Jump to content

The Christian Protestant Community Forums

Sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community forums. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Community Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Support

Why We Can’t Unhitch from the Old Testament

Recommended Posts

ot-tgc-300x128.jpg

Few would disagree that we’re now living in an effectively post-Christian world. Secularism is on the rise, church attendance is in decline, and hostility to Christian values is ever-increasing. In light of this foreboding landscape, it’s appropriate to ask whether the church is on the right track. Have we missed something? Are we doing something incorrectly that we need to change?

Andy Stanley’s latest volume, Irresistible: Reclaiming the New that Jesus Unleashed for the World, answers that question with a resounding “yes.” We have been on the wrong track, and we need to change if we’re going to reach the next generation with the gospel. What is this wrong track? It’s that modern Christianity relies too much on the Old Testament. The problem with the modern church is “our incessant habit of reaching back into the old covenant concepts, teachings, sayings, and narratives” (91).

As a result, Christianity has lost its mojo. These vestiges of the old covenant have led, Stanley says, to a variety of vices in the church: “prosperity gospel, the crusades, anti-Semitism, legalism, exclusivism, judgmentalism,” and more (158). Thus, Stanley offers a clear call to church leaders: “Would you consider unhitching your teaching of what it means to follow Jesus from all things old covenant?” (315). This is necessary because “when it comes to stumbling blocks to faith, the Old Testament is right up there at the top of the list” (280).

Put simply, when people struggle to believe, “the Old Testament is usually the culprit” (278).

Bold Thesis

Needless to say, Irresistible certainly doesn’t lack in boldness. Indeed, the claims laid out above are genuinely breathtaking. In essence, Stanley has pinned virtually all the major problems of the church—from the Crusades to legalism—to our continued use of the Old Testament.

And his solution is no less bold. If the Old Testament is the problem, just cut it off.

Andy Stanley’s thesis is so far-reaching that his arguments become equally far-reaching—moving far beyond what the Bible (or church history) can support.

Of course, such a forceful, wide-ranging thesis would need to be backed up by an equally forceful and wide-ranging argument. But that’s where this volume runs into serious challenges. As I will argue below, Stanley’s arguments can’t bear the weight of his thesis. Indeed, his thesis is so far-reaching that his arguments become equally far-reaching—moving far beyond what the Bible (or church history) can support.

What Stays and What Goes?

In a limited review such as this one, I can only offer a few specifics. I begin with Stanley’s view of what it means for the old covenant to be “obsolete” (Heb. 8:13). Stanley is certainly correct that many aspects of the Mosaic economy are abrogated under the new covenant. Indeed, I commend his entire first section (1765), which is quite a helpful discussion of how old covenant worship—with temple, animal sacrifices, and earthly priests—is now fulfilled in Christ.

But Stanley assumes that the abrogation of old covenant cultic laws means all kinds of laws present under the old covenant are also abrogated. He treats “law” under the Mosaic economy as a singular, undifferentiated lump. If part goes, it all goes. But this isn’t how the New Testament treats these laws. Nor is it how theologians have historically treated these laws. It has been widely recognized that there are “moral” laws under the old covenant order—in particular, the Ten Commandments—that have abiding relevance. After all, the foundation for moral laws (God’s own character) doesn’t change.

Because Stanley misses this distinction, he is willing even to reject the Ten Commandments: “The Ten Commandments have no authority over you. None. To be clear: Though shalt not obey the Ten Commandments” (136, emphasis mine). He goes even further: “Paul never leverages the old covenant as a basis for Christian behavior” (209).

Aside from the rhetorical shock of such statements, they’re flatly contradicted many places in the New Testament. Just one example is Ephesians 6:1, where Paul calls Christian children to obey their parents. Surely, he must ground this exhortation in the new covenant teaching of Jesus, right? No, Paul actually cites one of the Ten Commandments: “Honor your father and mother . . . that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land” (Ex. 20:12).

Stunningly, Stanley does mention Exodus 20:12 but only as an example of what New Testament writers supposedly never do! “We new covenant types don’t honor our father and mothers so we can ‘live long in the land’” (236). Apparently, he missed Ephesians 6:1; he never mentions it.

