. It was the seal of their covenant with Him. You really need to read the OT, because hiding ignorant statements behind smileys just doesn't cut it here.

 

[MrJim]

Is everything a joke to you? Circumcision was not instituted to help God's people keep their penises clean. It was the seal of their covenant with Him. You really need to read the OT, because hiding ignorant statements behind smileys just doesn't cut it here.

It makes as much sense as your shellfish explanation...I'll be back..

 

[Zecryphon]

It makes as much sense as your shellfish explanation...I'll be back..

That's right. I have to remember who I'm dealing with. A person who thinks that the OT is obsolete, doesn't matter and wants to take a pair of scissors to it. Just how do you fit this forum's definition of a conservative, again?

So to YOU, your statement would be a logical comparison. But to someone who is actually informed about the OT and what it teaches and what circumcision is, it would not appear as nonsense, and when you throw a smiley in there, you've got a joke on your hands, instead of rational debate.

 

[Cris413]

I've always felt that the OT is the foundation of the NT and the NT is the fulfilment of the OT.

Jesus said He fulfils the Law and the Prophets, and that's pretty much the OT, isn't it?

OT is Christ concealed and the NT is Christ revealed.

As Jesus says He Himself did not come to abolish the Law...but to fulfill the Law...this doesn't mean...IMHO....there is no longer knowledge and application in context that can and should be derived from OT teaching.

IOW....the OT describes the sinful and rebellious nature of humanity...and consequences of such....shows us how God views and handles such things....

....the NT gives us God's answer to solving the problem of this nature of sin and rebellion that separates humanity from Holy God and how we can live our lives in Christ Jesus to honor and give Him glory...and be found pleasing in His sight.

 

[MrJim]

That's right. I have to remember who I'm dealing with. A person who thinks that the OT is obsolete, doesn't matter and wants to take a pair of scissors to it. Just how do you fit this forum's definition of a conservative, again?

So to YOU, your statement would be a logical comparison. But to someone who is actually informed about the OT and what it teaches and what circumcision is, it would appear as nonsense, and when you throw a smiley in there, you've got a joke on your hands, instead of rational debate.

I only ever said that the OT is incomplete w/o the NT~~PsalmsDude said the NT would be paperdoll material without the old-I said it opposite. I'm not advocating removing it, only that most of the information there simply isn't relevant to the Church. I believe the axe head floated and the jackass spoke. I believe Noah built the ark and the earth was created in 7 days. OK, the historical stuff is just that-historical. I also believe Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa and Johnny Appleseed planted trees. History is history, it is what it is. My initial post came from the context of one responding that since some elements of the OT weren't observed conservatives (in this case those that believed women shouldn't be pastoral leaders) were being inconsistent in their handling of the Scriptures.

Everything I need to know about the Scriptures are contained in the NT--it's not the exhaustive complete history of God's work in the world (in which I would say even the OT/NT doesn't contain the entire history of God's work since the recording ends with Revelation), but it is sufficient and does winnow out the unecessary and yes, obsolete stuff. Check the sermons of Stephen and Peter and Paul and they're always going back to the OT in laying their foundations...it's right there. So we can move on to the New and let the Old be what it is..

(Regarding picking and choosing: It's an evangelical tradition. Stuff gets explained away all the time around here depending upon the denom one is part of..and that's another issue for another time--except for Lutherans, they're always right].