Divide and Conquer

In order to keep Christians away from the Old Testament, Stanley adopts a number of strategies. One of those strategies is to insist on as much discontinuity as possible between the covenants. They are, in Stanley’s mind, fundamentally opposed to each other (146).

For him, the old covenant is about hating enemies, the new is about loving them (107). The old covenant is filled with “misogyny” (290) where women are “commodities” (214), but under the new they are “partners” (215). In the old covenant God is “holy,” but in the new covenant God is “love” (223). The old covenant God is “angry,” but the new covenant God is “brokenhearted” (257). In the old covenant people relied on the Bible, but in the new covenant they just love people (234).

In essence, Stanley’s book stokes a radical discontinuity between the covenants in a manner reflective of the hermeneutics of classical dispensationalism. That may motivate people to “unhitch” from the old covenant, but whether it faithfully represents that covenant is another matter.

Take, for instance, the idea that the old covenant was about hating one’s enemies. Stanley appeals to the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus said, “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies” (Matt. 5:43–44). Stanley mistakenly assumes Jesus is arguing against the old covenant itself. Nowhere does the Old Testament say “hate your enemy”—it’s not there. Theologians, therefore, have rightly recognized that Jesus is arguing against Pharisaical distortions and abuses of the old covenant. After all, even the Old Testament says, “If your enemy is hungry, give him bread to eat, and if he is thirsty give him water to drink” (Prov. 25:21).

This is a common problem throughout Stanley’s volume: He often confuses distortions of the old covenant with the old covenant itself.

This is a common problem throughout Stanley’s volume: He often confuses distortions of the old covenant with the old covenant itself.

Another example is when Stanley talks about racism in ancient Judaism. He tells a story about a modern white couple who opposed their daughter’s marriage to a black man because they believed Moses was judged by God because he married a dark-skinned Midianite (148). But this story is perplexing for the reader. Clearly these parents have profoundly misunderstood (and misused) this Old Testament story to support their racist views. But what does that have to do with the nature of the old covenant itself? Is Stanley implying that the old covenant is racist or leads to racism? Surely not. But then why tell the story at all?

This strategy ends up caricaturing the old covenant as a harsh, cold, legalistic arrangement that we should all be happy to be rid of. Nowhere are we reminded that old covenant believers, though they were under a provisional arrangement filled with types and shadows, were still saved by grace through faith in the coming Savior (Heb. 11:22–40). Nor are we told that Paul indicates that circumcision was a sign of justification by faith for Old Testament saints (Rom. 4:11).

In other words, the discontinuity between the covenants isn’t nearly as radical as Stanley supposes.

Lesson from Church History?

If we want to know how (or whether) Christians should use the Old Testament, we might ask what the earliest Christians did. Would the church fathers of the second and third centuries have agreed with Stanley’s view? No; they not only read, studied, and used the Old Testament in worship (e.g., see Justin Martyr, 1 Apol. 67), but they insisted that Christ was their main subject. The Old Testament was valuable because Christ was there.

If we want to know how (or whether) Christians should use the Old Testament, we might ask what the earliest Christians did. . . . [T]hey insisted that Christ was their main subject. The Old Testament was valuable because Christ was there.

Incredibly, Stanley isn’t deterred by this fact. Instead, he doubles down and insists that the church fathers were simply wrong too! They just “ignored [Paul’s] warning against mixing and matching” (155). Indeed, he goes even further, insisting that attempts to find Christ in the Old Testament are simply instances of the Jewish Scriptures being “hijacked” by Christians who are “ignoring original context” (156). Even more, he argues this Christ-in-the-Old-Testament approach has led Christians toward anti-Semitism.

Many readers will be stunned by such statements. According to Stanley, virtually everyone in the history of the church has been wrong about the role of the Old Testament—until now. It’s truly a jaw-dropping claim.

But there is a figure from church history who held a view similar to Stanley’s—the second-century figure Marcion. I only say similar because there are notable differences (Marcion rejected the Old Testament as the product of a false god). Nevertheless, they both share a deep conviction that the Old Testament is fundamentally at odds with Paul’s pure gospel. In fact, Marcion would’ve viewed himself as someone trying to help Christianity. He was trying to protect the gospel. Christianity had to be saved—even if it meant saving Christianity from itself.

According to Stanley, virtually everyone in the history of the church has been wrong about the role of the Old Testament—until now. It’s truly a jaw-dropping claim.

However, Marcion’s view didn’t win the day. His approach was roundly and widely rejected by early Christians. Indeed, his story stood as a sober reminder for many generations thereafter that the church was fundamentally committed to the abiding value and relevance of the Old Testament.

End Game

What is the pay-off of Stanley’s proposed paradigm-shift? He thinks it will help reach unbelievers more effectively. In essence, the final chapters of Irresistible offer a new (it’s not really new) approach to apologetics: take the focus off the Bible (especially the Old Testament) and put it on the resurrection.

People don’t need to believe the Bible to be Christians, Stanley reminds us. So, why debate its truth? That’s just a distraction. He states, “The good news is even if none of those [Old Testament] things actually happened it does nothing to undermine the credibility of our new covenant faith” (306).

Stanley is partly right. People don’t have to believe the Bible to be saved (at least not all of it). Indeed, they don’t even need to know a Bible exists to be saved (imagine a missionary preaching to a tribe in the remote jungle). But Stanley leaves out (or doesn’t himself realize) a key distinction: While a person doesn’t have to believe the Bible is true to be saved, the Bible has to be true for them to be saved.

Why? Because Jesus said the Bible is true. And if it’s not true, then he was wrong. And that raises issues for our salvation. But it’s even bigger than this point. If Jesus is the divine Lord of the universe, then he is also the author of the Old Testament. He (through inspired human authors) wrote it. So, yes, it does matter if it’s true.

Thus, Stanley’s view of the Old Testament stands in direct contrast to Jesus’s view of the Old Testament. Sure, Stanley claims to follow Jesus’s view (69), but there is an unresolved (or perhaps unresolvable) tension in his position. He does not recognize that the authority of Jesus is linked to the truth of the Old Testament. They stand or fall together.

Road Block

Let me say that I appreciate the heart behind Irresistible. We all want to reach more people for Christ, and any road block that can be removed ought to be removed. We all can learn a profound lesson from Stanley’s passion for the lost. I wish more churches (and pastors) labored over how to reach non-Christians like he does.

Stanley stands against the entire history of the church as well as the theological heritage of the Protestant Reformation. . . . He’s even out of sync with Bible itself.

But not every road block can be removed. Some doctrines are too central to the truth of Christianity and the health of the church to be taken away. When it comes to presenting the gospel, Stanley has become convinced the Bible, especially the Old Testament, simply gets in the way. I disagree. But it’s not just me. Stanley stands against the entire history of the church as well as the theological heritage of the Protestant Reformation. Moreover, as I have argued, he’s even out of sync with Bible itself.

There can be a sad irony in defending the faith. We can be so eager to oppose any and all obstacles, that we end up, unwittingly, opposing Christianity itself. If we’re not careful, we might end up losing the very thing we’re trying to save.

LPetA5xjqPw

View the full article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I may add, for salvation into the afterlife of eternal heaven, Christians do not need the Old Testament Law - they only need faith in Jesus Christ, eg John3:16 and Galatians2:16-17. But for their still-ongoing-present life on earth until their death and resurrection or rapture, Christians need the Old Testament Law - otherwise they will suffer the horrible curses of God, eg Hebrews10:26-31 and Deuteronomy28:15-68.

....... Acts15:24-29 & 21:20-25 say that Gentile Christians only need to keep OT laws that are not a burden, eg keep the Ten Commandments but exempted from the laws of circumcision, tithing 10%(= tithe 2%.?) and kosher foods. In comparison, Jewish Christians need to continue to keep the OT Law or Moses Law, as many laws as possible, because it is not a burden to them.

 

God's ideal is Jewish Christians who mostly gain a good, loving, peaceful, joyful and long life on earth, on top of inheriting the kingdom of heaven when they die, cf Matthew19:16-23.

 

At Matthew5:17-48, Lord/God Jesus Christ was just telling the unbelieving Pharisees & Jews that if they continued to reject Him as the Christ/Messiah/Saviour but still wanted to be saved from hell through their own works/merits of the Law, then they would have to pluck out their eyes and chop off their limbs, love their enemies, turn the other cheek, walk the extra mile and lend to all who ask. Believers do not have to do such foolish or impossible deeds/works, in order to be saved from hell.

....... Romans12:19-21 proves the above, where the early Christians(= post 33AD) were commanded by God to not resist their influential Jewish persecutors and instead "bless/love" them, in order for God to exact vengeance upon the persecutors by "heaping coals of fire on his head". This came to pass in 70AD when God caused the Roman Army to destroy the Jews and their Holy Temple of God in Jerusalem for armed rebellion, as prophesied by Jesus at Luke21:20 and Matthew24:15-16. ...

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lack of influence of Christianity isn't the result of our use of the Old Testament but by our rejection of it, mainly by our belief that the first eleven chapters of Genesis aren't literally true.  The Bible begins by declaring that God created the world a few thousand years ago.  We have often failed to defend this fact but have accepted the beliefs of secular scientists that the world is millions of years old.  The account of creation is the foundation on which the rest of the Bible is founded.  When we reject the foundation we place everything else in jeopardy.  We need to support organizations such as Answers in Genesis that are attempting to restore this foundation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Old Testament has been done away with, for we are not under the law of the Old Testament, but the grace of the New Testament. Romans 6;14 KJV- " For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law but under grace."

 

You are also blinded in the reading of the Old Testament- 2 Corinthians 3:13-15 King James Version (KJV)

13 And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished:

14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.

15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart.

 

For the law was given by Moses(in whom you trust).  John 1:17 King James Version (KJV) "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."

 

Jesus Christ also abolished(formally put an end to (a system, practice, or institution) the law of commandments. Ephesians 2:15 King James Version (KJV) "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;"

 

Jesus Christ also blotted them out Colossians 2:14-15 King James Version (KJV)-"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;" 

 

There is also a disannulling of the commandments-Hebrews 7:18 King James Version (KJV) "For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff

2Ti_3:16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, News Feeder said:
“Paul never leverages the old covenant as a basis for Christian behavior” (209).

 

 Stanley is in error. Paul cited 9 of the 10 commandments from the Decalogue in his writings to Christians. Thus they are still binding.

 

 

See my post (Faber) near the very bottom of the page in the link provided.

 

Edit: I just noticed that for the 2nd Commandment I cited 1 John 5:21. However, Paul also affirmed the same (cf. 1 Corinthians 10:14).

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, News Feeder said:
1. In the old covenant God is “holy,” but in the new covenant God is “love” (223).
 
2. The old covenant God is “angry,” but the new covenant God is “brokenhearted” (257).
 
3. In the old covenant people relied on the Bible, but in the new covenant they just love people (234).

 I numbered the above sentences to correspond with my 3 responses below.

 

1. Doesn't the New Covenant also teach that God is holy (Revelation 15:4)? In fact, doesn't 1 Peter 1:16 also teach that God is holy? Notice that this passage in the New Covenant is taken from a passage found in the Old Covenant (cf. Leviticus 11:44). 

 

2. Doesn't the New Covenant also teach about the anger of God (Revelation 14:10) and also the wrath of the Lamb (Revelation 6:16; cf. Mark 3:5)?

 

3. Didn't Paul rely on the Bible in his reasoning with the Jews in Thessalonica (Acts 17:1-2)? Didn't Apollos do the same (Acts 18:28)?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, RedneckOne said:

The Old Testament has been done away with, for we are not under the law of the Old Testament, but the grace of the New Testament.

.

Yes, that is wrt salvation only =  death and resurrection or rapture = for the afterlife or hereafter. For the here-and-now or earthly living, Christians still need to be guided by the Law.

....... Try break the Law, eg go and commit murder or stealing or sexual/physical assault or cheating/fraud and see what will happen = while suffering for one's sins/evil-deeds/law-breaking, eg on Death Row or in prison, one may lose faith and consequently lose one's salvation, eg by cursing God/Jesus and die.(Job2:9) Hence, ...

 

1Corinthians6:9-10 = 9 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God.

 

Galatians5:19-21 = 9 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RedneckOne said:

Jesus Christ also abolished(formally put an end to (a system, practice, or institution) the law of commandments. Ephesians 2:15 King James Version (KJV) "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;"

 

Jesus Christ also blotted them out Colossians 2:14-15 King James Version (KJV)-"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross;" 

 

There is also a disannulling of the commandments-Hebrews 7:18 King James Version (KJV) "For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof."

Hold on, Ephesians 2:15 says enmity was abolished if you take out the added "even" you are left with "the enmity, the law of commandments contained in ordinances." I don't think the law which brought the knowledge of sin was what he had in mind.

 

Again in Colossians 2:14, 15 we are talking about something other than the law. I think the ESV says it best, a record of debt.

 

Col. 2:14, 15 "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." 

 

As far as the reference in Hebrews 7:18, it was speaking expressly about the law of priesthood and Christ's new position.

 

Heb. 7:17 "For it is witnessed of him, “You are a priest forever, after the order of Melchizedek.” "

 

Furthermore, if we keep reading into Hebrews 8 we see the new covenant he was speaking of is not yet.

Many say we are already in God’s new covenant that was prophesied in the OT and in Acts/Hebrews.

 

Heb. 8:7-13 “For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” 

 

Jer. 31:31-34 “Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.” 

 

Do you see the direct link between Jeremiah and Hebrews? What about the parallels in Acts and Joel?

 

Acts 2:16-18 “But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams: And on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit; and they shall prophesy:”

 

First a time frame in Joel: Joel 2:1 “Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain: let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the LORD cometh, for it is nigh at hand;”

 

Next It speaks of a restoration after the Day of the Lord. Then we are given a picture of the new covenant: Joel 2:28,29 “And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: And also upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my spirit.” 

 

What can we conclude from this? What we have today is not the New Covenant God was talking about. Not yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, deade said:

Again in Colossians 2:14, 15 we are talking about something other than the law. 

We are in the New Covenant now. Other things have not yet been fulfilled but that doesn't mean we are not in the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28). Once the Holy Spirit was poured out at Pentecost (cf. Acts 2:4) that is when the New Covenant began.

 

 In terms of Colossians 2:14 it does refer to the Mosaic Law. See the my 6th to the last post:

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it does refer to the laws of Moses. For the law was given by Moses(in whom you trust)-John 1:17(KJV) "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.". You and everyone else are also blinded in the reading of the Old Testament.- 2 Corinthians 3:13-15(KJV)13 "And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not stedfastly look to the end of that which is abolished: 14 But their minds were blinded: for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; which vail is done away in Christ.15 But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart."  There is a reason why you and many others have such a difficult time understanding and wrestle with the word of God. Jesus Christ did do away with the Old Testament and established the New Testament- Hebrews 10:9(KJV) "Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second." This is the New Covenant(New Testament)-Hebrews 10:16-17(KJV) "16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; 17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." God does forget(He remembers no more) where we do not sometimes. Even in the verse that you quoted it's said that he did away with the Old Testament-Hebrews 8:13(KJV) " In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." You see it and read it, but you do not believe it.

 

And yes, it has all been fulfilled. Mark 1:15(KJV) " And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel."

 

Luke 16:16(KJV) "The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it."

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Faber said:

We are in the New Covenant now. Other things have not yet been fulfilled but that doesn't mean we are not in the New Covenant (Matthew 26:28). Once the Holy Spirit was poured out at Pentecost (cf. Acts 2:4) that is when the New Covenant began.

This was just the start of a new covenant, Paul was addressing the prophecy in Joel. Joel 2:28,29 are defined as happening after the Day of the Lord (Joel 2:1-3).

 

6 hours ago, RedneckOne said:

Hebrews 10:9(KJV) "Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second." This is the New Covenant(New Testament)-Hebrews 10:16-17(KJV) "16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; 17 And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more." God does forget(He remembers no more) where we do not sometimes. Even in the verse that you quoted it's said that he did away with the Old Testament-Hebrews 8:13(KJV) " In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away." You see it and read it, but you do not believe it.

I still contend we are not in this covenant yet. Is the knowledge of the Lord so prevalent that everyone know His ways?

Heb. 8:11 "And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest."

No, it hasn't happened yet.   :RpS_thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are servants of a new covenant (2 Corinthians 3:6).

 

 This was true at the time Paul wrote 2 Corinthians, and it is true for believers now. In fact, if we are not in the new covenant this would necessitate that Jesus is not the mediator of it (Hebrews 12:24). I don't know of any Christian who would deny Christ's mediatorial role in this new covenant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, deade said:

This was just the start of a new covenant, Paul was addressing the prophecy in Joel. Joel 2:28,29 are defined as happening after the Day of the Lord (Joel 2:1-3).

 

I still contend we are not in this covenant yet. Is the knowledge of the Lord so prevalent that everyone know His ways?

Heb. 8:11 "And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest."

No, it hasn't happened yet.   :RpS_thumbup:

Why are you quoting an Old Testament verse of Joel? Did you not read and understand that you are blinded in the reading of the Old Testament(2 Corinthians 3:14)? Then why are you still quoting it? Yes. the New Covenant was instituted when our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was crucified, buried and rose again. If you do not understand this, then you do not know, or have never seen Christ(1 John 3:6 KJV). You should study to see who God really is. 

 

Actually, it is very simple what was accomplished at the cross- If there is no law then there is no sin...Period, end of the sentence, it is finished.

 

 "Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.".Romans 6:18-23(KJV) 

 

 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 1 John 3:9(KJV)

 

So, who is born of God- everyone(study to show thyself approved)!.  You may find the answer in the same epistle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
14 minutes ago, RedneckOne said:

Why are you quoting an Old Testament verse of Joel? Did you not read and understand that you are blinded in the reading of the Old Testament(2 Corinthians 3:14)? Then why are you still quoting it? Yes. the New Covenant was instituted when our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ was crucified, buried and rose again. If you do not understand this, then you do not know, or have never seen Christ(1 John 3:6 KJV). You should study to see who God really is. 

 

Actually, it is very simple what was accomplished at the cross- If there is no law then there is no sin...Period, end of the sentence, it is finished.

 

 "Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.".Romans 6:18-23(KJV) 

 

 Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 1 John 3:9(KJV)

 

So, who is born of God- everyone(study to show thyself approved)!.  You may find the answer in the same epistle. 

You seem to think the Old Testament is synonymous with Law and only Law rather than Law and Grace. Do you think the New Testament only contains Grace and no Law?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Error #1: The laws of the Old Covenant apply today.

Error #2: There are no laws (except perhaps "love) that apply to the Christian.

 

The biblical view: Only those laws in the Old Covenant that are repeated in the New Covenant apply to the Christian today. Of course this includes other laws found in the New Covenant as well such as partaking the Lord's Supper (to celebrate the death, resurrection and return of Christ), water baptism in the name of the Triune God, prayer in the name of Jesus, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Staff
3 hours ago, Faber said:

Error #1: The laws of the Old Covenant apply today.

Error #2: There are no laws (except perhaps "love) that apply to the Christian.

 

The biblical view: Only those laws in the Old Covenant that are repeated in the New Covenant apply to the Christian today. Of course this includes other laws found in the New Covenant as well such as partaking the Lord's Supper (to celebrate the death, resurrection and return of Christ), water baptism in the name of the Triune God, prayer in the name of Jesus, etc.

With 2 Timothy 3:16 in mind how do those laws which are not repeated pertain to the Christian life? Can principles be extracted and used to teach us our Christian duty?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, William said:

With 2 Timothy 3:16 in mind how do those laws which are not repeated pertain to the Christian life? Can principles be extracted and used to teach us our Christian duty?

Indeed, the law was the instruction book to life for Israel. Unless one meditates on why God established this or that, we will never keep the deeper intent of the law. In God's word are clues to the very character of God. The very same character traits that Jesus walked the earth with. That meditation is part of seeking God with all your heart, mind and soul.  

 

in-deep-thought-smiley-emoticon.gif.d7a508a1012f2792e6117a0f5325b21b.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, William said:

With 2 Timothy 3:16 in mind how do those laws which are not repeated pertain to the Christian life? Can principles be extracted and used to teach us our Christian duty?

 They can further strengthen what is commanded in the new covenant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...